One strategy that I advise clients on is the strategy of acquiring properties in single names with, sometimes, no financial contribution by the non owner to the purchase. The purpose of these strategies are to enable investor families to borrow more, provide asset protection and/or to provide for the various tax strategies that could be utilized now or in the future - spousal loans, spousal transfers, minimising tax on sale etc. One disavantage for the non owner is the loss of control. If A and B are spouses and B purchases a property in B’s name only then B can do many things without the consent or even knowledge of their spouse A, such as: sell the property mortgage the property increase loans against the property gift the property to someone else either while alive or after death have their will disputed or attacked There is an ability to lodge a caveat over property to protect the interest in the property of non legal owners. Caveats can only be lodged, or be maintained, by someone with a caveatable interest in the property. To have a caveatable interest in the property you have to have made some sort of contribution or have some sort of contractual rights with the owner. But where someone has not made any contribution they generally would not have a caveatable interests. If you contributed funds to the deposit or ongoing mortgage payments then you would, but being totally separate from the transaction you probably would not. This is confirmed in a recent NSW Supreme Court case Carmen Ho v Lorenz Derek Austin Ebert  NSWSC 1468 https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5614503be4b0517a97281472 The judgment cites another case Choi v Kim  NSWSC 1774 So when assessing whether to implement such strategies you also need to assess the likelihood of your spouse running off with the property - which should not be much of an issue if they have paid for it without your help.