Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Mortgage dispute dp/me

399 replies

Haribogirl · 16/10/2015 11:37

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

OP posts:
Shakey15000 · 16/10/2015 12:30

I think he's being unreasonable. You brought 80k to the table. Why has he "suddenly" brought this up? Is your relationship ok? Is he perhaps thinking of splitting? What is the set up? Do you have DC? Do you both work etc and contribute equally to household expense?

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 16/10/2015 12:30

I've just realised that my dh put in £80k when we bought our first home Hmm Grin and I put in £0 deposit but was on the mortgage. However I married him which is where all my deposit money went so it's moot.

Tealtowel · 16/10/2015 12:30

Its not your problem he didnt have 80k in the bank.He needed a loan which comes with interest you didnt. If he did this with another person as a business they would not give up equity. Hes crazy to think you should give him your equity. Nothing to do with amount paid. How much has he paid off from his mortgage? He should have paid most of it off by now surely?

RB68 · 16/10/2015 12:31

oh and as to the difference between interest and other earnings - that is irrelevant as is the fact houses have earnt more - if they have earnt more then he has equally benefitted from this but in order to realise that has to deduct the cost of borrowing that money. People talk about interest but really its forfeited benefit by investing the money ie you can use the money to use elsewhere - e.g. invested in Gold Bullion it would likely have netted more income but by investing in the house she lost the benefit of doing that

And also for the record as he couldn't have borrowed that money without support from his partner TECHNICALLY it was half his money in there and half hers so TECHNICALLY perhaps she should have paid half the mortgage but if that is the case she would be entitled to half the benefit that borrowed 80k so 3/4 of the accrued increase in value of the property.

So out of the kindness of her heart she backed him to lend the money and has received nothing for this other than grief that she is ripping him off. On the contrary I believe that in actual fact he has taken her for a ride.

An objective view hoewever says

The house is owned 50/50 when he has paid the full mortgage to the end of the term (ie the cost of borrowing the 80k). If the house is redeemed before the end of the mortgage they divide the proceeds and he finishes paying the mortgage off out of his share.

HSMMaCM · 16/10/2015 12:31

I think you're fine at the moment, but once the mortgage is fully paid off, you will each have paid for half the house. In that case, why would you get your £80k back before splitting the rest 50/50.

BYOSnowman · 16/10/2015 12:32

He's a fucking idiot who clearly doesn't understand the difference between capital and interest

maybe tell him you should get a solicitor to draw up the deed of trust and see what they advise because they will undoubtedly be open mouthed at his stupidity.

arethereanyleftatall · 16/10/2015 12:32

I actually laughed out loud at his stupidly when I read the op.
Thus I'm quite surprised that some agree with him.
Yanbu.

BYOSnowman · 16/10/2015 12:33

Are you joint tenants or tenants in common?

RB68 · 16/10/2015 12:33

I should also say that you have taken on more risk in this investment as you are exposed to a further 80k potentially if for e,g, going forward he does not pay off the mortgage if it is joint and several then they can come for you for the full amount

Allbymyselfagain · 16/10/2015 12:33

He is BU. You had 80k to put in. He didn't so he had to take a loan. Your 50% contribution lost you interest but saved him from a higher interest rate. As long as you spilt all other family costs equally

TBF I'd be worried why after 13 years this is now an issue for him.

HSMMaCM · 16/10/2015 12:34

And I agree you could have protected 50% of the house rather than £80k.

Zampa · 16/10/2015 12:37

If the house was sold tomorrow, OP would get 75% and her DP would get 25%, despite both parties contributing an equal amount.

That is not fair.

By the time the mortgage is paid off, the DP will have contributed in excess of 50% but will still only be entitled to 25%.

That is not fair.

I'm all for protecting your own assets but when a property has been bought and paid for jointly, it should be owned jointly.

If the DP is to pay more than the £80K the OP put in, he should own more of the property.

BYOSnowman · 16/10/2015 12:39

They should both get 50:50. Op effectively bought her half outright and he bought his on a mortgage which was agreed was his responsibility despite her helping out by making it a joint mortgage.

ThatsDissapointing · 16/10/2015 12:39

Yuan U and he is being a bit thick.

GruntledOne · 16/10/2015 12:40

I think that those referring to interest that could have been earnt elsewhere are missing the fact that houses have earnt far more for their owners than any high rate savings account could.

But the point is that OP's DH also benefits from that rise in value (if in fact it has happened, which is far from inevitable). So his expectation is that OP loses all the interest she could have earned elsewhere, and that she pays him half the interest he is paying out - so that in effect she takes 75% of the interest hit to his 25%. It doesn't sound like he's expecting her to take 75% of any profits.

You could look at this on the basis that, because OP put in £80K, it enabled her DH to buy a property on which he will ultimately probably make a profit; if she hadn't, they would probably have had to pay rent given that DH apparently was unable to raise a deposit, and they would both therefore have lost tens of thousands of pounds outright.

CrapBag · 16/10/2015 12:40

I love how everyone is jumping on the fact that he has had to take out a loan and he has had the OPs 80k deposit to buy/get a lower interest. I am guessing (and it is a total assumption) that the OP wouldn't have had the home she has had for the last 13 years had her DP not got the mortgage for the other 80k so she has benefited too.

Presumably what it was worth 13 years ago is insignificant to what it is worth today so you would likely have a healthy profit anyway. I still think YABU to think you can get a huge profit on you original investment but your DP (your actual long term partner whether married or not) has to fork out thousands in interest because he didn't have the luxury of thousands sat in the bank.

I bet if the roles were reversed on here, the answers would be different. They usually are when it comes to men and women.

BYOSnowman · 16/10/2015 12:40

Dp isn't putting more than£80k.

They are both putting an identical amount in so 50:50 is fair

Flutterbutterfly · 16/10/2015 12:41

Just explain to him that you could have made interest on your 80k but haven't and he will see a rise in equity based on your 80k.

Sounds like he leaving you.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 16/10/2015 12:42

He is having a laugh.

I think the only thing that is potentially unfair on him is if (in case of split, house sale whatever) the 80k is taken off before any split in the value of the house.

To be 'fair' you are due half of the value of the house, ignoring the 80k and ignoring whatever mortgage he still has left.

GruntledOne · 16/10/2015 12:42

But, Zampa, the DP didn't pay 75% of the original purchase price. The only reason it is costing him around 75% more than OP is that he borrowed his half. He isn't paying the extra to the vendors or to OP. Why should OP be penalised because her OP had to borrow?

Zampa · 16/10/2015 12:43

And I'm a little aghast at those calling the DP stupid and that the OP should take advantage of her stronger financial position.

What about what's morally correct?

GruntledOne · 16/10/2015 12:43

Sorry, that should have been "because her DP had to borrow".

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 16/10/2015 12:44

For example, if the house is worth 300k, if you took the 80k off and split the difference you would end up with 190k and he would end up with 110k.

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 16/10/2015 12:45

I love how everyone is jumping on the fact that he has had to take out a loan and he has had the OPs 80k deposit to buy/get a lower interest. I am guessing (and it is a total assumption)

Sorry you lost me at assumption. The op clearly shows he couldn't get an £80k loan without the op on the mortgage too.

BYOSnowman · 16/10/2015 12:45

She isn't taking advantage! They are both covering half of the equity each so should get half if they split up

Don't agree she should get 80k and the balance split. They both own half the asset so should get half the proceeds