Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Really need some impartial advice on money row with sister!

357 replies

Cornberry · 27/10/2018 08:19

I am in desperate need of an impartial opinion on a sensitive issue.

My parents gave my sister and I a substantial deposit to buy a flat a few years ago. Since that time I have lived in the flat and my sister has lived elsewhere in rented accommodation and now she lives abroad - she had the option to live in the flat too but chose not to. In that time I have taken care of the flat and obviously I (and later on my husband) have paid all the bills and the mortgage etc. We agreed at the outset that my sister and I should split the proceeds 50-50 when it came time to sell.

Now that is time to sell and looking at the figures I realise that our mortgage has come down £30,000 which obviously I have paid since I have been living here. And when we split the money left over after repaying it my sister will get half which seems fair enough because that is what we agreed. However I realise that to bring down our mortgage by £30,000 I have paid in over 50,000 because of the interest. So now it occurs to me that if we split everything 50-50 my sister will get back 15 K, which is half of the money repaid on the mortgage but I will also get in 15 K having paid in 50. This strikes me as unfair. She hasn’t paid anything at all into the flat, which was the agreement and that’s fine, but it seems to me that she should receive a proportion of the increase in value on the property but I am unsure why after I have paid over 50 K into the mortgage to bring it down 30k that she should get 15,000 of it having paid nothing and I should get in 15,000 of it having paid in 50,000. Does that make sense?

Interestingly, my parents do not agree. One of them thinks my sister should get half as agreed and the other one thinks that the point about the interest is a relevant one. I would dearly like to have some opinions from people who are unbiased because I honestly don’t think it’s possible for any of us to be completely impartial on this. I suggested to my sister that she should indeed receive her half of the increase in value but not the repayments, bearing in mind she has never put a cent, and if we split it with her we will she will get more out of the money we paid in than we will.

One issue seems to be one of “changing the goalposts” and my sister has accused me of going back on our agreement to get more money. But the problem is that I was very clueless going into this and I am certain that we had known the considerations at the outset we would have made a different agreement.

Am I being unreasonable?

OP posts:
burnoutbabe · 27/10/2018 08:23

Shouldn't you also factor in rental income she didn't get as you were living there? She had to pay rent elsewhere didn't she? So equivalent to the mortgage.

Ginmakesitallok · 27/10/2018 08:23

If you had invested additional money to add value to the flat then I would probably agree that you should get a bigger share of the equity. But you would have been paying rent somewhere else which may have been more than mortgage? You knew the agreement, you need to stick to it.

StrawberrySquash · 27/10/2018 08:24

YANBU. Your sister should get half the increase in the value of the flat. Imagine you had paid off the whole of the mortgage. You wouldn't say your sister should get half the value of the whole flat, would you?

sickmumma · 27/10/2018 08:24

I guess your parents brought it to profit both of you, I would argue your sister has been paying to rent somewhere with no financial gain where as you have with your payments. It's very tricky though and I can see why you feel it's unfair.

Coolaschmoola · 27/10/2018 08:26

I would give her half of the 'profit' plus half of the deposit.

So if you bought for £150,000, with a £50,000 deposit and you're selling for £200,000 she gets £50,000. £25k from her half of the deposit, and £25k from her half of the profit.

The rest goes to the bank for the mortgage, and you because you put additional money of your own in when paying the mortgage - so that isn't part of the 'proceeds'.

BunsOfAnarchy · 27/10/2018 08:26

No you are not being unreasonable.
You simply say, from the sale of the house you will each take out what you put in personally, then the rest is split 50/50.

Frogscotch7 · 27/10/2018 08:28

YABU but I do understand why you’re pissed off. However you had an agreement to split the money 50-50 so that’s what you have to do. Next time you agree to something think it through!

Snowfish · 27/10/2018 08:29

I agree with Coolaschmoola above

MrsStrowman · 27/10/2018 08:29

YABU she's had to pay rent the whole time because you and your husband lived in the shared flat, if neither of you lived there and you rented it out (which would've been the fairest thing to do), you wouldn't have benefited from paying less as mortgages are invariably cheaper than rent, so you have already benefitted from it more than her over the years. Also if you'd had a tenant the same amount would've been paid off the mortgage.

Thewheelsarefallingoff · 27/10/2018 08:29

Did you pay your sister rent for her half of the property? If not I think you should split 50/50.

FireworksAndSparklers · 27/10/2018 08:30

She's been paying rent while you've paying mortgage and yet, because you were living in the owned property, you're the only one who gets money back on the money spent over the years? I think you should stick to the original agreement. The only way she could have had an opportunity to pay into the mortgage would have been to live with you (presumably not an option for whatever reason?) or pay rent where she was living plus half the mortgage on the flat you co-own, which would have meant she'd spent more money over the years than you.

Didiusfalco · 27/10/2018 08:31

This is tricky, but you could have been renting it out, paying off the mortgage that way, in which case she would have had more equity. So in actual fact you are asking her to lose out because you have lived there rather than a lodger - do you not see that?

PawsomePugFancier · 27/10/2018 08:33

I'd figure out roughly how much living there has advantaged you in terms of not paying rent.

Has she been able to rent out her room in the flat, while she was away? If not, were you paying her rent on her share?

If you'd lived elsewhere and the flat rented out - how much worse off would you have been, how much better off would she have been?

Unless you've been paying her rent, YABU.

TwistinMyMelon · 27/10/2018 08:33

Just imagine in your head that she did pay half of the mortgage repayments, but then you reimbursed her half as rent to her as you were living there and she isn't. Then in that way she has "paid in" so deserves half the money

jay55 · 27/10/2018 08:33

Yabu, your sisters share of the mortgage was covered by the rent you owed her for using her share of the flat.
If you overpaid on the mortgage then sure take that part out separately.

SarahMused · 27/10/2018 08:34

So your parents didn’t give you the money to buy the flat outright, just enough to pay the deposit? The rest you borrowed as a mortgage and you and your husband have been paying this mortgage, all bills and maintenance. Whose name is the mortgage in? If it is yours she should only be entitled to any increase in proportion to her share of the deposit. If her name is on the mortgage you have a more difficult argument to make.

FollowYourOwnNorthStar · 27/10/2018 08:34

Yes, YRBU.

Presumably if you can move the goal posts like this, your sister would also be very fairly entitled to say that as a tenant in the flat you should pay market rent for the time you were there, of which she would be entitled to half (you being entitled to the other half). But she isn’t saying this.

I think you need to honour your original agreement and learn the lesson to be more money savvy in future.

Yellowcar2 · 27/10/2018 08:34

No she hasn't been paying towards the mortgage but she has been paying for rent - probably equal to or maybe even more than you have put in.
I think you need to stick to the agreement.
Your parents gift has put you and now your husband on the property ladder, maybe sister was waiting for the money from the sale to help her buy somewhere.

SEsofty · 27/10/2018 08:37

Did you pay her rent equivalent to her half share eg what she would have got if the flat was rented out to strangers?

If so then your approach is far

If not then 50/50 to compensate for the loss of rental income

NoSquirrels · 27/10/2018 08:38

The extra interest you have paid in the mortgage will almost certainly be equivalent or less to the rent your sister has paid over the years. As others have said you living there has prevented rental income being made. You should both add up totals costs and total paid out and see what the fair split is.

You have benefitted more in intangible ways however - stability, security, ability to move your boyfriend in etc. Don’t take that fur granted. Whichever way you slice it you’re very privileged and family goodwill is important.

Mummyundecided · 27/10/2018 08:40

The point about mortgage/rent is a good one - i think when you lived there, half of the rent/mortgage money you paid was to cover your sister’s share too. Otherwise, it would have been unfair on her when the property could have been let to cover the whole amount.
I think the law will agree too as the only agreement here was to split the proceeds 50-50. If you wanted anything different, you should have agreed this before you lived there. You were essentially paying yourself and your sister rent to cover the mortgage.

Joinourclub · 27/10/2018 08:44

The mortgage you’ve been paying isn’t all yours though, you’ve been paying half your mortgage and half paying half her mortgage instead of paying her rent for her half of the flat all these years.

Bluntness100 · 27/10/2018 08:46

How much has your sister paid in rent during this period? Look at the mortgage like that.

I think it's very unfair of you to have the benefit of living there, and then decide you wish the profit too.

She also paid to live somewhere and she has had no benefit.

Thr profit needs to be split evenly. Stop being greedy.

Thisreallyisafarce · 27/10/2018 08:46

I see your point, but it is the original agreement that is at fault here, and you agreed to it.

SarahMused · 27/10/2018 08:50

I think some of you are saying that the OP should have paid rent for the property or half of it as well as funding the whole mortgage. If the sister had been paying half the mortgage, paying her rent for her half would be fair. But she hasn’t been. The OP has had all the costs of the mortgage, bills and maintenance while the sister will get half the benefits. I think you should exclude the £30,000 of the mortgage that you have paid off from your calculations and write off the £20,000 interest as your contribution to living in the house. Split the rest 50/50.