Help!!! legal aspect

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like you BOTH own the apartment, but ONLY you own the liability. I had a friend in a very similar situation, the wife owned the apt, he was added to the title. But when they got divorced he wanted no hassles, so he just let took his name of the title. He could have gone after the place though.

Three years from now, I wonder what's the chance of divorce vs. the chance that the mortgage would be underwater. If they're about the same, then do a short sale, problem solved.

If you really worry about things being unfair, perhaps you should get a pre-nup.

I'm sure your significant other would be OK to be removed from the title as soon as you return the 50% share of the downpayment.

Yes --- if your name is the only one on the mortgage, you're solely responsible for it no matter what. In practical terms, who gets what from the sale (or, these days, who walks away with what debt, given how many houses are underwater) is one of those things you either work out yourselves (if you're in agreement; it's fine to do a deal that's not 50/50 if you both agree to it) or have the lawyers hash out.

Fwiw, my friend is in this situation right now. Both names on title and both on the first mortgage but only hers on the second, getting divorced, house underwater. It's a giant mess. So it's definitely easier when either both parties are equally on the hook for the mortgage, or one person alone is but also holds clear title.

On the other hand, if your partner is putting significant money into the downpayment and will also be paying into the monthly mortgage, I can understand their not wanting to be taken off title -- that would leave *them* with no equity in a place they helped pay for.

As with anything involving joint finances, putting mortgage in your name but title in both is a calculated gamble. It really boils down to how likely you think things are to turn bad, how fair you think your partner would be if they did (and vice versa), and what risks you're willing to tolerate.

"Both of us are on the title but I am the only one on the mortgage because my significant other's credit is poor (we put down 50/50 for the downpayment, and then I pay closing cost.).
What would happen if we divorce? I assume i still have to make mortgage payments till the house is sold and then both of us get 50/50 of the proceed? that sounds unfair. "

Are you repaying the 50% of the closing cost? Is your partner contributing to the monthly mortgage payment? Yes, you are responsible for the debt if you ever cannot pay the mortgage, but if your partner is actively contributing, he/she should be entitled to some proportion of the property should things not work out. I have seen the most congenial relationships turn ugly in divorce proceedings, so I would not just bank on amicable separation if you truly think that is a possibility. As the Robert Frost poem goes, good fences make good neighbors. Clearly defining the boundaries of ownership when you are not in a 50/50 situation at the start is never a bad idea. Perhaps your partner is also concerned about fair treatment.

That said - are you currently married with combined income (or in a similar domestic partnership situation)? If so, why are you counting pennies and fussing over who owns what? I am engaged and my fiance is buying an apartment. My fiance provided the down payment (happened before the engagement) and will be paying the mortgage. Until we are married, I consider my contributions "rent." We have already agreed on that, it was a fairly easy decision, no animosity was involved at any point. I couldn't not afford the mortgage on my own and he really wanted to buy. Maybe your partner would be up for a similar arrangement, but you should ask.

Just tell your significant other that since you have paid for the property, he or she should not be on the title, because in case of divorce, you think it is unfair for him or her to have an interest in the property.

If you cannot have that conversation then how will you have any honest dialogue about finances. If you are anticipating the marriage will fail before it even begins and playing out scenarios of failure, you should take a step back and reexamine your commitment. Trust is the most basic foundation of any successful relationship. If he or she has not earned your trust, you would be best served by not including that person on your title rather than putting a false front and ferreting legal connivances to "protect yourself".

Furthermore, if you are the breadwinner and that is a large part of your appeal, what's to say that your significant other doesn't bring something to the table that balances out his/her bad credit/poor finances (e.g. youth, beauty, etc.). Most times, relationships balance in some way, or you wouldn't be with each other. You can't have your cake and eat it too, without taking advantage of the other person.

Keep in mind the same would be true even if you both were on the mortgage. E.g., if my partner moves out in a huff and decides to stop paying, Bank of America is not going to care. They're going to demand the full payment from me. And my partner, as joint tenant, will get the benefit of the equity from the mortgage payment that I make.

To prevent this kind of a situation, we signed a side letter that said each of us is responsible for paying our share of the mortgage. In the event that one of us stops making payments per the terms of our agreement, the other can sue the defaulting party to recover. Should we ever separate, we'd need to sign a separation agreement that outlines the terms of one of us moving out. As it stands now, we're both on the hook to pay the mortgage regardless of whether we're living in the apartment.

Whats the reason for your other's poor credit score. Does he/or she borrow and spend responsibly?