Should I Buy a House with my Girlfriend, Boyfriend, or Others I'm not Married to?
- Adam Garrett
- Oct 16, 2024
- 19 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
Above: Adam & his wife Jessica
On this site, I go into risk analysis & cost benefit analysis more than most in the real estate business, whether it's environmental risk, house issues by year, pros and cons of areas, or comparing offers. I also like to be candid. In this article, I'll be touching on topics that you won't hear about from most real estate agents/brokers, but that I think are important, especially since there are so often misconceptions on this topic.
The answer to the question of whether or not one should buy a house with a partner depends on a number of factors. Please keep in mind that I am not an attorney and that I am not authorized to give "legal advice". It's a good idea to consult your attorney on this topic as well as your faith leader, such as a pastor, if you are a person of faith and your partner is someone you're romantically involved with.
Preliminary Considerations:
The law treats a spouse differently than a boyfriend/girlfriend in marital rights even if a spouse isn't on a loan.
State laws vary substantially regarding this topic. Without an agreement in writing, if a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend isn't on the loan or deed, their rights are pretty limited. Conversely, in Virginia, if you purchase a home while married, even if they aren't on the loan or deed, your spouse's rights are much more substantial. If you purchased before marriage in Virginia, your spouse's rights are more limited than if you purchased while married if your spouse isn't added to the loan or deed. Be familiar with state laws before making a decision.
Per VA law § 20-107.3:
"1. Separate property is (i) all property, real and personal, acquired by either party before the marriage; (ii) all property acquired during the marriage by bequest, devise, descent, survivorship or gift from a source other than the other party; (iii) all property acquired during the marriage in exchange for or from the proceeds of sale of separate property, provided that such property acquired during the marriage is maintained as separate property; and (iv) that part of any property classified as separate pursuant to subdivision 3. Income received from separate property during the marriage is separate property if not attributable to the personal effort of either party. The increase in value of separate property during the marriage is separate property, unless marital property or the personal efforts of either party have contributed to such increases and then only to the extent of the increases in value attributable to such contributions. The personal efforts of either party must be significant and result in substantial appreciation of the separate property if any increase in value attributable thereto is to be considered marital property.
2. Marital property is (i) all property titled in the names of both parties, whether as joint tenants, tenants by the entirety or otherwise, except as provided by subdivision 3, (ii) that part of any property classified as marital pursuant to subdivision 3, or (iii) all other property acquired by each party during the marriage which is not separate property as defined above. All property including that portion of pensions, profit-sharing or deferred compensation or retirement plans of whatever nature, acquired by either spouse during the marriage, and before the last separation of the parties, if at such time or thereafter at least one of the parties intends that the separation be permanent, is presumed to be marital property in the absence of satisfactory evidence that it is separate property. For purposes of this section marital property is presumed to be jointly owned unless there is a deed, title or other clear indicia that it is not jointly owned."
If I want to buy with someone I'm not married to, what should I do?
I put this second rather than last since I know that many coming to this article are coming for this section. That said, I highly recommend that you keep reading rather than skipping the remainder of this article after reading this section if you're thinking about purchasing with an unmarried romantic partner.
One consideration would be to buy as an individual and to take rent from those that you would like to "buy with". This option could be good for a father and son with the son going to college.
A "kiddie condo" is an alternative consideration for that same scenario, where the son would purchase a house, condo, or even a fourplex with the father, in this case, being a co-signer.
It's important to establish a number of written agreements going into it in the event that you and that person or people eventually go separate ways. For more details, see a publication by VADivorceOnline titled "Property Rights of Unmarried Couples in Virginia", including but not limited to the following:
"It's particularly important to make a written property agreement if you buy a house together; the large financial and emotional commitments involved are good reasons to take extra care with your plans. Your contract should cover at least four major areas:
How much of the house does each of you own? If it's not 50-50, is there a way for the person who owns less than half to increase his share -- for example, by fixing up the house or making a larger share of the mortgage payment?
How is title (ownership) to be listed on the deed? One choice is as "joint tenants with rights of survivorship," meaning that when one of you dies, the other automatically inherits the whole house. Another option is "tenants in common," meaning that when one of you dies, that share of the house goes to whomever is named in a will or trust, or goes to blood relatives if the deceased partner left no estate plan.
What happens to the house if you break up? Will one of you have the first right to stay in the house (perhaps to care for a young child) and buy the other out, or will the house be sold and the proceeds divided?
If one of you has a buyout right, how will the house be appraised and how long will the buyout take?"
Should I involve my boyfriend/girlfriend in the purchase decision even if they won't be living with me while unmarried? Likely w/ caveats
While some might consider it jumping the gun and could be put off by it if you don't do it well, even if you just started to date someone, it's not an inherently bad idea to show someone that you're dating a property you are planning to make an offer on or that you're under contract with. If buying it could be a dealbreaker in the relationship, is the relationship or the home more worth it to you? Is the level of control that your partner seeks to exert when you introduce it (if applicable) something that could set up red flags about that partner?
Ethical/faith-based considerations, Adam's bias, Adam's hypothesis on psychological concepts that are contributing factors to the data, & Adam's experience
I am a Christian, and my faith influences how I think about commitment, responsibility, and long-term relational health. Even so, the conclusions in this article don’t depend on my beliefs. The social science research on cohabitation, sexual history, and relationship stability strongly aligns with principles that many religious traditions have taught for generations.
My goal in this section is simply to acknowledge my worldview and then focus on the data itself. Regardless of one’s faith background, the patterns in the research are consistent, and the psychological concepts below help explain why the data trends in these directions.
Here are some of the psychological factors I believe help explain the outcomes:
What the Data Says, The Importance of Using Statistical Analysis & Formulas to Go Beyond Commonly Cited Figures, & Statistical Hypotheses:
Statistics on live-in romantic relationships vs marriages in impact on future marriage, i.e. in a study of 1600 people, "34% of marriages ended among those who lived together before being engaged, while just 23% of marriages ended among couples who waited until after engagement or marriage to move in together."
Per an article titled "New DU Study Highlights Risks of Living Together Before Engagement":
"More than half of Americans believe that moving in with a significant other before tying the knot is a good idea—that cohabitation before marriage or even engagement can increase their changes of a happy and successful marriage.
But a new national survey from the University of Denver, published by the Institute for Family Studies, says otherwise.
Psychologists and DU psychology professors Galena Rhoades and Scott Stanley say their findings indicate that living together before being engaged can actually decrease a couple’s odds of a successful marriage.
Rhoades and Stanley used a representative sample of approximately 1,600 Americans who were married for the first time between 2010 and 2019. The study found that 34% of marriages ended among those who lived together before being engaged, while just 23% of marriages ended among couples who waited until after engagement or marriage to move in together."
Here are some additional statistics to consider regarding cohabiting adults vs married adults per Pew Research:
Statistics on marriage vs single/cohabiting on kids' abuse/neglect, i.e. "Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner were at least 8 times more likely to be maltreated in one way or another."
Here I wanted to focus first on abuse patterns and then on income levels of children after they "grow up" following being raised in a home without a stable 2 parent environment.
Per an article published by the National Center for Health Research:
"A 2009 study by Lawrence Berger and colleagues examined whether Child Protective Services (CPS) involvement varied based on a man in the mother’s life... using data on 2,297 families... Results of the 2009 study showed that families living with a man who was not the biological father of all the children in the home, and families living without a man in the home, were significantly more likely to be contacted by CPS compared to families in which the biological father of all the children lived with the mother."
"The following year, a report on the National Incidence Study of Abuse and Neglect, which examines not only CPS cases but all reported incidences of abuse and neglect to community professionals, also found that maltreatment rates differed according to family structure.[2] Children living with their married biological parents had the lowest rate of abuse and neglect, whereas those living with a single parent who had a partner living in the household had the highest rate. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner were at least 8 times more likely to be maltreated in one way or another. They were 10 times more likely to experience abuse and 8 times more likely to experience neglect."
"Why Are Homes With Surrogate Fathers at Risk?
The authors of the 2009 study suggest that men who are not biologically related to their partners’ children may not feel a connection to them. As a result, surrogate fathers may not feel a reason or obligation to provide financial or emotional support, unlike a biological father. Also, because surrogate fathers are typically in undefined parenting roles, they may be less able to enforce rules or convince children to obey them, and some surrogate fathers may resort to physical force or psychological control to demonstrate power over children.
What Explains the Increase in Maltreatment in Homes Without a Male?
Researchers explain that compared to families with two biological parents, families headed by single-mothers generally have fewer resources—less time and money to allocate to parenting. As a result, single mothers often experience higher levels of stress, which can lead to impatience, the use of physical control, and neglect."
Data Findings on premarital intercourse vs waiting & divorce, i.e. "Premarital sex predicts divorce" & "Previously-theorized selection mechanisms thought to explain the relationship between premarital sex and divorce are not supported."
Per the 1st part of the 1st sentence of the abstract of Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce as published in the National Library of Medicine, "Premarital sex predicts divorce." "The relationship between premarital sex and divorce is highly significant and robust. Compared to people with no premarital partners other than eventual spouses, those with six or more partners exhibit the highest divorce risk... Previously-theorized selection mechanisms thought to explain the relationship between premarital sex and divorce are not supported."
Interestingly, "One partner is subtracted for each respondent to ensure only partners other than eventual spouses are counted." That means that the study methods didn't even make a difference between those who were virgins when they got married and those whose first sexual partner was their spouse prior to marriage. If they did, the full text of the study states effectively that the difference would likely be even higher. It states, "Premarital sex is linked to higher rates of divorce (Kahn and London, 1991; Paik, 2011), particularly when it involves partners other than one’s eventual spouse (Teachman, 2003)."
Keep in mind the lack of bias in that study as well. I asked Chat GPT 5 on 11.7.25, "Are any of these Christian or religious? "Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to the Population Research Institute at The Pennsylvania State University for Population Research Infrastructure (P2C HD041025) and Family Demography Training (T-32HD007514)"? Taken from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989935/"
It responded, "No — none of the organizations or grants mentioned in that citation are Christian or religious in nature. Here’s a breakdown:
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD):
A U.S. government agency that’s part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It focuses on biomedical and public health research related to children, families, and development. It’s completely secular and publicly funded.
Population Research Institute at The Pennsylvania State University:
This is an academic research institute within Penn State, focused on demography (population studies, family trends, fertility, etc.). It is not affiliated with any religion.
Population Research Infrastructure (P2C HD041025) and Family Demography Training (T-32HD007514):
These are NIH grant numbers, funding secular research projects and training programs. They’re administrative identifiers, not organizations.
So, the citation refers entirely to secular, government-funded academic research bodies, with no Christian or religious affiliation..."
Statistics on marriage vs single/cohabiting on kids' family's income as a kid & after "growing up", i.e. "People raised outside stable two-parent homes were approximately 250 % more likely to grow up in the bottom income quintile (bottom 20% income levels)" & "Regardless of parental income, these people are relatively likely to become low-income adults"
Next, I wanted to explore the impact on the income environment that kids grow up in and kids' income after they "grow up". Kids are more likely to grow up in a home with a lower income if not in a stable 2-parent environment & more likely to not have as high of income when they "grow up", in addition to being less likely to have a stable 2-parent home when they grow up. Even when considering the income level that they are growing up in, children without a stable 2-parent environment are more likely than those in a stable 2-parent environment of the same income bracket to have a lower income when they grow up. While income is only 1 factor
A study was done that was published in the National Library of Medicine. Here are a sampling of those findings:
"People raised outside stable two-parent homes were approximately 250 % more likely to grow up in the bottom income quintile (bottom 20% income levels) and only 40 % as likely to start in the top quintile compared with people from stable two-parent homes (Fig. 1). On average, their (family size–adjusted) parental incomes were approximately 35 % lower than those of people from stable two-parent homes."
"More childhood family transitions associate with lower income persistence... each additional transition is associated with weaker intergenerational income transmission"
"Because two-parent families are less likely to be poor than alternative family types, their declining prevalence helped increase income inequality in recent decades (Burtless 1999; Martin 2006; Western et al. 2008)."
"Large literatures have explored how income persists across generations (Black and Devereux 2011; Hout 2004; Mayer 1997) and how childhood family structure affects achievement (Brown 2010; Lopoo and DeLeire 2014; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994)."
"Mobility differences by childhood family structure are especially consequential in the United States. Among 18 democracies, poverty and family structure are most closely associated in the United States (Brady and Burroway 2012). I study the U.S. case."
"Difficulties maintaining middle-class incomes create downward mobility among people raised outside stable two-parent homes. Regardless of parental income, these people are relatively likely to become low-income adults, reflecting a new form of perverse equality. People raised outside stable two-parent families are also less likely to become high-income adults than people from stable two-parent homes. Mobility differences account for about one-quarter of family-structure inequalities in income at the bottom of the income distribution and more than one-third of these inequalities at the top."
"More coresidential time with both parents is associated with more parent-child interaction and more parental supervision (Kalil et al. 2014). These activities may increase income persistence both because children have more opportunities to adopt their parents’ attitudes and behaviors (Jodl et al. 2001) and because parents have more opportunities to quell children’s rebellious activities (Coleman 1988). These theories emphasize how coresidential time with both parents can reinforce incomes intergenerationally. Instability-based theories instead highlight how family transitions can disrupt income transmission (Mitchell et al. 2015). Family transitions scramble routines and create stress around family relationships. Children’s mobility may increase with family transitions, as children seek extrafamilial support (Wu 1996). Even transitions into stepparent families are predicted to increase mobility by instability theories. Stepparents introduced after birth are not expected to help maintain income intergenerationally via socialization and social control like origin parents because transitions create disruptions and uncertainty (Hofferth and Anderson 2003; Wu and Martinson 1993)."
"Across many socioeconomic outcomes, people raised in stable two-parent families tend to fare better than those who were not (McLanahan et al. 2013). Socialization- and instability-based theories suggest that people raised in stable two-parent families may also experience stronger persistence of affluence from youth into adulthood.2"
Hypothesis before the study:
"Socialization- and social control-based theories predict that intergenerational income persistence will increase with the amount of time that children live with both parents, for three reasons. First, coresidential parents tend to spend more time rearing their children (Jones and Mosher 2013; Kalil et al. 2014; Teachman et al. 1997). This extra time, which single parents balancing paid labor and family lack, affords children more opportunities to learn their parents’ values and behaviors (Axinn and Thornton 1993). Consequently, this time bolsters intergenerational income similarity because children tend to model parents’ behaviors in both their paid work and adult families (Jodl et al. 2001; Li and Wu 2008; Thornton et al. 2007). Women, in particular, may maintain family incomes intergenerationally by marrying spouses whose earnings correspond to her parents’ income (Chadwick and Solon 2002). Extra childrearing time also affords parents more opportunities to supervise their children, which helps high-income parents transmit their incomes intergenerationally by guiding their children to avoid trouble and to excel educationally (Coleman 1988; Martin 2012). Second, socialization- and social control–based theories predict more intergenerational income persistence with longer coresidence with both parents because parental supervision is more efficient in stable two-parent families (not only because supervision time is more abundant in these families). Stable partnerships facilitate cooperation and communication (Augustine 2014; Ribar 2015), helping parents quell children’s rebellion against parental models and, thus, increase income persistence. Third, socialization- and social control–based theories suggest that children may be more likely to learn behaviors that bolster high-income persistence when they live with both parents for more time. Both the amount and content of what children learn differ by length of coresidence. Children emulating parents in long-term partnerships may be less likely to divorce and more likely to marry high-earning partners, thus perpetuating high incomes intergenerationally (Axinn and Thornton 1996). In short, socialization theories predict that income persistence will increase with the time that children live with both parents."
Hypothesis before the study:
"Instability-based theories also predict that children from stable two-parent families will experience higher intergenerational income persistence than children from alternative families, particularly those undergoing family transitions. Transitions are changes “in family living arrangements experienced by a child over a period of time” (Brown 2006:448). Most children raised outside stable two-parent homes experience at least one transition, although some live stably with single parents or guardians. Family transitions associate with decreased child well-being because they disrupt routines; increase stress and tension in family interactions; and create additional disruptions, such as residential instability (Fomby and Osborne 2010; Magnuson and Berger 2009; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Mitchell et al. 2015; Seltzer 1994). Multiple transitions associate with worse outcomes than only one transition, and according to Fomby and Cherlin (2007:183), “the cumulative effect on children’s well-being can be substantial. The nature of the transition in terms of changes in household composition is less relevant than the stress associated with moving from one form to another.” Transitions into and out of two-parent families negatively affect children’s development (Lee and McLanahan 2015). Coresidential time with stepparents (unlike biological parents) is not expected to reduce children’s downward mobility risks, both because stepparents’ entrances require family readjustments and because stepparents’ obligations are not fully institutionalized (Furstenberg 2014; Hofferth and Anderson 2003). Childhood family transitions are more predictive of nonmarital childbearing than snapshots of childhood family structure or coresidential time with single mothers (Wu 1996; Wu and Martinson 1993). Instability thus appears more important than socialization in explaining single parenthood. Family transitions are expected to disrupt income transmission processes, increasing downward mobility. Transitions could also reduce poor children’s upward mobility prospects."
"Individuals’ incomes during childhood and adulthood tend to be similar. When they differ, individuals with low-income parents tend to move up the income distribution, while individuals with high-income parents tend to move down."
"Children raised outside stable two-parent homes tend to begin life with relatively low incomes (Cancian and Haskins 2014). Thus, their relatively high likelihood of becoming low-income adults stems partly from their high exposure to the probability of remaining low income—not only from family-structure differences in income mobility probabilities. According to McLanahan and Sandefur (1994:134), “for children living with a single parent and no stepparent, income is the single most important factor in accounting for their lower well-being as compared with children living with both parents. It accounts for as much as half of their disadvantage.”"
Statistics on the likelihood of staying together for married vs cohabiting parents: cohabiting parents are more than 2x as likely to break up
Per the Brookings Institute, "Children born to cohabiting couples do worse because their parents are much more likely to break up; two-thirds have split up before their child reaches age 12, compared with a quarter of married parents."
Statistics on premarital sex vs waiting on marital happiness (See chart below)
Did you know that those whose first sexual partner is their spouse correspond to statistically higher marital happiness than any other number of sexual partners, and that the difference is very significant, much more significant than the difference between having 2 and 3 prior partners? See the chart below.
Statistical Sexually Transmitted Illness Likelihood, i.e. "over half of people in the U.S. will get an STI sometime during their lifetime."
Per "Public Knowledge and Attitudes About Sexually Transmitted Infections: KFF Polling and Policy Insights" (2020)
"Large majorities of the public are unaware of how common STIs are among adults in the U.S. About one-third (36%) are aware that STIs have become more common over the past decade and few (13%) know that over half of people in the U.S. will get an STI sometime during the lifetime."
See the chart below this section for a breakdown in the US.
While GPT 5 and I weren't able to locate similar data in the US or other developed countries of STI prevalence by prior partner volume, a study in Africa was done in 4 countries that did that, where the % increase is more helpful than the actual %'s for someone to consider in a developed context due to significantly higher HIV percentages in these countries vs most developed nations. In Africa, a number of children contract HIV before birth or through other non-sexual means like lactation. The actual percentages would be different in the US, but the increasingly high % chance based on the number of prior sexual partners would be true no matter what country you're looking in.
The most important distinctions that should be taught more in school regarding STI's are the probability increase over time (below) & according to partner volume (above), rather than exclusively over the course of 1 year & hoping that students will do the math themselves.
Statistical Pregnancy Likelihood Over Time
The most important distinction that should be taught more in school is the probability increase over time of pregnancy (chart below) rather than exclusively over the course of 1 year & hoping that students will do the math themselves.
In addition, it should be taught more that around half of abortion patients used contraception in the past month, including (among other forms of protection, i.e. sterilization & IUD's) 24% condoms and 13% the pill in a 2014 study on contraception & abortion published by the National Library of Medicine.
Some might attempt to ameliorate their chances of becoming pregnant via anal penetration, but there are studies on per act disease contraction for HIV by the CDC (sadly not for other STI's I could find), & your chances of contraction are over 15x higher on the receiving end for anal penetration vs any oral or vaginal intercourse, with the second highest method of contraction being anal penetration on the insertive end.
If one were to shift exclusively to oral sex, it's important to note that, per VerywellHealth, at least 5 STI's are spread by skin-to-skin contact where condoms don't provide adequate protection. Some of these (i.e. HPV) have vaccines, while others don't.
Why so few virgins before marriage?
Why do so few married couples follow best practices that reflect the data we have now? Here are some of my hypotheses:
Changes in law regarding contraceptives & abortion have played a major role.
Most of the data hasn't been out very long. While it's out there, it's not widely known and not commonly taught in sex education. When it's taught, it's not often taught well, i.e., typically not using statistical long-term data rather than exclusively 1-year data.
Pornography usage (particularly among men) and sexualized media have become popularized.
There's societal pressure and pressure within relationships.
Historically, physical intimacy prior to marriage wasn't nearly as popular as it is today. Physical intimacy impacts judgment via oxytocin etc., lowering inhibitions to go deeper into physical intimacy and cross into sexual intimacy. Oxytocin and other hormonal drivers increase during sex vs non-sexual physical intimacy & have drug-like impacts on judgment that are addictive.
Misunderstanding regarding the true probability over time of contracting an STI or becoming pregnant.
The data backs religious texts that state that virginity prior to marriage is best, like the Bible, and that isn't popular among the scientific community, as the documentary "Expelled" starring Ben Stein goes over on the data pointing to intelligent design. The US has departed from Christianity greatly over the past 50 years. Much of the controversy around the film "Expelled" claims that it's a conspiracy film, but you don't need to have a coordinated conspiracy to have a systemic bias against something, especially regarding challenges to your core beliefs. For instance, racism historically was very systemic in some cases, even when it was not supported by Jim Crow laws. Systemic racism has yet to be completely eliminated. Also, biases against beliefs aren't limited to secular institutions. Religious institutions often have them as well, and in those cases, it's often easier to find, since it can be right in the faith statement that potential faculty need to state that they believe. I encountered this bias when I was applying to teach at Christian schools, when one of my beliefs conflicted with traditional conservative Christian thought & aligned closer to William Lane Craig's beliefs prior to a publication of his expressing those almost a decade later.
Consider your relationship duration & other data, even if you're married, before purchasing together.
If you are married to someone that you just met a week ago, & have been divorced 10 times, you are more statistically likely to end the relationship than someone who is unmarried but is in their first relationship with someone that they've been with for 10 years. It's important to keep in mind statistical considerations like relationship tenure (past & present) & divorce frequency or lack thereof before purchasing a house with someone. If you have a low statistical likelihood of "making it", a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement may be in order. That said, some partners could be scared off by such an agreement, so proceed delicately.
Comments