House titling question - both names or one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend's now-husband had bought a house in his name only before they got married, although it was while they were engaged and they looked at it together. When I found out that the title is in his name only, I suggested to her that she might want to get that changed. She just laughed and said she wasn't worried about it. Is it really a hassle to add somebody's name to a house title? I just cannot get my mind around why someone would shrug and not bother.

My husband and I both owned house/condo when we got married. He ended up moving into my house and we rented out his condo in Tyson's. I never put his name on the title, he never put my name on his title. When we sold my place I put all of the proceeds towards our new purchase, which was titled in both of our names.

Did he sell the condo?

[Anonymous]

Yes, when I sold my home. We bought another place in McLean which we rent out as though we currently live far away his job will always have ties to that area. We own a rental in willowsford as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a personal residence both people should be on title, in pretty much every case. For investment properties it really depends on the jurisdiction and your tax situation. There are sometimes regulations that kick in for landlords who own a certain number of rental units. For example, in DC rent control kicks in once you own a stake in 4+ units, so it might make sense to have separate ownership.

FWIW I don't think you can get around rent control that way.

Correct. That is 4 units in one building. Also, I don't think rent control means what you think it means PPP.

[Anonymous]

The question IS NOT whether you believe a primary residence should be titled in both spouses name or what you did with your own house.

The heart of the question is - are there any advantages in titling a house in one spouse's name only? Is there a legal situation that this would prove advantageous (aside from divorce)?

[Anonymous]

Death is a big reason to have it titled in both names. If it is in only one spouse's name, it will pass via that spouse's will, or worse, intestacy. Add the complication of a mortgage and you can have all kinds of tsuris.

Different states have different laws about primary residences and lawsuits so I'm not going to touch that. However PPs are right that insurance is your best defense there. Also, homeowner's insurance generally gives you the ability to buy an additional umbrella policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a personal residence both people should be on title, in pretty much every case. For investment properties it really depends on the jurisdiction and your tax situation. There are sometimes regulations that kick in for landlords who own a certain number of rental units. For example, in DC rent control kicks in once you own a stake in 4+ units, so it might make sense to have separate ownership.

FWIW I don't think you can get around rent control that way.

Correct. That is 4 units in one building. Also, I don't think rent control means what you think it means PPP.

NP and professional developer here. As always, lots of bad info about real estate here. Both of the responses above are incorrect.

It is not 4 units in one building. There is a 'small landlord exemption' from rent control for owners of 4 or fewer units, which I'm pretty sure is what poster above is referring to. And yes, you can split ownership among family members to get around the limit. Spouse A owns units 1-4, and collects those rents as income. Spouse B owns units 5-8 and collects those rents as income. As long as each person has no ownership interest in the other's properties, this is perfectly legal. This has been brought before DC Superior Court by tenants on a few occasions, but the owners have won in every case, to my knowledge.