Ex asking for too much - AIBU?

No he would have been entitled to 50% of the equity at that point plus adjustment. Your calculation is still too low.

In reality she should buy him out now or sell up now to give him his share if she can't buy him out

YABU and you know it.

He's entitled to half of the value of the house as it was four years ago, minus half of any mortgage/costs of selling.

If he takes you to court, that is what the court will most likely award so save yourself the court fees and stress, and pay him what you owe him.

At the time of buying, you each owned the house 50/50, given you both put in £12k.

He therefore would have been entitled to 50% of whatever the equity was 4 years ago when he left, as it was your 3rd house together; the £12k would no longer be relevant.

To suggest you should only pay him £12k is morally bankrupt, given he has been more than reasonable.

You are lucky he has not forced a sale so far, and if you don't get legal advice to sign some sort of document agreeing how you split the house, you may find him going down that route.

Not sure on the legality, in terms of whether it is a default arrangement or not.

But one of my friends had it so after he moved out the wife "rented" his half of the property from him. So even though she paid 100% of the mortgage (e.g., £1000 per month), half of the was her share of the mortgage and the other half was rent due to him because she had sole occupancy of the house (he had to pay for truely rented accommodation). In the end, when the house was sold, the spilt return 50/50 (e.g. sold for £300k, both got £150k) despite her "paying all the mortgage".

They went through a solicitor to set it up and it was understood as fair - I don't belive his ex wife would have tried to "help him out".

Legally if his name is not on the deeds he’s not entitled to anything

morally but be a different matter

The fairand moral position (IMO) is whatever the % of the initial prooperty that 12k deposit paid for, then that is what he is "due" from whatever the value of the house was 4 years ago.

From then on, I think he's still due something for the fact his money is still tied up in your house. Maybe an inflationary amount.

If I were you, I'd buy him out now.

DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING
Please get legal advice.

No, he’s not asking for too much, you are.

You are being incredibly unreasonable. Fortunately the law will agree too

The 12% was only on the 1st house. They got 3 houses and 11yrs of equity before they split up. He’s entitled to a lot more than 12%

This is messy.

OP, remortgage the house so you can pay him out right away.

12% of the fair market value at the date he receives his money, with the deductions for where you covered the mortgage for him.

He's worn the opportunity cost of having his equity tied up in your home.

Yabvu. How much equity was in the house by the time you bought the 3rd house? He’s entitled to 50% of that. He’s also entitled to 50% of whatever more accrued during the time he lived there. He was daft not getting his name on the deeds but I doubt he would have much issue proving it.
He’s been very reasonable allowing you to keep his equity in the house till your child is grown. You are benefitting from that with interest saved. You may find he’s entitled to 50% of the value of the house at that time as his money is still invested in it. And while you are paying the mortgage now, you are also the one benefiting from the house so you might find that doesn’t count for as much as you think.
How are you justifying him only being entitled to 12,000? That makes NO sense.

If you were married and both names were on the deeds, then he would be entitled to half from the sale regardless of when he moved out. The fact that you're paying the mortgage wouldn't matter.

YABU for using the technically of his name not being on against him.

I'm shocked he was advised not have his name on the deeds

I think you are being totally unreasonable.
I think it's more than reasonable for 12% and half equity of 4 years ago. He trusted you by not putting his name on mortgage or deeds for 3rd house, he said you can stay until children are grown. Doesn't matter who left who

Sorry OP. He sounds incredibly fair.. he could be asking for a lot more. It is you that sounds greedy. I hope you do the right thing.

Sounds like he is being fair. I would consider trying to get a loan or something and pay him off sooner. Could cost you a lot in solicitor bills if you start arguing over the split. Out of interest is the mortgage cheaper or more expensive than if you rented?

However, that would only be fair if the house were to be sold at that point. The OP has the benefit of his deposit and expects to continue to have this until she sells in a few years. He should get back his deposit adjusted for inflation whenever the house is sold. So if they bought it for 100K, his contribution was 12k - 12% deposit. If the house is valued at 250K at the point that it sells, he should get back 12% of 250K - ie 30K

Morally you should sign because he is being perfectly fair. It's easy to advise other people though, in your situation I wouldn't sign without independent legal advice. It depends on you as a person, to me the money would trump and qualms over the morality of it, but that's just me. I doubt you have a legal obligation to sign BUT I think he's entitled to more than 12k.

You are being unreasonable regarding the amount owed OP.
No wonder he wants you to sign that agreement.

Although to be fair I think 18 is still very young to be made leave your home because dad wants to sell up...
In an ideal world it would be better to wait to sell until kids are all settled with their own houses. And that's unlikely to be the minute the youngest turns 18.
But he's renting and probably needs the money. And he seems to have behaved decently re the house so far.

You are being quite unfair - he could ask you to sell now or demand the cash plus equity now but hasn’t. Obviously things have been complicated by multiple moves. What ever was put down on this house needs split 50/50. I imagine this would have been more than the 24k initial investment in property 1, given that you have likely made gains from that then again in property 2. So 50/50 starting deposit on purchase of house 3 is fair place to start not 12k. I take it the house wasn’t valued when he moved out. Ideally I’d research what similar properties nearby sold at when he moved out and take a valuation from that for the equity that would have built up then divide that 50/50 and add to the starting deposit.

🙄

Yabu. Of course he should get his share of the equity from when he was paying the mortgage.

I have no idea of your legal position but morally you are on the wrong side of decency.