Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Comingupriver · 27/02/2025 21:26

Sophie needs to slow down and think carefully before buying a property with someone else quite so soon!

RIPVPROG · 27/02/2025 21:27

If he can afford to keep it she should just walk away, sign it over to him, she's paid less than half a mortgage for a couple of years, that's less than rent and she had no deposit to lose. She walks away with no debt that's a bonus here.
If he can keep the house he night be able to hold onto it long enough to recoup his initial investment

latetothefisting · 27/02/2025 21:27

2025willbemytime · 27/02/2025 20:59

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

Show quote history

bonkers for the men, seems to work out quite well for her tbh - unless she volunteers to pay Josh back for his loss, seems like she'll walk away having only lost the money she's paid in mortgage contributions - which given mortgages can often be cheaper than rent, she was paying less than half every month, and was also benefitting from the £30k deposit slightly lowering the overall mortgage amount, is probably much less than she'd have spent if she had been single and renting for three years.

JudgeJ · 27/02/2025 21:27

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.

His deposit represented 1/7 of the price of the house, 30k/210k, so he should get 1/7 of the selling price then they each get 3/7 each. If they can, I would rent it out for a few years.

Nofrogslegs · 27/02/2025 21:28

Can Josh afford property without Sophie?
if so, he needs to agree with lender to move mortgage (and deeds!) to his name. Sophie walks away with nothing as no equity to be had and Josh continues with the house as he would have. At least then he hasn’t completely lost his inheritance as prices may well pick-up again if he wants to sell in the future

RosesAndHellebores · 27/02/2025 21:29

Sophie needs to treat the proceeds of the sale as though the man who put down £30k had taken decent legal advice and secured his deposit properly. I hope he's alright.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 27/02/2025 21:29

fufulina · 27/02/2025 21:25

If he hadn’t put in the deposit, they either couldn’t have bought or they would have had a higher mortgage payment. I would expect him to get him deposit back (arguably, with a nominal interest rate return, say 3% pa), and then split the loss over and above that. Why should he lose his deposit?

The reality is that if Sophie didn’t have any money to put in at the beginning, she’s very unlikely to have whatever proportion of the original deposit Josh is ‘morally’ owed now. So the best all round is that she walks away with nothing and Josh takes on the whole mortgage. Josh has the upper hand in that he doesn’t need to sell. For Sophie to force a sale will take time that she doesn’t have if she wants to buy another property with new Josh, and money that she almost certainly doesn’t have ether…

BrucesTooth · 27/02/2025 21:29

So it sounds like they now have a 180k house (down from 210) and owe a bit less than 180k - three years of payments? So roughly break even now.
Realistically, it was a bad investment. Only he had money to actually invest. Even if they agreed to ringfence the deposit income, how (and why) would she get 15 or 12.5k to pay him? A personal loan?
So either they sell (splitting costs) and both walk away with nothing, or if he still wants the house and can afford it, then he could try and remortgage and take it all on. If there is a tiny bit of equity in it then he could argue strongly to keep it/use for remortgage costs. That way long term he could recover some equity eventually.

Throughthebluebells · 27/02/2025 21:29

There seems to be a general misunderstanding on this thread that joint means 50/50. In this example it really doesn't mean that.

If the house sells for more than £180k the mortgage is repaid. Then there will be expenses so Josh wont get much of his £30,000 deposit back if it sells for £189,000.

Sophie needs to be released from the mortgage. She should walk away with nothing gained, nothing lost. It would be wrong for her to take 50% of anything left over as she didn't contribute to the deposit but I also wouldn't expect her to owe anything either - her liability was 50% of the mortgage, she wouldn't owe Josh anything.

Josh shouldn't have taken this risk but it's too late now to do anything other than keep the property. Could he take in a lodger to help pay the higher mortgage?

Porkychops · 27/02/2025 21:31

As there is hardly any equity cant Sophie just give it over to him

Newmumatlast · 27/02/2025 21:31

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.

This because there is no equity

EliflurtleAndTheInfiniteMadness · 27/02/2025 21:32

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:35

There's no equity! They've lost money on it

Show quote history

How much remains on the mortgage you haven't said and surely it's not stil 180K? Equity is simply sales price minus remaining debt, you can have lost money and still have equity in the house.

Quitelikeit · 27/02/2025 21:33

Fgs rtft

Sophie doesn’t want any equity

She wants her name off the mortgage

Josh wants to stay

Bigcat25 · 27/02/2025 21:33

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.

It doesn't sound like she learned anything from her first house buying rodeo. She can't afford a new place now, and it's too soon.

Newmumatlast · 27/02/2025 21:34

Comingupriver · 27/02/2025 21:26

Sophie needs to slow down and think carefully before buying a property with someone else quite so soon!

I doubt Sophie much cares given she's happy to let men shoulder her financial burden (yes she may pay her way in terms of mortgage payments but she clearly isn't fussed about contributing to any deposits - personally I'd never buy a house with someone without contributing fairly to the whole thing including deposit.

Mrsttcno1 · 27/02/2025 21:36

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:35

There's no equity! They've lost money on it

Show quote history

If there’s no equity then there’s nothing to discuss here. The money is gone. Nobody owes anybody anything, the money went into the house and the money has now left the equation entirely.

dcsp · 27/02/2025 21:38

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!

I wouldn't say either of those options.

Assuming no complicating factors, I'd say that Josh put in £120k into the purchase (£30k cash + £90k for his half of the mortgage) and Sophie put in £90k.

So he owns 120/210 = 12/21 ~= 57% of the house.

If the house is sold for £180k, he should get back 180,000 x 12 / 21=£102,857, leaving Sophie with £77,143.

But, is the outstanding balance on the mortgage more than £153,286 (i.e. is Sophie's half of the mortgage more than her fair share of the house's value)? If so I'd maybe be inclined to settle from her walking away and him keeping any equity

Hankunamatata · 27/02/2025 21:42

So potentially 30k of debt to share?

Hankunamatata · 27/02/2025 21:44

Josh needs to get legal advice as to where he stands and if he can get his deposit back

autumn1610 · 27/02/2025 21:44

@AnnaQuayInTheUk how much is left to pay on the mortgage? If they are going to make a loss, assuming they havent paid down a lot of the mortgage? There might only be a few £k left to takeaway after the mortgage is settled anyway? If they sell for £180 and they have £160k left then will only have £20k takeaway minus any early repayment fees. It’s a tricky one I’ve always said I would do deposit plus 50% of payments effectively. In this case I think he would have to suck it up and give her some say it was £20k then I would say like £15 and £5k, but he will likely be taking a hit on his investment unless he can buy her out.

YesThatsATurdOnTheRug · 27/02/2025 21:44

Sophie doesn't owe Josh anything. He chose to put the deposit in. If there was equity it would be different but you're talking about her just giving him 15k of what, her savings? A loan? No. The risk was his to take and the loss is his. Lesson learned on his part!

Clearly she should let him keep the house rather than forcing a sale, can't see why she wouldn't if he can afford the mortgage.

DazedDragon · 27/02/2025 21:46

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 27/02/2025 20:55

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

Then Josh can use this to his advantage and insist that the loss plus selling cost is split equally.

It ought to be 50/50.

If it was £250k value then what would the solution be? £20k equity each then she pays back her half of the deposit so £15k, leaving her with £5k? If so then same thing but this time as there is no equity then she takes a loan to pay back the £15k.

Hankunamatata · 27/02/2025 21:48

Depending if they are tenants in common or joint tenants- the law differs according to Google

osborneslaw.com/blog/tenants-in-common-vs-joint-tenants/#tenants-in-common-vs-joint-tenants-which-is-best-for-buying-a-property-together

mindutopia · 27/02/2025 21:48

If I were Josh, I’d find a way to buy her out. If they are only going to make £9k from the sale, I’d pay her £10k (extra for her troubles) and take her off the mortgage. Then he’s free to hold onto the property and won’t have to sell in negative equity. He could get a lodger if needed.

Teenagehorrorbag · 27/02/2025 21:51

In theory he should get his 30k back (maybe minus the percentage drop in value) and then they split any cash or divide any outstanding debt.

How you enforce that without any written contract though, I have no idea! Unless she is very reasonable, I suspect he will lose his deposit. If the house is in joint names they are legally entitled to an even split.

Always risky buying on an unequal basis.