Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

No more paying the mortgage

100 replies

CurtainWitcher · 26/05/2020 10:30

My sister has been with her DP for sixteen years and they have a ten year old DD.

Her DP has refused to legally formalise their finances (marriage etc), as he believes he brought more to the table money-wise.

When they bought their house, he put roughly 70% of their deposit and she put in 30%. If it's sold, that split will be what they reach receive.

Their salaries go into a joint account and all bills, including mortgage, are paid from that.

Was I unreasonable to suggest that she stops paying the mortgage because she's paying off his share? They've lived there for thirteen years and have £50k left on the mortgage. is worth around £400k.

Was I unreasonable?

OP posts:
BluntAndToThePoint80 · 26/05/2020 11:18

His cousin being a solicitor is likely against the rules of professional conduct, particularly if there is a mortgage as that would not have been allowed by the mortgage company.

Out of interest, what do they earn in comparison to each other - is he a higher earner therefore paying more than 50% of all bills.

Truthpact · 26/05/2020 11:20

Cousin as solicitor is quite dodgy. Not even sure that's legal.. But probably wrong.

She's screwed though. She's signed a document to say she will accept 30% of the house only, as a whole. Not the 30% she put in PLUS the rest of the house value split 50/50. She should only have paid 30% of the mortgage. She's paid way more than that now. It's too late, he won't give her the money back. If she wants half the house, she'll have to convince him to marry her, although I can't see that happening.

MarieG10 · 26/05/2020 11:20

Well at least she has some protection, although poor considering she is paying half the mortgage. What should have happened is he got back his portion of the deposit plus perhaps an allowance for inflation or house price inflation and regs split 50/50

However, she is in a far more vulnerable position given she has zilch legal rights should they split

She could of course argue for a greater split of the house given she can prove what she contributed. However, Mumsnet contributors always shoot.."get a shit hot lawyer". The problem is bog standard lawyers cost £300+vat an hour so challenging anything is extremely expensive to do and h less there is a lot of money at stake, rarely worth it j less the other party agrees an early settlement.

However, given his attitude does she really want to be with him? That's what I would be asking myself as he doesn't seem to value their partnership.

stairgates · 26/05/2020 11:24

Are they divorcing? I think if it comes to a divorce then a judge would split 50/50 and possible to keep the peace give each their 70/30 deposit back. Your sister is being guided/bullied into thinking differently. Are both names on the deeds?

LouiseTrees · 26/05/2020 11:25

The cousin could be reported on and disbarred.

Ellmau · 26/05/2020 11:25

They're not married.

stairgates · 26/05/2020 11:26

Sorry, am I right that they never married, didnt read it properly in 1st post.

MarieG10 · 26/05/2020 11:29

@Ellmau

The cousin could be reported on and disbarred.

That depends. Was he supposed to be giving independent legal advice? No solicitor could give independent advice to two parties?

If he simply draw up the agreement without advice, he hasn't done anything wrong really, but I would have through he would have pointed it out to you OP

Nottherealslimshady · 26/05/2020 11:29

If the paperwork says he owns 70% of the whole house then he should also be paying 70% of the mortgage payments .

stairgates · 26/05/2020 11:30

Thanks Ellmau, I must have skipped that bit when reading through :)

Are they both on the mortgage and deeds? If not then she should apply for a residency order to show she has an interest in the property, if she took time off from wok to look after their DC then this will also be taken into consideration if they split. The cousin being the legal representative also sounds a bit iffy.

Truthpact · 26/05/2020 11:30

If the cousin that made the contract I'd disbarred, does that mean the contract is void? So she would get 50/50?

If so, I'd report him. Fuck the family, the partner is an asshole anyway.

NailsNeedDoing · 26/05/2020 11:30

How much is her salary compared to his salary?

I agree that if they split then they should each get back what they put in as deposit, and if they are paying half of the bills and mortgage each then they should each have 50% of the equity. But if his salary is triple hers and he’s paying more for the mortgage than she is, then 50/50 wouldn’t be a fair split.

You are unreasonable to say she stops paying the mortgage. She’s living there! That shouldn’t come for free.

peperethecat · 26/05/2020 11:31

His cousin was the solicitor.

Erm, that is a bit of a conflict of interests, no?

ThePianist38 · 26/05/2020 11:34

When they sell the house he should get his 70% of the deposit and she should get her 30% , anything over that sum has to be split 50/50.

snowybean · 26/05/2020 11:34

I can understand wanting to protect your finances (although after been together 16 years and having a 10yo DD you'd be less fussed), but the share of the house needs to be updated on them paying an equal share of the mortgage.

Original poster
CurtainWitcher · 26/05/2020 11:34

Their salaries are similar. She's self-employed, so hers varies, but it's roughly the same.

What are the rules relatives being solicitors on house purchases? Thanks

OP posts:
Kbrooke08932 · 26/05/2020 11:37

She needs to get her salary paid into her own account then transfer 50% of household bills and 30% of mortgage payment into their joint account every month. End of. She has been very silly but can not undo what has happened previously, she needs to start saving that 20% for herself.

peperethecat · 26/05/2020 11:38

Here we go. SRA Code of Conduct:

www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/

6.2 You do not act in relation to a matter or particular aspect of it if you have a conflict of interest or a significant risk of such a conflict in relation to that matter or aspect of it, unless:

(a) the clients have a substantially common interest in relation to the matter or the aspect of it, as appropriate; or

(b) the clients are competing for the same objective,

and the conditions below are met, namely that:

(i) all the clients have given informed consent, given or evidenced in writing, to you acting;

(ii) where appropriate, you put in place effective safeguards to protect your clients' confidential information; and

(iii) you are satisfied it is reasonable for you to act for all the clients.

Unless all these conditions were met, which seems unlikely, the cousin should not have agreed to act for the couple.

It would be different if it had been a straightforward purchase where their interests in the property were to be split 50:50, or they were married, but as a solicitor (which I am, but not a conveyancing solicitor), I would not act for a couple where one person was going to have a larger share of the property than the other person, and the person with the larger share was a relative of mine.

nasalspray · 26/05/2020 11:40

She must have agreed to this 13 years ago. What has happened to make her question it now?

Original poster
CurtainWitcher · 26/05/2020 11:44

Thanks for that information peperethecat. I'll pass that on.

I don't know why she's questioning now. I wondered if they're splitting up, but she hasn't said that.

OP posts:
dontgobaconmyheart · 26/05/2020 11:45

it is perfectly allowable to use a solicitor to whom you are related, that in itself is only an issue if there was a conflict of interest. If this cousin has no proveable 'interest' in the property, as they call it- aka, he is not likely to ever stake a claim in it then it is hard to see what the conflict of interest is in this case. Your Dsis was free and able to take independent legal advice at the time, and anyone sensible would have done so, she likely was advised to do so. She also has signed of her own free will, to these terms, which will have been laid out before signing.

If she wishes to alter the situation or find out more about where she stands legally she needs to go herself and see an independent solicitor, it isn't for you to sort OP, it is between them and depends on the specific terms of their contract, which you haven't disclosed. She is on the deeds presumably, as tenants in common? or something else? not at all?

It seems her deposit is protected and if they were to sell they would each get what they put in back ( providing the property price covers it) and then any leftover equity would be split 70/30? She needs to discuss this with her own DP if she wants to change it, ultimately. Would she have got the mortgage on her own at all with her deposit contribution and salary? If they are not that far into the mortgage and property prices are dropping there may not even be any equity.

If you've given your opinion and she isn't interested in acting on it OP then i would just butt out of it, she can deal with her own DP if she wants, or come to an agreement to reduce her payments. She can't just stop paying the mortgage entirely, it would do her no favours if she wants to stake a claim to anything in the future.

TheSmallAssassin · 26/05/2020 11:47

I've been in a similar situation. My ex put in all the deposit and then we paid the mortgage equally.

For example if the deposit was 10% of the purchase price, then actually your sister's partner's share should only be 52% (70% of 10% plus 50% of 90%)

Mitsouko67 · 26/05/2020 11:47

If I were you I would advise your sister to seek independent legal advice.

I would hate to be in a situation like that.

Likely she is growing up now and questioning it.

honeylulu · 26/05/2020 11:48

Their salaries are similar.

Woah, that puts a different complexion on things. She's being royally screwed over if she's paying 50% for a 30% share.

She may be stuck with it but should certainly drop her contribution to 30%.

The sol being a cousin is not necessarily a conflict of interests if he/she would not have any financial interest in the transaction. But failing to advise your sister to seek independent legal advice would be poor conduct. He/she would not however need any proof that your sister had done so. Does your sister recall?

peperethecat · 26/05/2020 11:53

it is perfectly allowable to use a solicitor to whom you are related, that in itself is only an issue if there was a conflict of interest. If this cousin has no proveable 'interest' in the property, as they call it- aka, he is not likely to ever stake a claim in it then it is hard to see what the conflict of interest is in this case.

The solicitor was acting for two clients when his relationship with each of them was not the same, and the arrangement was clearly in favour of the client who was his family member. That raises questions over whether he gave the OP's friend correct, impartial advice.

He should have explained the full consequences of the proceeds of any sale being split 70:30, i.e. the fact that if the OP's friend contributed more than 30% towards the mortgage repayments then she would be overpaying her share, and he should have also explained the possibility of each party protecting their initial deposit but the remainder of the sale proceeds being split 50:50.

Did he do that? What advice did he give? If he didn't spell out to the OP's friend that she was potentially getting the raw end of this deal, he didn't advise her properly.

As a solicitor, there is no way I would have acted in this situation unless I had an absolutely cast iron paper trail showing that I had given both parties the full and correct advice, that I had recommended that the party getting the worse deal seek their own independent legal advice, that I had explained all possible options in full to both parties so they could make an informed decision, and that both parties had confirmed in writing that they understood the full implications of both what they were doing and me acting for them both.

And even then I probably still wouldn't touch it with a bargepole tbh. I'd have at most asked one of my colleagues to give them mates' rates.