Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 9 10

Original poster

A money one - who is being unreasonable?

229 replies

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 19:55

A family member, let's call him Josh, and his girlfriend, Sophie, have been together for 5 years. Three years ago they bought a house together. Josh had inherited some money so put down the deposit of £30k, Sophie didn't have any money so didn't put down anything.

The house They loved was £210k so they used Josh's inheritance as a deposit and took out a joint mortgage of £180k. All good.

However, they have now split up. They've had 3 house valuations, and have realised that the house has gone down in value. On the advice of the EA, they are putting it on the market at £189k but have agreed that they will accept £180k for a quick sale.

The issue is this. Assuming the worst case scenario that the house sells for £180k, should Josh accept he's lost his inheritance and suck it up, or should Sophie pay Josh £15k as her "share" of the loss?

AIBU - Josh should suck it up
YANBU - Sophie should pay Josh £15k

They are both aware that the house might not sell at all!

OP posts:

FartyAnimal · 27/02/2025 19:58

They should both take the loss - half each.

Barrenfieldoffucks · 27/02/2025 19:59

Morally, I think that is fair.

Psychologymam · 27/02/2025 20:02

what does their legal agreement say? Unmarried couples buying houses with unequal finances must have explored what they would do should they split and they’ll follow that?

IThoughtHeWasWithYou · 27/02/2025 20:02

Did he ring fence the deposit when he put it down initially? That would influence my thinking here.

ThejoyofNC · 27/02/2025 20:03

I take it he didn't put any sort of protection in place for his deposit?

Mandylovescandy · 27/02/2025 20:03

We wrote an agreement protecting the deposit that my DP put in and he would have got all of it back on sale and split the rest so 50/50 share of loss seems very reasonable to me

Charcadet · 27/02/2025 20:04

Josh was silly not to have to ringfenced the deposit. The monies should be 50/50 assuming they're joint tenants.

Original poster

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:04

No ring fencing of the deposit, and I don't think they had any conversations about what would happen if they split up (because of course they never thought they would....).

I have a view but I think my judgement is clouded by the nature of the split.

OP posts:

Createausername1970 · 27/02/2025 20:06

If he hadn't received an inheritance then they would have had a bigger mortgage and more of a loss each.

It would be nice to share the loss.

If it means Josh has lost £15k of his inheritance then that's a shame, but had he been paying rent for the last 5 years it would have cost him more than the loss on the house sale.

There are lots of ways of looking at how to deal with it.

TY78910 · 27/02/2025 20:07

When we purchased our house we had to sign a document where we ticked a box to say how the deposit gets split if we sell. We opted for 50/50 but there was also get back what you each put in. What did they sign?

pimplebum · 27/02/2025 20:07

They should rent it out until market picks up

really shocked it’s gone down so much ! How come ?

pimplebum · 27/02/2025 20:08

Josh should get his deposit back , maybe minus a bit for the down turn

Original poster

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:09

@pimplebum they bought at the height of the market and possibly overpaid - although the mortgage valuation agreed that was its worth

OP posts:

lemonsherbert86 · 27/02/2025 20:10

The house is worth 86% now of what it was when they bought it (assuming they sell at £180k.
In my opinion he should get 86% of his initial investment back, so just under £26k.
This is what me and my now husband agreed would happen if we split before we married as one of us put a much higher proportion of the deposit down.
However, I agree with pp that it should have been discussed and agreed before purchasing which I know isn't helpful now.

Maxorias · 27/02/2025 20:10

Morally, he should have 30k minus a percentage of the loss in value, and they split the rest.

The house was worth 210 and is now 180, it has lost 14% of its value.

So Josh's deposit of 30k has lost 14% of its value, meaning he should have 25.800. Of the 154.200 left they should each have half, so 77100 each.

Meaning Josh ends up with 102.900 and Sophie 77.100.

Legally, that depends on what the papers say... She may be entitled to half.

sumsitupreally · 27/02/2025 20:10

If I was Sophie, I would be paying Josh £15k of the deposit back.
She can't expect to get equal reward when she put less in, if it wasn't for Josh she wouldn't have had the house at all.

Fuzziduck · 27/02/2025 20:11

He should get back what he put in, but I would say take the hit on that as well. So if the house is worth 20% less, he would get 20% knocked off the amount put in first, then the rest split.

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 20:13

Share the loss.

Coldwatergloves · 27/02/2025 20:14

How much is left on the mortgage?

Cosyblankets · 27/02/2025 20:15

I'm surprised that it is worth so much less. Were they ripped off in the first place? Did they buy without doing research? We bought about 6 months or so before them and our property has increased. Big standard 3 bred semi in a cheaper part of town so nothing fancy.

MrsTerryPratchett · 27/02/2025 20:18

sumsitupreally · 27/02/2025 20:10

If I was Sophie, I would be paying Josh £15k of the deposit back.
She can't expect to get equal reward when she put less in, if it wasn't for Josh she wouldn't have had the house at all.

But his deposit is worth less now. If they both put in 15k at the start, they wouldn't now get 15k back. If she gives him 15k, she makes him more whole than he would be.

Whyherewego · 27/02/2025 20:21

Agree with PP. He gets deposit back less 14pc and then split the remainder

latetothefisting · 27/02/2025 20:22

well she definitely shouldn't pay him £15k, because the house has lost money - so half of the £30k doesn't reflect that - the % a previous poster worked out would be fairer.

Morally yes it's fair enough she should take some of the loss
Legally I don't think you could ever enforce that
Financially I'm not even sure how it would work - would they actually get anything back at all or would the bank keep the full £180k minus the small amount of the mortgage left? Who is going to pay all the associated solicitors, estate agents fees, etc?

Personally I'd be doing anything possible to avoid selling at such a big loss. Can neither of them keep the house, renting out a spare room to make enough money? If Sophie didn't put anything in it would be fair enough for her to just walk away, with her only 'loss' her contributions (I'm assuming halfish) to 3 years of mortgage payments, which would almost definitely be cheaper than renting for 3 years, obviously with the understanding she has no further rights over the property if Josh did sell it in the future.

Most places the amount you could charge for a room would be enough to cover the mortgage, might even work out cheaper for Josh overall, and obviously eventually the hope would be it would regain its market value and he could then sell and break even.

oustedbymymate · 27/02/2025 20:24

If it sells for 180 Josh should get 50% plus his original 30k. They should have set the mortgage up as tenants in common

Original poster

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:26

Thanks for all your posts and opinions

I think Josh would like to hold on to the property but Sophie wants to sell as she has a new partner and wants to buy a property with him, but can't whilst she is still liable for this one.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 9 10

Swipe left for the next trending thread