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

Be nice and throw away good $$ after bad on a tosser who calls you a greedy money grabbing con artist? Put yourself in op's shoes for a moment. Her hard earned 80K was used as a downpayment on a house + she cosigned a mortagage for another 80K as he could not get this on his own- and that makes op jointly liable. The man who had no equity and no mortgagabilty, gets to put his name on this property which was essentially 100% financed by op. He says he wants her to pay 1/2 the mortgage until he hears that will give her 75% equity -then no way - he will pay it as he wants 50% equity. But he has a low paying job so must be using most of his earnings to pay the mortgage. So op must be paying for all the other costs. This does not count for more equity tho, so the man is getting his 50% equity subsidised at op's expense. Gradually this man increases his earning power[with op's help?]. Did he then increase his share in household expenses op, or did you continue to be the main payer of bills ? So now this man is retiring-op is still working- and he has several large sums of money . He does not plan to use them to pay off the mortgage and he attacks op for being in an advantageous position over him regarding equity in the property. This is the same position she has been in from the beginning and she paid for it . How come he never brought this up before , as he obviously deeply resents this and perceives it to be unfair to him ? I guess op is his property and what she earned from the begining shd belong to him ?? He wants her to give up her equity advantage to him and as she is not jumping to it and handing over her money to him as he is accustomed to her doing , he calls her a money grabbing con artist. Meanwhile op has revealed that all is not happy in this partnership. Her partner is going out and leaving her behind and if she asks anything about his activities she gets more abuse. I'm sure bits of this will be ringing many bells for many mners. I know i remember this last bit well. So if you were in op's sit what wd you do? ME? I wd head to the best lawyer in town , lock down all of my finances, call in the troops , son , family , friends and prepare for battle.

Amar, op said household bills were split 5050. And I don't think she does work, her income I composed of a pension plus dla/esa

Once again many many thanks for your input it as opened my eyes. Wider

No wills made. As when I broached the subject many times I said I would leave my 50% of house to son on condition he stayed in house till he either died or wanted to move in an OW. He didn't like this because I wasn't leaving him anything! I honestly now can't remember his plans but he as no children

Is main strop is The INTEREST he is paying back on the 80k he borrowed via building society.

I have mentioned about the interest I have lost if I hadn't put that much down
He said yes, but not as much as I'm going to pay back

Yes my name is on the mortgage, and I know now that I am legally bound to it for by law but he new what he was signing and the terms and conditions but now for some reason/brainstorm he's changed his mind.

He as been told that I should be paying 50% of mortgage as I'm on the mortgage! Should I pay it ?????????

I don't know if he's planning on leaving(who does) but at the age of 58 I'm becoming more suspicious over his sudden change of heart

I wouldn't pay any of the interests atm.
If he is so much into changing the rules, he might change them again (something like I want to separate).

I would go and get some independent legal and financial advice and brace myself for the possibility that you might need to sell the house. (or pay some of the mortgage)

Just out of interest, how much does he actually have every month with his pension etc? Am I right in thinking it's more than what you have? But he wants you to pay for the interests (or half of it) ?

Would he be ameanable to a professional look such as the one a PP did that shows that actually you have put the same amount so far (him in ineterests and you by loss of interest)?
And then maybe take a decision based on that (I think the advice was to repay the big chunck left all in one go with the money he got - that is if he still has it)

I don't know if he's planning on leaving(who does) but at the age of 58 I'm becoming more suspicious over his sudden change of heart Me too.

He's just wrong on all counts, legally and financially. He's being mean and trying to get one over you.

I hope you can see his good points, because it's hard to see them from here!

Remember that he has had the benefit of living in this house for the past 13 years too - he wasnt doing you a favour! Please please keep your dot until the mortgage is repaid fully. If he ends up defaulting and you have to pay it, you will want your dot!

Is main strop is The INTEREST he is paying back on the 80k he borrowed via building society

it's beside the point
you were in a better position than him to start with, sounds like thats what's getting to him...the fact that you started with a financial advantage and because of that you still have a financial advantage, now he's trying to leach it out of you

If you are suspicious do not change anything.

The only disparity in your current arrangement is in relation to the DOT which effectively gave you 75% at first and two thirds with the current value. However, given the mortgage debt is also in your name that seems fair enough as you could currently be left high and dry. If he pays off the mortgage using his capital you could offer to revise the DOT to 5050. Or you could reasonably pay half the mortgage for the remaining term to recognise your higher stake in the property.

What you don't want to do is change the DOT and pay into the mortgage. YOU HAVE BOTH CONTRIBUTED EQUALLY INCLUDING YOU PAYING UPFRONT AND HIM TAKING A LOAN WITH THE INTEREST INCURRED. The net present value of your contribution currently stands at £118k, 38k more than his, all he needs to do is pay his £36k and he is the winner.

He will not have contributed more than you. That is without question. I am a qualified accountant. You will have both have made equal contribution. To restate my previous example, you could both have borrowed a joint mortgage of £80k with you lending him £40k as his half of the deposit at the mortgage interest rate. Instead of him paying half to you and half to mortgage and you passing on to mortgage he has been cutting out the middle man and paying your half of the mortgage instead of repaying you. Dont be fooled, if he keeps paying for the next seven years or overpays tomorrow, your contribution will have been roughly equal, and he should be thanking you for the low interest rate you enabled, not moaning about paying interest at all.

The fact is he now has the capital to contribute to his half. If he doesn't want to pay any more interest he should use that money to wipe out the loan.

Bed
So Evan though I am legally bound to pay high half the mortgage by law(named on mortgage) I shouldn't pay
Correct???

So ladies would this be fair ???

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 ?

I'm so bloody confused and upset by it all. At 58 I should be sitting pretty now instead I'm in a bloody mess. X

You are jointly legally obliged to pay the mortgage. Your arrangement between you is that it is his debt alone, and that he makes the payments. But if he were to default you are jointly liable. And of course they have a charge on the house.

You shouldn't be paying it because your arrangement of 13 years has been that he pays the mortgage and you pay the deposit and that has not changed.

The way I see it there are two options

1. he continues to pay off mortgage ( or overpays in full) and once it is paid off you move to equal shares

Or
2) you start paying half the mortgage repayments from now on, but keep the DOT.
Option 1 means you make equal contributions (albeit different methods) and end up with equal shares. Option 2 means you recognise you get the lions share (as per DOT) by making greater contributions.

What you don't want to do is anything in between, ie dissolving the DOT without him paying off the mortgage. As you would still be liable for the mortgage, in the event of, so need the DOT for protection until that charge is lifted.

It's not fair if he gets less than 50% of the total value of the house, if he has paid for 50% of the house.

What the fuck,

That's fine, thats why if the current arrangement continues until he has paid for 50% of the house we are saying it should be 5050. If, however,he wants the op to start paying off part of his 50% ( the mortgage) then it shouldn't be 5050. At the moment he has paid off 25%, op has paid 50% and they are jointly liable for the remaining 25%, so she could end up having to pay that too if he defaults

In addition to the excellent advice you have already been given OP, I just want to repeat that your deposit of 80k is of course equivalent to his mortgage of 80k. In addition to the interest you have lost if it were sitting in a high interest account, if you had bought a flat or house 13 years ago and rented it out, you would have accumulated far more money than he has spent in mortgage interest, plus your asset would have appreciated.

As for his comments, if its not generally in his nature to be a money-grabbing unfair bastard, then I'd be very concerned about the future of this relationship. However, if you did take over half the mortgage payments from now on, I'd see it as giving you reasonable grounds for claiming more than half the equity in the property. I'd point this out to him.

To be perfectly frank, I know inertia, etc. but his comments would have so offended me I'd feel like walking out on this relationship.

His argument is
up to now with interest back to the building society he as paid £79400
So he only as to pay another £600 to equal my 80k I put as deposit
And we then pay the rest of the mortgage 50/50 until payed off

From his reaction to my answers back to him, I can't see him budging from his believes!

At the moment he's silent, no speaking. He's told me to not speak to him

He should pay the balance off with his money. What a waste to continue paying interest when he could pay the lot off. If he does do this then it should be 50/50 on the sale of the house.

As it stands, do not get rid of your DOT, he seems to be coming at this from a suspicious standpoint and he has been downright rude to you about it. I also don't like what he said about the Wills. I'd go ahead and just make one OP, he doesn't need to know what is in it. Protect your son's inheritence.

Should you pay 50% of the mortgage payments? Actually no. He has the means to pay off the mortgage outright so he should. Why should you pay 50% and he gets to keep his money when your money enabled him to buy this home with you and is all tied up in the house.

Op, you should definitely be encouraging him to pay off the mortgage with his lump sum though. Savings rates are v low. Unless your mortgage is ridiculously good he would be getting a much better return by paying off the mortgage than he would on savings after tax.

At the moment he's silent, no speaking. He's told me to not speak to him

he knows he's in the wrong and he cant make a rational case so instead he's using psychological techniques to punish you and break you down

pretty fucked up isnt it :(

The amount he has contributed towards the house is the portion of his 80K share that he has paid off so far, i.e. 43K. As many posters have said, the interest is irrelevant, it should not be counted as a contribution.

If the house had lost value for some reason, OP would have lost far more than him. Suppose it halved in value before he had made the first mortgage payment, she would then have lost 80K before he lost one penny.

On the other hand, had it gone up by £1000 before he made the first payment, his £500 gains would have been due to gambling on the housing market with her money. (From a risk point of view it was not the banks money he was playing with, any losses were going to be 100% hers, any gains split 50-50 between him and her. The bank was not going to lose or gain money as a result of house-price changes. The risk that earned the reward would have been entirely hers.)

If he paid off the mortgage tomorrow, then he will have paid for half the house, but only be entitled to 34% of it. That's not necessarily unfair. He took far less risk than her.

But, you had a house before, and a mortgage you paid interest on, that led you to sell a house and gain 80k to put into this house?

You just paid your mortgage and your interest prior to buying with him!

Your large 50% depsoit has allowed him to SAVE money as the mortgage needed was smaller.

Would the situation really been any better for him if you put 80k in savings and gained interest on this, and you both had a large mortgage to pay off together?

he wants what he see's as being rightfully his, ie the lions share

So Evan though I am legally bound to pay high half the mortgage by law(named on mortgage) I shouldn't pay
Correct??? Yes

So ladies would this be fair ??? Yes

because:
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.

So according to the deal HE made - legally he used your name to get a mortgage but morally HE wanted to pay the whole of that mortgage (which includes the interest) so he could own 50% of the house. That has been the case all along. He has known that all along. He hasn't paid off the entire mortgage yet. When HE finishes paying the building society back the entire loan/mortgage THEN he will own 50% of the house.

He could just easily use his lump sums to pay off the rest of the mortgage. But he doesn't want to do that. Instead he wants to go back on that deal. He wants to suddenly switch back to legal terms instead of the moral terms. To me that would be a warning signal that he's only looking after his own interests and not to trust anything he says.

If you decide to start paying half towards the mortgage/loan (incl interest payments) then legally you still own 75% of the house. He loses the right to morally claim more than 25% (on the basis that he's been paying the mortgage) because HE has chosen to renege on the original deal and go back to legal terms. So he's back to square one.

I think he's making plans to leave you and is trying to manipulate you so he can squeeze as much from you as he can before he goes. I'd start thinking about whether there is any future with him and get independent legal advice, make my will - and do NOT give up the DOT!

imagine if you lived separately and had bought an £80k property each, you bought yours outright, he got a 100% mortgage

would he be asking you to pay his mortgage?