A money one - who is being unreasonable?

I agree with previous posters who've said it's all about percentages rather than absolute values. If they sell for £180K, the house has lost 14% of its value, so Josh's £30K deposit is now only about £26K, and this is how much he should get from the sale.

Yes I think he should seek legal advice.

I think they should get a Red Book valuation, Josh should take over the mortgage and the property and Sophie may need to recompense him for half the loss in value.

He could remind her that his £30k was paid in good faith and his relative left it to him when they died, and maybe she will feel guilty?

But in reality he was silly not to ring fence it, and she could just say no, and nothing he could do about it…

I actually have exactly the same with my DH but I am Sophie. Obvs we are still together but I would definitely feel wrong taking half the money! I have already benefitted from it, in terms of it getting me on the ladder. So she is a prize bitch if she doesn’t factor in his inheritance and just walk away.

I agree with PP’s that he should get it signed over to him, and try and get a lodger or rent it out.

In theory he should get his 30k back (maybe minus the percentage drop in value) and then they split any cash or divide any outstanding debt.

How you enforce that without any written contract though, I have no idea! Unless she is very reasonable, I suspect he will lose his deposit. If the house is in joint names they are legally entitled to an even split.

Always risky buying on an unequal basis.

If I were Josh, I’d find a way to buy her out. If they are only going to make £9k from the sale, I’d pay her £10k (extra for her troubles) and take her off the mortgage. Then he’s free to hold onto the property and won’t have to sell in negative equity. He could get a lodger if needed.

Depending if they are tenants in common or joint tenants- the law differs according to Google

osborneslaw.com/blog/tenants-in-common-vs-joint-tenants/#tenants-in-common-vs-joint-tenants-which-is-best-for-buying-a-property-together

Then Josh can use this to his advantage and insist that the loss plus selling cost is split equally.

It ought to be 50/50.

If it was £250k value then what would the solution be? £20k equity each then she pays back her half of the deposit so £15k, leaving her with £5k? If so then same thing but this time as there is no equity then she takes a loan to pay back the £15k.

Sophie doesn't owe Josh anything. He chose to put the deposit in. If there was equity it would be different but you're talking about her just giving him 15k of what, her savings? A loan? No. The risk was his to take and the loss is his. Lesson learned on his part!

Clearly she should let him keep the house rather than forcing a sale, can't see why she wouldn't if he can afford the mortgage.

@AnnaQuayInTheUk how much is left to pay on the mortgage? If they are going to make a loss, assuming they havent paid down a lot of the mortgage? There might only be a few £k left to takeaway after the mortgage is settled anyway? If they sell for £180 and they have £160k left then will only have £20k takeaway minus any early repayment fees. It’s a tricky one I’ve always said I would do deposit plus 50% of payments effectively. In this case I think he would have to suck it up and give her some say it was £20k then I would say like £15 and £5k, but he will likely be taking a hit on his investment unless he can buy her out.

Josh needs to get legal advice as to where he stands and if he can get his deposit back

So potentially 30k of debt to share?

I wouldn't say either of those options.

Assuming no complicating factors, I'd say that Josh put in £120k into the purchase (£30k cash + £90k for his half of the mortgage) and Sophie put in £90k.

So he owns 120/210 = 12/21 ~= 57% of the house.

If the house is sold for £180k, he should get back 180,000 x 12 / 21=£102,857, leaving Sophie with £77,143.

But, is the outstanding balance on the mortgage more than £153,286 (i.e. is Sophie's half of the mortgage more than her fair share of the house's value)? If so I'd maybe be inclined to settle from her walking away and him keeping any equity

If there’s no equity then there’s nothing to discuss here. The money is gone. Nobody owes anybody anything, the money went into the house and the money has now left the equation entirely.

I doubt Sophie much cares given she's happy to let men shoulder her financial burden (yes she may pay her way in terms of mortgage payments but she clearly isn't fussed about contributing to any deposits - personally I'd never buy a house with someone without contributing fairly to the whole thing including deposit.

It doesn't sound like she learned anything from her first house buying rodeo. She can't afford a new place now, and it's too soon.

Fgs rtft

Sophie doesn’t want any equity

She wants her name off the mortgage

Josh wants to stay

How much remains on the mortgage you haven't said and surely it's not stil 180K? Equity is simply sales price minus remaining debt, you can have lost money and still have equity in the house.

This because there is no equity

As there is hardly any equity cant Sophie just give it over to him

There seems to be a general misunderstanding on this thread that joint means 50/50. In this example it really doesn't mean that.

If the house sells for more than £180k the mortgage is repaid. Then there will be expenses so Josh wont get much of his £30,000 deposit back if it sells for £189,000.

Sophie needs to be released from the mortgage. She should walk away with nothing gained, nothing lost. It would be wrong for her to take 50% of anything left over as she didn't contribute to the deposit but I also wouldn't expect her to owe anything either - her liability was 50% of the mortgage, she wouldn't owe Josh anything.

Josh shouldn't have taken this risk but it's too late now to do anything other than keep the property. Could he take in a lodger to help pay the higher mortgage?

So it sounds like they now have a 180k house (down from 210) and owe a bit less than 180k - three years of payments? So roughly break even now.
Realistically, it was a bad investment. Only he had money to actually invest. Even if they agreed to ringfence the deposit income, how (and why) would she get 15 or 12.5k to pay him? A personal loan?
So either they sell (splitting costs) and both walk away with nothing, or if he still wants the house and can afford it, then he could try and remortgage and take it all on. If there is a tiny bit of equity in it then he could argue strongly to keep it/use for remortgage costs. That way long term he could recover some equity eventually.

The reality is that if Sophie didn’t have any money to put in at the beginning, she’s very unlikely to have whatever proportion of the original deposit Josh is ‘morally’ owed now. So the best all round is that she walks away with nothing and Josh takes on the whole mortgage. Josh has the upper hand in that he doesn’t need to sell. For Sophie to force a sale will take time that she doesn’t have if she wants to buy another property with new Josh, and money that she almost certainly doesn’t have ether…

Sophie needs to treat the proceeds of the sale as though the man who put down £30k had taken decent legal advice and secured his deposit properly. I hope he's alright.

Can Josh afford property without Sophie?
if so, he needs to agree with lender to move mortgage (and deeds!) to his name. Sophie walks away with nothing as no equity to be had and Josh continues with the house as he would have. At least then he hasn’t completely lost his inheritance as prices may well pick-up again if he wants to sell in the future