Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
Greyexpectations · 01/03/2025 10:14

pengymum · 28/02/2025 19:27

I would let house until prices improved.
Or Josh can let rooms if he is still living in it.
Better actually as benefits from the tax free rent a room & easier to get lodgers out than tenants if need to sell.

But IMHO Sophie is foolish to consider buying another property so soon with new partner as who knows how long this relationship is going to last!

But buying is definitely better than cohabiting in a partners house & contributing to joint living costs but getting no equity in the property.

Why is she foolish? At the least she’s coming out of her relationship with Josh better off because she lived in a nicer house than she would be able to afford on her own, whilst paying less than rent would have been.

And now she’s on to the next guy to bankroll her.

Morally questionable, anti-feminist, sure. But foolish?

nutbrownhare15 · 01/03/2025 10:17

In this situation I think it's unlikely that Sophie will pay him any money. If Josh holds onto the house then it will probably increase in value and the 30k has been used for him to own a whole house. Ultimately he needs to get Sophie off the mortgage and move on.

sometimesmovingforwards · 01/03/2025 12:59

Greyexpectations · 01/03/2025 10:14

Why is she foolish? At the least she’s coming out of her relationship with Josh better off because she lived in a nicer house than she would be able to afford on her own, whilst paying less than rent would have been.

And now she’s on to the next guy to bankroll her.

Morally questionable, anti-feminist, sure. But foolish?

Agreed, Sophie is benefiting at the expense of others. It’s the new partner who is foolish.

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 01/03/2025 16:10

nutbrownhare15 · 01/03/2025 10:17

In this situation I think it's unlikely that Sophie will pay him any money. If Josh holds onto the house then it will probably increase in value and the 30k has been used for him to own a whole house. Ultimately he needs to get Sophie off the mortgage and move on.

I agree. It will depend if Josh can take on the whole mortgage by himself though

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page