Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

Does the person who pays the most mortgage get to claim a bigger share of the house when a couple split up?

27 replies

LouiseAderyn · 15/08/2013 10:43

My brother and his fiancee have decided to separate. She has said that she is finding it difficult having him still live in the house and would like him to move out when he gets his new job (which comes with accommodation).

She has offered to pay more of the mortgage until their house is sold, but I think this means that she can then claim a greater share of the profit once the house is sold. Is this true?

At the moment they each pay 50%.

I would really appreciate it if someone could clarify this for my brother - his ex fiancee is saying that she doesn't want to involve solicitors because of the expense and that they can sort it themselves, but my brother is quite trusting and while he would rely on her to be fair, I am pretty certain that she would have already sought legal advice, which is why I think she is suggesting this arrangement.

Probably not relevant, but it was her decision to split and she waited until they had just bought a bigger, more expensive house, before telling him. Don't want anyone to think he is horrible and trying to get one over on her or anything.

Thanks

Louise

OP posts:
NotActuallyAMum · 15/08/2013 12:20

I'm not legally qualified but when I left my ex (not married) I immediately stopped paying everything that I had paid for the 12 years we were together - namely everything except the mortgage

I still got half of the equity when he bought me out

NotActuallyAMum · 15/08/2013 12:22

Well I didn't actually get half because I was too fucking soft and let him get away with less but that was my own fault

cathpip · 15/08/2013 12:31

When my dh and his ex split up they were paying a mortgage and they split the mortgage payments on earnings (he earned significantly more) so he was paying 70% and she 30%. When the house was sold he gave her 30% of the profit after sellers fees, she wanted 50%, cheeky cow!!

Onesleeptillwembley · 15/08/2013 12:38

If that's the case then she should be paying him half the going rental rate for his half of the house that she's livivng in.

Forester · 15/08/2013 12:43

Probably worth posting on a legal forum website but my understanding is that you have two different things.

The house - which will be owned 50:50 unless stated otherwise. (e.g. because I put in substantially more equity when we bought a house - and before we were married - it went in the agreement that should the house be sold I would get £x back first with the remainder split 50:50)

The mortgage - which is normally jointly undertaken. This is typically structured that the bank doesn't care who pays what but should one party stop paying the other will continue to be liable for 100% of the mortgage.

So in general I don't think there is a link between share of the mortgage and the share of the house.

Anyway with such an expensive asset it is worth him paying a few hundred pounds to get legal advice. It doesn't mean things will turn nasty.

RobotHamster · 15/08/2013 12:45

I think she would have to get something legal drawn up to state that she would be entitled to x% when they do sell the house.

Wouldn't she be better just selling it, and then keeping the money for another property? Don't understand why you'd pay off loads of the mortgage only to sell shortly afterwards. I know she wants him out, but there are probably easier ways to do this.

The other alternative would be to buy him out completely - jsut give him 50% of what expected profit on the value of the house. Get him off the mortgage completely, then he wouldn't be entitled to anything.

I do think though that just because one partner/spouse puts more into a mortgage it doesn't automatically follow that they get more money on selling. I put much less into the mortgage than DP, because he earns significantly more. If we split any profit would be equally divided between us.

Collaborate · 15/08/2013 13:33

She will get credit for the amount by which she reduces the mortgage debt following separation, but won't get credit for interest payments.

I assume they've got no children. He should definitely get something drawn up and signed, and get the property marketed with estate agents before he moves out.

Original poster
LouiseAderyn · 15/08/2013 13:42

should have added that they have no dc and are paying half each mortgage wise, even though she earns twice as much as him. She wants to pay more of the monthly payments going forward, but wants him to continue paying a third each month. I just don't want this to give her a higher % once the house is sold. She says she can't afford to buy him out.

thank you for the replies - I really do appreciate it

OP posts:
Collaborate · 15/08/2013 14:35

After he's moved out he shouldn't be paying anything unless it's half the capital repayments and she pays the other half. If she wants him to move out so much she'll have to pay up.

RobotHamster · 15/08/2013 16:13

Can she get a mortgage statement when he moves out so she knows exactly what's paid up until that point?

Original poster
LouiseAderyn · 15/08/2013 16:25

They could get a statement but it is the overall profit that I am concerned about - I don't want her saying later on that she paid more than him in monthly repayments and is therefore entitled to a larger share of overall profits on the house. Especially as he is spending all his leave painting and doing diy to make it so that someone else will buy it!

OP posts:
MaryKatharine · 15/08/2013 16:36

Eh, cathpip, I think 50/50 is reasonable upon split. We also split along earnings which means that DH pays 100% and I pay 0%. If we split up I would certainly expect 50% of the equity. ( Although i know dh would give me almost all of it so i could secure a reasonable family home for his kids) I gave up my career to look after his 4 children and me staying at home has allowed him to work the hours he does and the travel he does. So we're equal as far as we're both concerned. I think the law would agree and being a lawyer, he should know.

MaryKatharine · 15/08/2013 16:40

Sorry, op, that wasn't helpful to you at all! I think they need to get clarification on where they are when he moves out. A mortgage statement would show what equity they had in the house when he stopped contributing. It will be more muddy if he decides to continue paying reduced amounts though.

Hope he can get it sorted!

Original poster
LouiseAderyn · 15/08/2013 17:26

Thanks. He is willing to continue paying 50%, but obviously wants to stay in the house when he is on leave.

I tale the view that if his ex feels so bloody uncomfortable sharing, then she has the option of staying in a hotel when he is home. Failing that, she needs to just put up with it, given that this was her choice and if she'd told him the truth in the first place they wouldn't be in this mess.

OP posts:
cestlavielife · 15/08/2013 21:46

If he moves out he should pay occupational rent to him on his share.
Regardless of who pays what the likely share is fifty fifty bless there is a declaration otherwise eg one put more deposit.
He should hold out for fifty fifty regardless.
And he should get advice from solicitor will be 150 well spent f or one hour

cestlavielife · 15/08/2013 21:47

Sorry she she hound effectively pay him rent in practice this could just mean paying mortgage herself as h has to pay rent elsewhere

Collaborate · 15/08/2013 21:51

Doesn't matter who paid more for the deposit. It's what the deeds say that's important.

Original poster
LouiseAderyn · 15/08/2013 22:19

The deposit came from the sale of their previous house and so wasn't a question of one person putting in more initially - it has all been 50/50.

OP posts:
Revengeofkarma · 16/08/2013 21:47

There's two ways for people to own a house together. Joint tenants and tenants in common. If they split up, JTs are presumed a 50/50 split WHATEVER they put into it. TIC are proportional shares, which would usually be listed in the deed.

It is one of the biggest investments he will ever have and he needs proper legal advice to sort it out.

Original poster
LouiseAderyn · 17/08/2013 08:43

They are joint tenants. Am making him an appt to see a solicitor just as a one off

OP posts:
Collaborate · 17/08/2013 21:01

JTs are not just presumed to be equal owners. They are in fact in law equal owners.

Revengeofkarma · 18/08/2013 20:41

Well in law they each own the whole property 100%. But on dividing the property prior to the death of a joint tenant, it is a 50/50 split, presuming two joint tenants.

JohFlow · 18/08/2013 23:54

You need to check in with the Land Registry's website and get the Title Deeds for the property. On there it will specify the agreement that was made financially when they obtained the property. If it specifies that (due to financial inputs when they bought) that one partner will recover more of a percentage on selling - then that is law. But if nothing specific is mentioned about ratios - then they own the property 50/50. The mortgage is a seperate issue. If she wants to pay more; that does not mean that she is entitled to more of the revenue from sale. I would suggest that your brother gets a mortgage agreement in writing to cover his back should anything change in amicability later.

There is another thing that he can do - he can apply for a order with the registry that states that they are 'tenants in common' in the property. This protects his 50% regardless of what his ex does with her share. Its just a safe guard.

Wish him luck

Earlybird · 18/08/2013 23:57

Why don't they continue to keep the mortgage at a 50/50 split (to keep it uncomplicated when time to split the proceeds), but she takes over all household bills (electricity, water, etc)?

meatloaf · 19/08/2013 00:10

XP and I were tenants in common and although he earned a lot more than me to begin with because the property was in joint 50:50 that's what legally happened. He didnt contest it (I expected him to).