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

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:
PyongyangKipperbang · 27/02/2025 20:46

So Josh is your brother and his girlfriend cheated on him?

Doingmybestbut · 27/02/2025 20:46

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.

I think the nature of the split makes a huge difference. If Sophie went off with someone else then I think morally she owes Josh 30K. If Josh went off with someone else I think he shouldn’t pursue it.

amele · 27/02/2025 20:46

Op you said urself they'll be no equity, so there's nothing to split. If Josh wants to keep the property and Sophie wants to sell bc she wants to buy another property. Won't she agree to be taken off the mortgage with no payback or pay her what she put in to the house?

Original poster
AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:46

@Phonicshaskilledmeoff Josh earned more so paid more of the mortgage, but they both contributed

OP posts:
Mauro711 · 27/02/2025 20:47

If there is no money to split and Josh wants to stay in the house can they not just remove Sophie from the deeds/mortgage and let her walk away? He can then stay and wait for the value of the property to go up again until there’s a healthy amount of equity? Josh then gets to stay and Sophie gets to walk away and buy with her new guy.

Isthismykarma · 27/02/2025 20:47

I would’ve said Josh put £30k in to a £210k investment therefore owns 14.2%. The remaining share is 85.8% split between them so the house is 57.1% Josh’s and 42.9% Sophie’s.
If the house sells for £180k that’s £102.8k for Josh and £77.2 for Sophie.
Each of them pay their half of the mortgage off leaving Sophie paying Josh £12.8k.

Tarantella6 · 27/02/2025 20:47

If there is no equity then surely Josh can stay in the house as long as he can pay the mortgage? He doesn't need to buy Sophie out, there's nothing to pay her.

Or will the mortgage company not allow him to be the sole borrower?

thepariscrimefiles · 27/02/2025 20:48

I'm assuming that Sophie left Josh for another man and that it's Sophie that wants a quick sale whereas Josh would possibly be willing to wait for the house to regain its value before selling so he doesn't lose his deposit.

If my assumptions are correct, it would seem unfair for Josh to lose the whole of his deposit.

RainingRoses · 27/02/2025 20:49

Legally, it’s 50/50.

Morally, he takes a portion out to represent his deposit (not the full £30k as there is a loss) and then they split the rest.

WhatYouEgg · 27/02/2025 20:49

amele · 27/02/2025 20:46

Op you said urself they'll be no equity, so there's nothing to split. If Josh wants to keep the property and Sophie wants to sell bc she wants to buy another property. Won't she agree to be taken off the mortgage with no payback or pay her what she put in to the house?

That's my thinking as well. Just take Sophie off the mortgage if they will both leave with nothing if they sell. She doesn't benefit from a sale.

Original poster
AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:50

Isthismykarma · 27/02/2025 20:47

I would’ve said Josh put £30k in to a £210k investment therefore owns 14.2%. The remaining share is 85.8% split between them so the house is 57.1% Josh’s and 42.9% Sophie’s.
If the house sells for £180k that’s £102.8k for Josh and £77.2 for Sophie.
Each of them pay their half of the mortgage off leaving Sophie paying Josh £12.8k.

Thank you. That sums up (do you see what I did there?) the situation as I see it perfectly

OP posts:
Ohnobackagain · 27/02/2025 20:51

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.

@AnnaQuayInTheUk this is where I was sort of at. A percentage of his initial deposit back, obviously it depends on what they get back and after paying any fees due, but he still put in a much larger amount and ‘what’s left of the £30k but no more than what it is now worth as a percentage’ and so on.

PyongyangKipperbang · 27/02/2025 20:51

I agree that if he can afford it alone, Sophie is removed and can move on with her new bloke and Josh waits it out.

teenmaw · 27/02/2025 20:51

Why are they selling the house and not just releasing her from the mortgage, signing it over to him?

Maxorias · 27/02/2025 20:52

Mauro711 · 27/02/2025 20:37

Ok, so the question is who should walk away with the biggest debt?

Show quote history

This would only be true if they still owed the bank 210k but presumably they've been paying it back all these years.

They should split the money like I said up thread and then split the money to the bank equally. So if they still have 100k on the mortgage each pays back 50k out of their share.

PyongyangKipperbang · 27/02/2025 20:52

teenmaw · 27/02/2025 20:51

Why are they selling the house and not just releasing her from the mortgage, signing it over to him?

Possibly emotional reasons.

He bought it with her in the expectation of a life together, and now thats been turned on its head, so he just wants rid and to start afresh.

ETA.....think of cheated on women who could fight to stay in the marital home but choose to leave instead because of the painful memories.

LaceApplique · 27/02/2025 20:53

Josh was naïve and is now paying the price for it unfortunately. Legally, it is half her house.

Bearbookagainandagain · 27/02/2025 20:53

Josh bought a property, it was unfortunately a bad investment and his equity is lost. His ex-partner doesn't "owe him" anything, he is the one who made the conscious decision to put his inheritance into that house.

If there had been equity in the house then I would have agreed that Josh's deposit should get priority, but that's not the case.
If there is any other joint assets that can be sold, or joint savings, then I think it would be fair to try and make Josh even. But I assume that's not the case because you don't mention it.

category12 · 27/02/2025 20:54

Oh dear, he's screwed.

Original poster
AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:55

@PyongyangKipperbang Sophie wants to buy a property with her new partner.

OP posts:
Youcancallmeirrelevant · 27/02/2025 20:56

If he didn't get a deed of trust to protect his deposit or buy it as tenants in common with different percentages owned then it's 50/50 legally and an expensive lesson for him to learn

paranoiaofpufflings · 27/02/2025 20:56

The house was bought for 210K. If it sells for 180K it has gone down in value by 14% or thereabouts.

Josh was the only one to put a deposit in at the beginning. He should get his deposit back, but devalued by 14%.

So from the sale money, Josh gets 26K deposit back. Then the rest should be split equally between Josh and Sophie.

Sophie should not have to pay half of the original deposit now. Josh and Sophie both entered into the original purchase agreement understanding and accepting what each other was contributing.

PyongyangKipperbang · 27/02/2025 20:56

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:55

@PyongyangKipperbang Sophie wants to buy a property with her new partner.

I get that, but she could if she was released from the mortgage as others have said, and Josh waits it out until the house isnt in negative equity.

GrannyAchingsShepherdsHut · 27/02/2025 20:57

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:50

Thank you. That sums up (do you see what I did there?) the situation as I see it perfectly

Show quote history

However, you could also say the house is 57.1% Josh’s and 42.9% Sophie’s, so if they're in negative equity (which is I think what you're saying?) Josh should pay 57.1% of whatever extra is needed to pay off the mortgage and Sophie 42.9%.

If that's how they would have split any profit, had the value not reduced, then you could argue it's what that should do with the debt.

On balance I think 50/50 of whatever debt there is the best he can hope for. Far better for him would be to keep the house and take her off the mortgage if he can.

2025willbemytime · 27/02/2025 20:59

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.

Sophie should probably slow down. Buying twice with two men when she hasn't got any money is bonkers.

Swipe left for the next trending thread