I know I'm not but just want it confirming :) regarding ex and mortgage

[girlfromthemoon]

So me and an ex bought a house about 14 years ago, we broke up after approx a year and he moved out and I took on the mortgage for a few years, then I moved out and he moved in and took over the mortgage (there was negative equity in the house and neither of us could get a new mortgage in our own name)

He has lived there and been paying the mortgage longer than me overall by a few years.

I contacted him recently and said it was about time we sorted it out, he is married now and I am wanting to look at a Morgage alone in the next year or so.

As far as I'm concerned I am more than happy for any equity to be shared fairly ie 70% him 30% me to reflect his longer time there

But he's being a bit of a dick about it, he hasn't said this but I can tell he thinks I'm being cheeky asking for any equity as he has lived there for a while now

He wants to sell it too so it's not like I'm forcing him to do something he doesn't want to do

I'm not bu to feel entitled to some equity am I?! I just want it to be fair for us both

Also, he can't do anything without my agreement can he? And what would the law say regarding this if we've both paid in different amounts?

He's a fairly decent guy but money always did turn him into a bit of a knob so I'm concerned he's going to make it difficult or try and screw me over somehow

It's a joint mortgage

We didn't put a deposit down

I didn't need him to move in when he did, it was a mutual decision but I could have easily stayed there so he didn't save it from being sold or anything

He has expressed that he would like to sell it so neither of us have an interest in keeping it

I lived there around 4 years alone, him probably a bit less than double that

He hasn't actually said he doesn't think I should get anything, but I just have a feeling from the way he's spoken etc that he doesn't think I should be involved at all, which is ridiculous really seen as at the very least I will have to agree to the sale!

50/50. You were paying to live elsewhere while he lved in your half of the house. Your money was tied up and you were still carrying the risk and responsibility.

I did similar with my DP - and when I sold we spilt in equal portions.

Agreed, 5050

Yes 50/50 as you were paying rent out elsewhere. In theory you should have added the mortgage and your rent together and split the amount so work from that argument.

If the equity is as low as that if you litigate it will get swallowed up by both your legal costs.

You are only talking about 4 years difference in your time in residence. Mortgages are normally 25 years property ownership is long term.

You would give away half your house for nothing. If you were renting it out I imagine you would be charging significant rent. It is an asset OP. Of which you own half.

I think if it was in negative equity when you left, you should walk away.

50/50

This is a Land Tribunal case as you were not married.
Horrifically expensive to force the court to make an order for sale. The Court would look at contributions to the payment of capital etc

He wont be able to sell unless you agree or he forces a sale - Land Trusts Acts ( horrifically expensive )

Best - encourage him to seek legal advice, realise agreement is so much easier and agree a share.

Whilst you wasnt living there, your credit was still at risk, you couldnt get another mortgage easily and certainly couldnt get any help to buy. He also technically owes you rent due to the above.

As I said stand ground, try and agree for everyones sake ( save for the lawyers who would get £20k each on a fully contested case )

50/50 op
Don’t do yourself out of money

Yanbu he should have sorted out long ago, amazed someone married him when still has a joint mortgage!

50/50 ownership but work out how much each paid in mortgage costs and repay those before any equity split.

But it was in negative equity and so you would have had to pay when he took it over, so personally I would just sign it over to him. Too much hassle and legal fees. You risk him stopping paying the mortgage and that will impact on your ability to buy.

@Justapatchofgrass it was in negative equity when it was both their joint asset but now it is no longer in negative equity only one person who profit from that joint asset? A property is a home first, once you decide to sell it, it becomes an investment. Two people invested in it therefore two people should receive a return on it. Equity is after all simply luck as to what the housing market looks like, he just wound up living there at a lucky time.

Terrible advise from those saying walk away. Why would you throw money away. You didn't sell in negative equity and when you moved out is completely irrelevant. You are jointly liable for the mortgage even when not there, I.e. if he didn't pay it you would be just as responsible regardless of your verbal agreement.

It's 50 50, so split it as 50 50.

Out of interest how did you not have to pay a deposit?

50/50 absolutely!! If it was in negative equity now, would he take the hit or would he expect you to pay half? If you sold?

As PPs have said it's in lieu of paying rent.

Why wouldn't you take 50/50? You own half of it! Be very interested to see what a property solicitor says.

The question that a few people have asked is the central one - do you own the house as joint tenants or tenants in common?
This isn't about your mortgage (which you have said is joint) it's a different question as it's about your ownership and what it says on the land registry.
If you weren't married at the time, your solicitors would have asked you when buying the house.
If you said joint tenants, you own it equally and together as one unit and each of you would inherit from the other if the other died, regardless of what your wills say.
If tenants in common, you should have set the proportions at the time of purchase. You can leave your share to others and You are seen to own a proportion of it separately.
Check your purchase documents and the land title and see what it says. It's the most important point to start from, not people on Mumsnet proposing what they think is a fair split. (No offence to those trying to help, just speaking from a legal perspective).

I have been thinking more about this.

No deposit- so northern rock together or similar?

Sounds like you had been paying interest only. Was it for a fixed term?

Have you see the mortgage statements recently?
What is the repayment vehicle? Endowment? Are you still paying this?

Have you checked that it is still in your name? A 100% interest only mortgage will have fallen under lender rules and he will have been contacted to make provision, or even had the mortgage withdrawn/settlement requested/transfer to another lender arranged (NRAM did this for example)

So, you bought the house together. Am I correct in assuming the title to it is in both your names? If that is the case, and nothing has changed legally since, you are legally entitled to 50% unless stipulated otherwise in a contract.

If it were me I would morally not expect any money from him as it sounds as if all the equity has been earned in recent times.

You own the house 50-50. So take your 50%.

Take what is yours. Don’t give him an extra 20% if you don’t have to. You allowed him to go and live in the house and put yourself in the disadvantaged position of renting instead. He otoh rented half the property from you by paying the rent in the same way as you had done the preceding 4 years.

As for the suggestion upthread of only taking back what you paid off the equity during the time you lived in the property, this would disadvantage you too. Capital repayment mortgage payments are primarily interest during the first few years of the loan and over the lifetime, the amount of equity repaid each month steadily increases. Ergo you paid off almost nothing in the first 4 years. This allowed him to pay off more in the following 4 years and so on.

He’s a cheeky fucker trying to rewrite history.

Sorry last sentence first paragraph should say “He otoh rented half the property from you by paying the mortgage..”

I know you said you can’t afford legal advice but you need to find the money from somewhere to get it.

For all you know your ex may have been overpaying the mortgage, why should you be entitled to a portion of that? Had you sold eight years ago you would have had to take a hit on the equity which would have put you in a worse situation than zero now.

Where have you lived for the past eight years? Not having to pay the other mortgage may have meant you could purchase another house at the low 2011 prices and benefitted from the equity increase there (either alone or with a partner). Your ex would have not had this opportunity as they had the mortgage to pay.

Any legal fees will eat up the potential £5/6k you might get. If the house isn’t sold and you want to buy another property now you would also have 3% extra stamp duty (you already own a home).

Just walk away and be pleased to draw a line

In it was in negative equity now I’m sure he would be saying it was still 50:50 so no different with equity. As people have said, he would have been paying rent if he wasn’t living there so same position.

If not in

50/50 you were both tenants to each other. You both own the house.

When me and my ex sold there werent even conversations about this. The solicitors handling the sale just put 50% in each of our bank accounts.