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:
Flutterbutterfly · 16/10/2015 12:46

Fwiw my Dh had a big chunk of money from inheritance the solicitor wanted him to have a deed of trust. I said no. It felt unfair that he could extract a big lump sum from our house and in the event of the housing market falling I could end up loosing my chunky deposit. ( we both put the same in initially, plus he had the extra)

I told him to do something else with his money. He didn't, he put it in the house without a deed of trust. Marriage is a partnership.

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 16/10/2015 12:46

Bugger I missed the quotes.

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: "( with both names on it, as he would of been able to get this much on his own)". He must have been earning very little or had appalling credit or loads of debt not to even be able to borrow £80k on a property with a 50% LTV.

peggyundercrackers · 16/10/2015 12:47

BYOSnowman I think you need an anger management course.

I think YABU because you have tied up your 80k but you also seem to want 25% of the part he is paying for. also if you are on the mortgage you are legally responsible for repayment of it if he defaults. whats would you do if he stopped paying the mortgage?

GruntledOne · 16/10/2015 12:47

Zampa, they bought a house for £160,000 of which OP contributed half. Her DP also contributed half by virtue of taking out a mortgage. How do you contend that the value of DP's contribution to the purchase of the house has suddenly gone up by purely because of his borrowing arrangements? The original house price hasn't gone up, nor has the amount he paid to the vendor.

TheHouseOnTheLane · 16/10/2015 12:47

Unless you're splitting up I fail to see this as an issue

Everything is shared equally in a couple. So yes, you should pay half the mortgage.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 16/10/2015 12:47

80k 13 years ago was worth far more than 80k is worth now.

It's not how I would do it. I (well, my parents) have put in more to my house than my wife, but everything is equal. I don't see how it could be otherwise when you factor in having children and so on.

But if there aren't children, it's a relationship after an earlier divorce etc I can totally see why you would want to protect your bit.

bedraggledmumoftwo · 16/10/2015 12:48

Really surprised by the people that think he is right! Of course not. He will have paid off his 80k when the bank says so, and yes that may be double but that is what happens when you take a mortgage. Very strange that he didn't realise that.

However, do you actually own 50.50? If your deposit was protected it could be that you own 75% eg your protected deposit and half the mortgaged half.

As others have said the equivalent to his interest payments is the amount that you would have received on your 80 invested. So you are both paying extra, you are contributing capital plus lost interest over the period. And he is contributing debt capital plus interest payments. He should also think about how much interest you have saved him with your 50% deposit. Rate willl have been much much lower than if he had to take the 80k as 100% mortgage if he were even able to!

The other way to calculate it could have been for you to lend him half the deposit. Eg you both owe the bank 40 plus he owes you 40. And interest would obviously be payable on both loans. So each month instead of paying half to the bank and half to you, he pays off your half of the mortgage too. But both have interest attached for whatever the life of the mortgage teem was so he cant expect to suddenly stop once he has paid the capital and no interest over 13 years.

Rofl at the prospect of walking into the bank and saying I calculate I have now paid off the purchase price so I want to stop paying the mortgage. The bank, and you, should laugh in his face.

The original paperwork for the mortgage will have said how much it would cost to repay the loan. Either he is really thick or pulling a fast one.

Zampa · 16/10/2015 12:49

Gruntled I'm referring to how the house would be split if it were to be sold.

The OP's deposit is protected and equates to 50% of the value. She therefore automatically gets 50% of the home's value . The remaining 50% is then split between the OP and her DP. Therefore the 75/25 split. How is that fair when he had paid half?

BYOSnowman · 16/10/2015 12:50

Probably!

It's not clear to me from op what she expects to get out in a sale though and I'm not sure where the 75% comes from.

If op expects more than 50% she ibu

If dp wants her to start paying on the mortgage and still only get 50% hibu

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 16/10/2015 12:50

I do agree that he should get 50% of the sale proceeds. He put in 50% he should get out 50%.

The fact his £80k will cost him more in interest is not the op's problem but I don't see why he should get less than half of any sale. That's not fair.

pinkdelight · 16/10/2015 12:50

I'm not understanding the "she's lost interest on the £80k she could have invested elsewhere" argument. Unless she's in an area where prices haven't gone up, she'll have gained plenty of interest on it by investing it in the property. I agree with Zampa. And also don't see why you're both my money/your money about your family home. Fair enough, you had a big deposit. That's very lucky and most people aren't so fortunate, so it's not "his loan, his problem". He's your DP! You bought a home together and you've lived in it for 13 years without needing to pay towards the mortgage. Now that his contribution matches yours, I can't see why you wouldn't work together to pay off what's left owing on the house. It's a really odd attitude. Couples pay different amounts throughout their relationships according to what they can afford because of work, savings, kids, all kinds of things. Unless you don't like him very much, I don't know why you're opposed.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 16/10/2015 12:52

Zampa, or to take it to an extreme, the house has lost half its value but she walks away with the 80k and he is left with a mortgage but no property....

I really can't believe that is the terms of it. But it would be good if the OP explained how the 80k is protected.

HawthornLantern · 16/10/2015 12:52

There is a time value to money. 80k was worth more in real terms 13 years ago than 80k paid in dribs and drabs over a 13 year period. Any accountant can quickly run the net present value calculation for you to compare the real time value of the OP's contribution and her DP's.

The OP's 80k was more valuable than 80k paid now. That's part of the reason why interest is charged on loans - you get the capital straight away but you pay interest for that convenience.

Previous Posters are right in the sense that not everyone has large lumps of capital lying around and most of us need mortgage loans but I don't agree that it is equitable for the OP to provide half the purchase price through a big and valuable lump sum and also compensate her DP for the running costs of finding his half of the purchase price.

And the OP's DP really should have noticed that no-one was ever going to give him his half of the original purchase price for free. A bit dim not to have spotted that one before.

bedraggledmumoftwo · 16/10/2015 12:53

If you were to start paying the mortgage now you would need to recalculate the equity as you would be paying more than 50%

descalina · 16/10/2015 12:55

You should not pay towards the mortgage, it's not your fault he didn't have 80k upfront like you did. But once he has paid off the mortgage your 80k should not be protected, you should have equal stakes in the property. Why should your money be protected from drops in house value but not his?

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 16/10/2015 12:56

The OP's 80k was more valuable than 80k paid now

True. But it wasn't worth any more than the £80k the op's dp paid. The £80k he raised with a mortgage that he has been paying in full.

If the op had put in her £80k and then paid half the mortgage too then yes, the way the ownership was done by the solicitor would make sense. But as she hasn't I think her dp has a valid point about that but only if he keeps paying 100% of the mortgage repayment.

What is not fair is to leave the status quo.

EdnaCrumplehorn · 16/10/2015 12:56

You are 50:50, you were at the start and it hasn't changed. His mortgage interest is his cost of financing the capital he didn't have.

Flutterbutterfly · 16/10/2015 12:57

If OP had bought an 80 k house herself all those years ago it might have doubled in value....that what she lost

However it feels fair she gets her 80k, he gets 80k the remainder is split. If they terminate before the mortgage ends he gets his 80k but has to pay off his own mortgage.

NicoleWatterson · 16/10/2015 12:58

I think its very clear cut, you both put in 50%. But his was mortgaged, so in the event of a split you get 50% each, but he has to clear the mortgage with his.
Yes to the comments that you paying the mortgage would mean you have a higher stake.

I think its strange he brings it up now - either he's struggling (hidden debt) or he's planning to split???

LittleLionMansMummy · 16/10/2015 12:58

I too think you should be suspicious of your dp's motives op. Dh and I have been together 13 years and if he suddenly started doing loads of calculations about how much we'd both put in over the years on the basis of inequality it would set my long term commitment bells ringing. Just out of interest, why are you not married? Is it just your personal choice/ a joint decision or have you broached the subject and been knocked back? Don't get me wrong, I know that marriage isn't for everyone but your relationship doesn't sound very trusting, equal or mutually generous.

DrDreReturns · 16/10/2015 12:58

It does seem unfair that, if you split, he'd get 25% of the value and you'd get 75%, despite the fact you've both paid 80k towards the house.
I don't think he can moan about paying the mortgage for his share though. He must have known at the time it would cost more than 80k, that's how loans work. You have both stumped up 80k for the house, so it should be split 50/50. The fact he has had to pay a mortgage (which is in both your names) out to do it is irrelevant.

TheHouseOnTheLane · 16/10/2015 13:00

Why isn't it all seen as shared? Confused

All this "He pays" and "she pays"....they're a couple!

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 16/10/2015 13:01

So to summarise:

It looks like when the mortgage was taken out the conveyancing was done based on the assumption that both parties were liable and would be paying the mortgage. Therefore the £80k lump sum deposit was ring-fenced to protect the op's interest.

However, what then happened was the op did not pay any of the mortgage which has then made the split of equity unfair to the dp.

This could probably be remedied one of two ways:

  1. The dp keeps paying 100% of mortgage and they change the ownership to a joint tenancy with an equal 50/50 split.
  1. The op pays back the dp 50% of the mortgage payments made so far and then pays half the mortgage every month until it is finished.

Personally I'd plump for option 1 in OP's shoes. Assuming she wants to do what's fairest.

unlucky83 · 16/10/2015 13:02

Our solicitor insisted that we had separate legal advice.
In our case DP paid the deposit (25%) and the mortgage was solely in my name (he was starting a business, I was pregnant - it was a way of protecting the house if he went bankrupt etc). He paid half the mortgage every month. When we were in a position to pay off the mortgage a few years later the solicitor also suggested separate legal advice. The whole thing was done as percentages rather than amounts and it would be fair if I 'gave' him a 30% of the house (which had almost doubled in value) in the end I had a brain melt down and gave him 40% -but then to get that back got him to pay for a couple of major home improvements (new kitchen etc) which increased the house value...
You could argue that he is having the same benefit of living her without investing as much...and therefore has more money in the bank earning interest but as I am currently a SAHM he pays the bills anyway...it all seems academic 20yr down the line...
We have bought a house we are renovating ...he owns a higher percentage of that so when we live there either we will rent or sell this one... if we rent I'll get 60% of the rent and I will get the advantage of living in a house having less invested and getting the same benefits - if that makes sense...

FragileBrittleStar · 16/10/2015 13:04

Zampa- the op hasn't said anything about how the sales proceeds would be split- that's an assumption

Pinkdelight - if both of them had borrowed 80 k each on a mortgage- they would have made appreciation less cost of borrowing, if OP had chosen to borrow and kept her 8ok invested elsewhere she would have made appreciation less cost of borrowing plus investment income - by choosing to use her deposit and not borrow she has simply made the appreciation. You are saying she should get appreciation less cost of borrowing- hence being "short" the investment income - this is a clear change and leaves her worse off than they agreed.
watching people go through divorces makes me think your money/my money is at least a safe way of looking at things- if you stay together it doesn't matter - if you don't you can at least protect yourself

Swipe left for the next trending thread