Splitting with DP - AIBU to think I don't have to pay back his mortgage contributions?

[StepAwayFromGoogling]

Shaking while writing so bear with me. Long back story, but me and 'D'P are splitting up - literally as of about 10 minutes ago. We've had a joint mortgage for 8 years. My parents paid the deposit which is protected. I want to stay here with the DCs and can afford to do so. I was assuming we would transfer the mortage into my name and then would somehow (by remortgaging?) release half the increase in value of the property to him. He thinks I will be forced to pay him half of the mortgage contributions from the last 8 years? So he will essentially have lived here for free that whole time? I just said to him 'I don't think that's how it works' and he lost his temper "THAT MONEY IS MINE, YOU'LL FUCKING PAY ME, YOU'LL FUCKING PAY ME EVERYTHING...". I'm scared and shaky but trying to work out if that's true? Because then I can't afford to keep the house.
YABU - yep, you'll have to pay his mortgage contributions back
YANBU - nope, just the increase in value, divided by two

I asked MN to remove this post because I thought he found it. Turns out 'see you're posting on MN again' didn't actually mean that though. But they refused anyway.

He doesn't just get half the increase in value???

Assuming it is an equal split he gets half the equity (difference between value and current mortgage) less your deposit contribution.

OP, do you think you and the DC could go stay with your parents for the weekend? Just to give you both some breathing space and chance to cool down before talking rationally.
In the meantime, book an appointment with a solicitor for next week.

I’d assume it would be 50% of any equity minus the protected deposit and 50% of the increase

The fairest way is that you get the percentage of the current value that you put in as a deposit, then any equity is split equally between you so, say your original deposit was 10% of the purchase price:

(current value - current amount outstanding on mortgage) - (10% of current value)/2

House prices have gone up a lot in the past 8 years so although you won't have paid off much of the mortgage yet (because you pay off the interest first), if the value has increased a lot, you might find that you owe him more than his mortgage contributions.

The average house price in 2013 was £176k, currently it is £277k.

So using this illustration from Which? (to save me doing the maths )

If you bought the property for £222k 8 years ago (10% deposit of £22k = £200k mortgage), based on the increase in the average house price, it would be worth £348.5k.

At the end of year 8 (after all mortgage payments for the year have been made), you would still owe £151,414.

So the equity is:
£348,500 - £151,414 = £197,086

Your protected deposit of 10% is now worth £34,850.

So you then each get 50% of the remaining equity:

£197,086 - £34,850 = £162, 236

So the £197k equity is split approx £81k to him and £116k to you.

Based on that scenario, with a monthly mortgage payment of £948, you have paid £91k in total for the mortgage in 8 years. If he paid 50%, he paid £45.5k.

So he would only get £45.5k back if you return half of the mortgage payments, as he is asking. However, half of his (rightful) share of the equity would be almost twice that, £81k.

Obviously, it depends on how big your deposit was, how much house prices have increased where you live, the interest rate and term of your mortgage etc. I would do the maths with the real figures. It is likely you find you owe him far more than his mortgage contributions unless you had a huge deposit or property prices haven't risen much where you live.

10% deposit of £22k = £200k mortgage

I meant

10% deposit of £22k + £200k mortgage

Slam in the remortgage now, today. Get him off asap before building work it finished.

@StepAwayFromGoogling

Thanks all, what a mess. We have builders starting on Monday to bloody extend the place too. Funded entirely by me/my parents. But that's a whole other thread.

Take photos of the house before they start. Get an agent (or better still RICS valuer) round to value pre-extension, keep evidence of what you spend on extension.

The line needs to be drawn in the sand before works start.

Good luck

Hope you're ok OP. And he's crazy thinking he would be entitled to get his mortgage payments back. Mayorquimby you're talking through your arse. Unless you're a qualified lawyer, pipe down.

My ex dp tried this. He couldn't get his head around the fact that he had paid in to a mortgage and wouldn't be getting the money back out. Literally took our finance advisor to say to him-'but why should you think you should have been living for free for the last 3 years?' 'What do you think you would have been paying in rent all that time for an equivalent house?' (Answer a lot more than he was paying for half the mortgage)
I paid him back money he had spent on some building works as that seemed fair-he wouldn't be benefitting from them-and I will when the house sells-but I certainly wasn't going to subsidise his life retrospectively for three years!

As you are not married it very much depends on how the property is owned and how the deposit was protected. I also don't see why your parents deposit money sees no increase in value? Unless it specifically says that it is an interest free loan.

One explanation is the obviated rent. Another is what happens when the house loses money (negative equity happens occasionally). Where does the money come from to repay the cumulative mortgage payments if there is no equity gained? Does he get the mortgage payments and their partner lose money?

"Mayorquimby you're talking through your arse"

In what way?

No, it's not true. It's also very likely if you have children together that he will get less than 50% equity.

@Neverhot

No, it's not true. It's also very likely if you have children together that he will get less than 50% equity.

But if they're not married it's not a division of marital assets in which the needs of the children will be considered etc.

It's the splitting of a joint asset between two parties who have decided to remain seperate legal entities.
If they were renting and unmarried with kids she wouldn't be able to claim a portion of his pension or a BTL he owned.

it will be divided based on what they have put in and how the property of owned.

I would have thought she has no right of claim on any asset of his and he has no right to claim any of hers.

It sounds like he is just using the wrong terms (I.e 'mortgage payments' instead of his share if equity) and rather than seek to understand that, it has resorted to a shouting match. Not excusing his behaviour at all and hope you are safe, but ot sounds like communication is the issue (not surprising considering you are breaking up)
Don't worry about this now. Get yourself somewhere safe where you can sort your head out and process the split in the first instance, and then get advice from a lawyer once calmed down

@Lime37

I’d assume it would be 50% of any equity minus the protected deposit and 50% of the increase

This is also how it worked for me and my ex. It is the most reasonable and fair to all parties way Im guessing he is just using he wrong terminology by saying 'mortgage payments' instead of equity during what sounds like a heated and emotional time

He is clearly entitled to 50% of the current value of the entire property, less perhaps the initial deposit amount. So either you have to buy him out, he buys you out, or you both sell and split the proceeds.

He won't get it. But is he annoyed because he alone has paid the mortgage over the last few years? Or have you paid half each.

@StepAwayFromGoogling

I asked MN to remove this post because I thought he found it. Turns out 'see you're posting on MN again' didn't actually mean that though. But they refused anyway.

That’s bad that they refused. They’ll delete all kinds of non identifiable nonsense because an unreadable OP is unhappy they got their arse handed to them on a plate, yet refused this that could have compromised your safety?!

As others have said he is entitled to half the equity ie what the house is worth minus what is owned minus the deposit then split by half

Although it does seem a little unfair that you keep the deposit the. Get half of what he has paid off if I am honest

@Coconuttets

He is clearly entitled to 50% of the current value of the entire property, less perhaps the initial deposit amount. So either you have to buy him out, he buys you out, or you both sell and split the proceeds.

Yes surely this would the case in most scenarios?

I own my property jointly with DP (not married) and I put the deposit in.
If we were to split up then the house would valued minus the mortgage we’d pay off over the years and that would the available equity. My deposit was 10% of the original price so we split the equity 60/40 in my favour.

However if I wanted to stay in the property I’d have to pay him the 40% of the equity. Likewise if I wanted to leave he’d have to pay me 60% of the equity.
Whoever stays in the house would have to remortgage to take out the £ amount to pay off the other and then pay the new mortgage as a single person

"My deposit was 10% of the original price so we split the equity 60/40 in my favour."

Should be 55/45 no?

10% to you
Then 50% each of the remaining 90%

Wait that's not right either.

Then you get screwed over on the equity as you'll have put in the bulk.

60/40 probably unfair to you too depending on where it is in the life of the mortgage

Your deposit+% increase value of the property out first.

The test 50/50