Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Tfoot75 · 16/10/2015 16:19

I'm with him im afraid - if you never had any intention of contributing to the mortgage but are entitled to half of the share of it then the wording of the deed of trust is rather devious. The only fair way to split is simply 50/50, but only after repayment of the mortgage, which comes solely from his 50% as you originally contributed 50% of the value each, yours in cash and his via mortgage.

He is wrong that he should only pay back £80k though, money has a time value and £80k today is worth roughly £62k 13 years ago at 2% inflation. Or put the other way your contribution is worth more like £104k at the same rate. Either way it can't possibly match until the whole balance is repaid.

I think you should really change the deed to own the property 50/50, but the mortgage solely in his name.

NameChange30 · 16/10/2015 16:20

The sensible thing would be for him to pay off the mortgage with all the lump sums he got, and for them to redo the deed of trust to make it 50/50. Something tells me he might still kick off about that, though.

MrsTerryPratchett · 16/10/2015 16:22

The sensible thing would be for him to pay off the mortgage with all the lump sums he got, and for them to redo the deed of trust to make it 50/50. That does seem the sensible thing to do. Has it been suggested, OPÉ

MrsTerryPratchett · 16/10/2015 16:23

Gah, random French again. Thanks to whichever wonderful MNer told me how to fix it!

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 16/10/2015 16:23

Well if he does kick off enough about it and they split and sell, then he really is screwed....

amicissimma · 16/10/2015 16:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NameChange30 · 16/10/2015 16:29

"he does kick off enough about it and they split and sell, then he really is screwed...."

Ha, good point! It's in his interest to be agreeable!

kickassangel · 16/10/2015 16:36

I'm not quite sure if I/others are reading the situation correctly. If they split, OP gets her 80k back, the mortgage is paid off, THEN the rest is split 50/50.

So - he goes from having no lump sum, to having made a profit on the money he has paid in. Exactly how much varies with the current cost of the house. It leaves him significantly better off than if he'd paid rent, and he had no other way of getting a property as he had no deposit and not enough income to get a mortgage. The OP effectively took on all the risk, and paid in her life's savings. Now that he's got some money, he isn't trying to pay off the mortgage and set up a pension that provides for him, he's moaning that OP is ripping him off.

Everyone has to live somewhere. His choices were renting or benefitting from the OP's better financial position. Now he's upset that she is doing better out of the house for which she took on considerably more risk than he did.

The simplest solution does seem to be that he pays off the mortgage with his money, then they redo the Deed of Trust. Calling the OP names is not a logical financial solution.

PetraDelphiki · 16/10/2015 16:36

You need to simplify the situation!

House prices have risen so we can probably ignore the case where it sells for less than you paid between you. This is why your lawyer wanted it protected so that he would take any loss on the house. So if it had sold for say £100K then you would still have got your £80 and he would have defaulted on 60K of mortgage. Which given your name was on the mortgage would actually still have been your problem...but this is all hypothetical I suspect.

So, think of it this way:

  1. You bought half with £80K that you got from somewhere (your savings).

  2. He bought half with £80K he got from somewhere (a loan). He has to pay interest on this loan. Because it's a mortgage instead of just paying interest he's also paying off some of the balance - but actually if you think about an interest only mortgage it's clearer. I think you shouldn't have agreed to be on the mortgage because that does complicate the issue, but what's done is done.

  3. You each own 50% (I do hope you are tenants in common with this specified)

When the house is sold you each get 50% of the selling price. He then has to pay back whatever remains on his loan and keeps the rest. SO if it sells for £200, you get £100 of which £20 is profit, as does he...you may end up with £100 in the bank but that's what you would have had if you'd left your savings there and not put in the deposit. He ends up with £100-whatever is left on the mortgage.

Is that what you want to happen?

BYOSnowman · 16/10/2015 16:39

I think you need to get him to take sole legal responsibility for his mortgage and then withdraw the deed of trust. That makes you 50/50 owners which reflects the equity you have put in.

Original poster
Haribogirl · 16/10/2015 16:43

This as got so complicated now I don't know if I'm coming or going!

I have told him it's irrelevant if we're staying together!

Since his payouts he's become very money oriented.

I want to do it fairly, but this as made me think. What if say 5 years down the line I'm then 63 he decides I want out and I've got rid off the deed of trust. I won't have enough to buy another property and also ill health prevents working.

When we were in solicitors office and DOT was being read out and for us to read, he pointed out the mortgages payments and I said that means I've paid my half and if I pay half mortgage I then own 75/25 and he said no
I will pay.

This needs to be sorted, but now he won't discuss it because he's to angry and not going to let this stress him(never mind me)

I can see his side about the interest
But
I can see my side too

OMG HELP

OP posts:
Original poster
Haribogirl · 16/10/2015 16:45

Oh

House was bought for 160k
Now worth 250k

OP posts:
NameChange30 · 16/10/2015 16:46

"Since his payouts he's become very money oriented."
I'm not surprised, some people can suddenly become selfish about money when they have their own!

He does sound nasty. As I said before you need both legal and relationship advice. Solicitors and Relate!

BYOSnowman · 16/10/2015 16:46

You both put half the equity in so you both own half the house

If he wants you to pay mortgage with him then you get more of the equity.

It is not in his interests for you to help pay his debt.

You need to separate the mortgage from the asset in all of this.

You jointly bought an asset and contributed half half

He has a loan which he needs to service

NameChange30 · 16/10/2015 16:47

What about wills OP? What's in yours and what's in his?

MultiShirking · 16/10/2015 16:51

Sorry, but I've never read anything so legally and financially ridiculous as the reasoning of your DP and some posters here.

As you're not married, there's no legal concept of marital property. Legally, you each have what you each put in, in proportion. So it's 50/50 of whatever the house his sold for, if and when it's sold.

You each contributed 50% of the purchase price if the property. How you each raised the funds is immaterial in this case.

If I were you, I'd go back and check this with my solicitor just to shut up your DP. From the info you've given in your OP, your DP is talking bollocks, legally speaking.

EllyHigginbottom · 16/10/2015 16:52

The time-value of your contributions is precisely equal.

I hope you find a way to discuss this sensibly, sounds stressful.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 16/10/2015 16:55

OP, assuming he pays off the rest of the mortgage would you get 80k plus half of what's left? i.e. you get 165k and he gets 85k. Can you see that he would think that isn't fair?

Yes, if you get rid of the DoT and split you will be worse off, but that doesn't mean it's not fair!

bedraggledmumoftwo · 16/10/2015 16:55

Just reread your details of your current income.

So if I have got this straight, when you met him you had £80k which went into house and he had nothing, then he proceeded to pay his half of house using earnings and you both contributed equally to other living costs.

Now he has received £80k himself in two lump sums, but he is sitting on that all himself less £8k that he paid towards his mortgage debt.

Now he has around £500 a month higher income than you, which is currently being spent on the mortgage. Which leaves you with the same amount of spending money, which is the mumsnet ideal!

So he has 70k in savings from his lump sums, he now wants you to contribute some of your lower income so that he has more spending money, and you have less, while giving up your protected deposit? I think if anyone is a money-grabbing devious conman it is him. you started off with £80k more than him, he wants you to give this up at his expense, while he sits on his own equivalent savings!

NameChange30 · 16/10/2015 16:56

Your DP's attitude is very worrying (based on his anger and accusations) so I wondered if you had other relationship problems. I found your other thread here. Based on both threads I think he wants to end the relationship and is therefore trying to claw back as much money as he can. I also wouldn't discount the possibility that he could be having an affair, since he is going out a lot without you. He's recently retired and come into money - mid-life crisis maybe? Wants to attract a younger partner with his new-found wealth?

Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear. But there are alarm bells you shouldn't ignore.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 16/10/2015 16:59

MultiShirking, are you sure that's the case even with the deed of trust? Given that the OP's name is on the mortgage (even though she wasn't paying) he would have to prove that he made the payments alone. If they split up it could get very complicated and expensive to sort out.

LittleLionMansMummy · 16/10/2015 17:09

This and your other thread speak volumes op. Please protect yourself financially by getting some advice in RL - this is a man who could well be on the cusp of separating with you.

Zampa · 16/10/2015 17:11

Multi As per OP's post at 1643 any sale would see the property split 75/25 in her favour.

NameChange30 · 16/10/2015 17:12

To recap on the financial situation:

The house cost £160k
You paid £80k
He's paid £43k (in mortgage payments)
You still owe £37k of the joint mortgage

So, the way things currently stand, you have contributed more towards the house. If we want to be exact, the proportion is 65:35 (you've paid 65% and he's paid 35%).

So, let's say hypothetically that you sell the house today and get £250k. You'd pay off the remaining mortgage of £37k and have£213k left to split between you. The fairest way would be to split 65:35 (based on your contributions to date). This means you would get £138,450 and he would get £74,550. This is completely fair IMO, but he won't like it of course because he's the grabby one.

With the deed of trust it wouldn't work out that way. You would get £146,500 and he would get £66,500. It's not a huge difference to the fair breakdown I worked out above, but it's still a difference.

To be honest though, he sounds like an arsehole who wants to leave you, so I would leave things exactly as they are. LTB, sell the house and keep your money. As it is, he now has plenty of assets and a large pension, so he's likely to be better of than you anyway.

Zampa · 16/10/2015 17:13

Actually my last post is nonsense - sorry. That was if she went halves on the mortgage.

Swipe left for the next trending thread