Mortgage dispute dp/me

[Haribogirl]

Dp and I took bought property 13 years ago for £160.000
I put deposit down of 80.000 he got mortgage for his 80.000( with both names on it, as he would of been able to get this much on his own)

So 13 years on and he's had a brain wave, he now decided that because of the interested he's had to pay for getting the mortgage that he's actually paying more than me!!
My argument is he must of known that interest was added in the first place and it's not up to me to now start paying it.

He won't it so that
He as added his mortgage payments up for the last 13 years which amount to £79400.
So when he reaches 80k(same as I put in at beginning) he then wants me to start paying half the mortgage.
Also at the beginning in solicitors, solicitor advised me to make a deed of trust to guard my 80k in the event of anything happening in the future.

He doesn't agree with this now! As he realised that in event off I would get this and half the equity we make, he thinks all off a sudden I'm ripping him off.

This is only in the event off!! Which I have mentioned.

I feel I've just protected myself as advised, he now thinks I'm ripping him off

I don't think it matter if he's in a worse position. I get this all the time with small company disputes. Mr Moneybags puts in the capital. Mr Hardworker hasn't a bean but puts in a load of work. They own the shraes, may be 50/50. Then they fall out and similar resentments follow. It is all in the law though - Withough the original cash the business (or house in this case) would never have been bought.

If he didn't want this deal he shouldn't have signed up to it. If a man moves in here he doesn't get a single penny. In fact it's rather nice never moving them in to be honest. You don't have to endure snoring and mess and you keep your money and assets for yourself and your children.

Given some divorce lawyers want live in lovers to be able to take you to the cleaners as much as sponging spouses it might make sense for people to be a bit more reluctant to move people in particularly if the law does change in England in the way it already has in Scotland.

If he didn't want this deal he shouldn't have signed up to it
true, but you know how it is Grazia....when you're young and full of optimism with your rose tinted specs on you forget that the fluffy cloud of luuuurve is obscuring the cold hard bones of a business deal

But he is going to get 50%, I cannot see how he's not.

She put in £80k, he put in £80k. He asked the bank to lend him his £80k. They said fine, but it's 4% interest, or whatever, for your £80k. No-one stopped him paying his £80k in cash of his own money.

When they sell they both get their £80k back. Op goes off and buys diamond necklace. Dp repays HIS loan. Anything left they split 50/50.

The OP cannot come off the mortgage and remain on the deeds, people really need to stop suggesting that. The mortgage company will not give a mortgage to person A while person B is entitled to sell the house but not to repay the loan on it.

So, if a property has a mortgage then everyone who owns the property has to be jointly responsible for repaying it. They won't lend on any other basis.

Maybe just review the wording of the Deed, but take legal advice on it. Separately so he can't later claim his advice was in conflict.

He will get 50% after £80k has been taken from the proceeds and given to op

i know a few people where the mortgage is in one name but both names are on the deeds. The bank still has a charge on the property up to the loan amount. Not sure how it works legally

you forget that the fluffy cloud of luuuurve is obscuring the cold hard bones of a business deal

I doubt he was ever in any doubt about how good this business deal was for him.

He gained a house he couldn't have afforded in a blind fit.

He had no deposit and was not eligible for an £80K mortgage on a house with a 50% deposit.

His partner put a huge amount of her wealth into a house he would only get to own any part of with 1 her money 2 her name on the mortgage

If he hadn't been able to pay his mortgage, she would have been liable for it.

It seems to me that getting her deposit back plus half the remaining equity in the house she helped him to buy is entirely fair.

This has been a great deal for him.

Yes, BYO, sorry, why is that not fair? That's her money.

Remember he didn't have any money. Anything else and the OP will lose cash. Unless the house decreases in value (at which point I think the loss should be taken 50/50, and our DOT says this for us) I can see no reason why she should not get her cash back plus half any increase.

The mortgage always has to be paid first though.

OP - You two need to sit down with a friend who knows a bit about finance and learn about the concept of Time Value of Money.

The 80K you paid at once 13 years ago was far more valuable than 80K that he has been paying in small installments over 13 years. That is the basis of paying or receiving interest for borrowed money, incidentally.

They both put half the capital in when the house was bought. The fact that he has a mortgage doesn't change that.

The fact they are both on the mortgage complicates things though as any outstanding loan should be paid out of his half only. Op needs to check where she stands legally on this.

As it stands I wouldn't touch the dot but get some legal advice so this is resolved now rather than wait until the relationship has broken down and op may not be so strong

It's clearly morally fair they once he pays the mortgage off on his own, you go to owning half each. The fact that he needs to pay more to have contributed the £80k to the repayment is neither here nor there, and does not mean that you should take over half of the mortgage.
It's true that he could not have bought the house without OP's money, but equally it sounds as if OP would have struggled to have bought the house without partner's contribution.

Would have/should have is irrelevant. OP paid her half at once. Her DP is paying his half. It's taking a long time because he borrowed his half.

OP doesn't need to pay his part for him. They have both invested 80K and they own half of the property. The deal is fair as it is.

If they had sold after 1 day for the original price:
OP put in 80, weird bloke put in zero.
OP gets back 80 thank DoT, weird bloke gets zero.
Fair.

If they sold at end of mortgage term for original 160:
OP put in 80, WB put in 80 in real terms.
OP gets back 120 thank DoT, plus 20 years rent saved
WB gets back 40 plus 20 years rent saved.
WB feels hard done by.

OK, now consider:
If they sold after 1 day for 200:
Op put in 80, gets back 100; WB put in 0, gets back 20.
If they sold after 1 day for 120:
Op put in 80, gets back 60; WB put in 0, gets back 0.
OP feels hard done by.

If they sold mid term when 40 of mortgage capital was paid off (more or less where they are) and sold at 160:
Op paid in 80, WB paid in 40 in real terms.
Op gets back 100 + 10 yrs rent saved =150k say.
WB gets back 20 + 10 yrs rent saved = 70k say.
(I'm assuming 10k pa total rent if they hadn't bought, may be on the low side?)
Arguably pretty fair, each got back nearly twice what they paid in, and OP took all the risk.

If they sold mid term with equity gain it looks even better for WB as he gets half the equity gain but put in less than half the equity.

On the other hand if you started paying shares of mortgage so you feel okay about ending up owning more than half the property, bear in mind you should be charging WB rent on the difference Op ;) He is after all occupying it just as much as you.

Okay spot the deliberate error... Op gets back only 40 in the sell at a loss scenario.

Where do you get that op cd not have bought a house on her own?

Op was the 80K from selling a previous home and thus you paid mortgage + interest on this money already. Op had a well paid position and her oh did not . He also had no money saved. He definitely knew what he was doing as op told us that he wanted her to pay 1/2 the mortgage payments at the beginning until he learned that she wd then own 3/4 . He rejected that saying he wanted 1/2 . Now he wants to renege and change the goal posts to his advantage. He wd have O if he had not hitched his wagon to op. Who knows how much more this man has leached from op. But he sees the balance changing now to where it may be a more equal sharing of resources. Or heaven forbid , he may be putting in more than op in the future. He clearly does not intend to let that happen and is banking on his past ability to turn things to his advantage to have one last big kick at that can and depart. Will you let it play out like that op?

op told us that he wanted her to pay 1/2 the mortgage payments at the beginning until he learned that she wd then own 3/4 . He rejected that saying he wanted 1/2

oh I missed that!
he's really try to play fast and loose isnt he
his plan is just not cunning enought though is it! :o

At the end of the mortgage term he will have paid in £80k (the interest is irrelevant - that was the cost of him not having the initial capital) i.e. exactly the same amount as you put in at the outset.

Why in that case do you get £80k more than him ?

I can see why he is aggrieved.

The agreement should always have been a 50/50 split with him being solely responsible for servicing & repaying the mortgage. The DOT has given you an unfair advantage and risk free investment.

I think he's angling for some financial compensation for the fact that he has been a parent to someone else's child

Mistress, the OPs 80k was protected because, for example, say they split after a year and had to sell the house, house sells for the 160k it had been bought for, mortgage gets paid off which would only be a little less than the 80k so just say 79k, take that from the 160k which is 81k which would then get so, it 50/50 meaning OP and her ex each get £40,500.

That would hardly be fair given the OP had 80k a year before.

Crap I understand that.

What I'm saying is that the agreement should have been structured so that each have a 50:50 share with the mortgage being solely the responsibility of the DP.

So if sold for £160k soon after purchase, she gets back her whole £80K. He gets £80k too but he has to pay back the mortgage company from that, so effectively he gains nothing. OP hasn't lost out either.

With a 50/50 split on risk & equity (but not dept), if the house had gone into negative equity, OP would also proportionally suffer a loss. With the current set up, she never would. Her £80k was fully protected no matter what & DP's debt would have become greater.

OP is unintentionally coming out of this much better so DP has every right to be hacked off. Surprised he ever signed up to this.

Considering how much more than 80k he is paying for the property, why are you unwilling to split the proceeds 50/50 in case of a sale?

Say if it sold for 200k, why are you unwilling to get 100k each? Or it was valued at 260, and you both got 130 each? Why do you cling to your 80k PLUS 50% of profits, just because you can, legally?

All he wants is to change the agreement so you have an equal share! Even with getting 100k each you would still get your 80 k back and more!

Why do you think it fair that only YOU should be protected if you ended up with a house valued at less than 160k?

I am not surprised he feels conned now that he thinks about it!

If the house sold for 200k, you got 80 plus 50% of the remaining profits of 120 k, so a total of 140k, would you really be ok with him just getting 60 k?

Really?

You have conscience and stomach for that?

The more I read this the more I think the dot was badly written. I suspect it was written to deal with the case where the property dropped in value...but the minute the ops name went on the mortgage she would have been jointly liable for any shortfall anyway! Quite what would have happened if it had dropped to 80k and then the mortgage co had wanted their 80k back who knows.

However...the valye has gone up! Op and dp each own half the property. If sold they both get half the value. He then pays back the 80k he has borrowed plus interest. She keeps the cash. HE needs to understand that he has not paid 80k so far towards the house - he's paid 43 (or whatever it is) plus a scary amount of interest. That seems to be the problem! I don't get the impression that the op thinks she should get more than half the total sale price...just don't think the dot said it that clearly!

Oh and quint I think you are misunderstanding - the dp is saying that because he's now paid 80k back on the mortgage that's the same as the 80k op put in...it's not because he's only reduced the debt by 43 ish - rest is interest. He's saying she should put money into paying off the loan+interest that he took out to buy his half of the house...which is also not right! Think of it as two separate properties - op bought one outright , dp bought other with 100% mortgage. He's now saying that as he has spent 80k on his, op should start paying half his mortgage but get No interest in his "house"...which no one would think reasonable surely?

The DOT was recommended to me by solicitor to have
I never even thought or knew about such thing!!

Bit of back story
I lived in a 3 bed semi mortgaged by me only, my payments were £120 mth with 5 years left to pay on £29500 mortgage. I sold for £109.950.
So the case of me not affording a house is nil and void. I HAD ONE
The DOT was made in the event off, before mortgage was paid off.
After mortgage was paid then only then I would make it 50/50.

He did have quite a good job as civil servant, and I suppose if we had looked around it probably may well of got more the 3 X his wage(not London wages)
He rented his house, so in theory would never off made any money only his landlord at the time.

I have always been fair in this relationship! And shared lots of things, but that was because I wanted too.
But until recently he as become selfish yes selfish! Since retirement and his lump sums he's become very money orientated. Oh I just remembered he also got 10k recently inheritance from his uncle. To date I have never seen a penny! Not that I should don't get me wrong, but when I think back what I've given to him speaks volumes (but that my fault)

For those that think me leaving my 50% to son is unfair and he will be out on his ear.
I have said that he stays in house(that's if he wants to) till his death
Or I case of OW moving in then only then does my son get his share.

DP as not spoke last night/to date, but expects I still clean,cook etc and he do his own thing.

OP you asked earlier:

If he pays the 37k outstanding wether by mortgage or cash
I then get rid of deed of trust and do 50/50
Am I being fair or naive ?

This to me would be fair.

Do not however let him persuade you that the interest payments he has made count. If he insists on this then keep the DOT as is and feel no guilt about screwing him over.

It doesn't sound to me that you intentionally set out to better yourself at his expense, but he will be doing just that if he insists interest payments are taken into account.

Petra
That's exactly it

Until it's paid in full by him, the DOT is staying
If I start paying half his mortgage, the I get half the proceeds!!!!

Would you pay for OP debt. Car,house,holiday whatever