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

A money matter

20 replies

inmyshoos · 26/11/2019 14:15

Posting shamelessly for traffic.

What would be fair in this situation.

1 person has a house ... fair bit of equity 80% value of house.
Other person rents... no savings.

If they move in together and remortgage together then what happens to the equity?
Not married and both have seperate dc.

What would be fair?

OP posts:
HugoSpritz · 26/11/2019 14:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bridgetreilly · 26/11/2019 14:23

I think that unless the renter is in a position to contribute a substantial deposit, this arrangement is fraught with difficulty. Will both be contributing the same amount to the new mortgage payments? How much is the equity in the existing house compared to the purchase price of the new house?

Let's say that one person is able to contribute 50% of the purchase price on the new house and that both make equal contributions to the new mortgage. Then the first should own 75% and the other 25% of the new house. But it's likely to be more complicated than that...

awesomeaircraft · 26/11/2019 14:26

Deed of trust is far, especially as there are DC to protect.

awesomeaircraft · 26/11/2019 14:26

FAIR not far... sigh.

TiceCream · 26/11/2019 14:26

A and B contribute equal amounts to the new house and A (the person who owned the previous house) puts the rest of their money into a separate investment.

Or A gets legal documents drawn up to protect their deposit and both share the rest of the house equally.

Personally I’d pick the first option because I wouldn’t want to have a greater financial commitment to the new house than my partner did.

Original poster
inmyshoos · 26/11/2019 14:29

Trust deed may be the best way then. It's absolutely about protecting the money for the dc of partner one.

Even joint salaries for a new bigger mortgage wouldnt allow for a house big enough so a bit complicated but hopefully manageable.

OP posts:
Havaina · 26/11/2019 14:30

Please protect / ring fence your deposit. Don’t rely on your partner to be fair because when relationships end all sense of fairness can go out of the window.

See a solicitor.

dontalltalkatonce · 26/11/2019 14:34

Would not do this at all. Even with protection this could get messy if the relationship breaks down. Would keep the relationship non cohabitating.

awesomeaircraft · 26/11/2019 15:23

Is there any rush to buy? In the current economy (you are in the UK I assume), it would be advisable to rent anyway. Why not rent out person's 1 house for the short/medium term, use rent to repay mortgage/second rent, and rent another bigger house as a couple and blended family?

This would give some time to work out the economy and the new family dynamics.

Original poster
inmyshoos · 26/11/2019 15:35

No, no rush to buy.

Can i ask why you say better to rent in current climate awesome ?

OP posts:
PettyContractor · 26/11/2019 16:52

A and B contribute equal amounts to the new house and A (the person who owned the previous house) puts the rest of their money into a separate investment.

This. Don't mix money. Somehow A's contribution of their assets will count for nothing when it comes to calculating monthly contributions.

I was responsible for paying the mortgage on a home two of us lived in. I sold some of my investments and paid off the mortgage. Because my monthly outgoings were now less, my other half genuinely believed that I should start paying towards other bills to make things more equal.

I suggested that if the amount of equity I put into the mortgage was irrelevant in calculating current contributions, then I'd take out a 100% mortgage and invest the money, and draw on the investments to pay the mortgage. According to her logic, me paying mortgage payments that were now bigger than in the first place would mean she would have to contribute more. She managed to veto this plan while somehow continuing to insist exactly the same logic should apply to the status quo, where it happened to benefit her.

I was almost as if an argument only made sense when it led to her being better off...

PettyContractor · 26/11/2019 16:53

she believed I should pay more towards other things because I'd paid off the mortgage

awesomeaircraft · 26/11/2019 17:00

inmyshoos the Brexit uncertainty is impacting house market (less houses put not the market, people waiting it out, etc) as people are unsure how it will impact their purchase power, etc.

money expert article on the subject but there are many more.

Havaina · 26/11/2019 17:09

@PettyContractor are you still with her?

Apirateslifeforme · 26/11/2019 17:16

The equity needs protecting from the new party moving In anything after that date needs to be 50/50 if 50/50 is paid.

LouisaPipSqueak · 27/11/2019 06:51

This was my situation... if you are serious about each other why not put it all together and go halvers on bills etc. I don’t see the problem.

AlexaAmbidextra · 27/11/2019 07:04

This was my situation... if you are serious about each other why not put it all together and go halvers on bills etc. I don’t see the problem.

Really? I think this a dreadful idea. If it all goes wrong OP could lose her children’s security.

Littleelffriend · 27/11/2019 07:07

We’ve just done this. We got a cohabitation agreement which goes into great detail about what happens if we split up. It cost a fortune but will be worth it

mrsbyers · 27/11/2019 07:11

£100 at the solicitor for a document stating that I contrbuted x amount of the equity from proceeds of my house sale , that the mortgage costs would be covered 50/50 on new property and if sold the equity would be reimbursed first and remaining equity split equally. Signed by both and witnessed

mrsbyers · 27/11/2019 07:12

There are always so many people who say it should all be put into a joint pot , I often wonder if that’s because they aren’t the party that holds the large equity stake

New posts on this thread. Refresh page