Splitting the equity when one person paid the deposit

[Housemum]

Ok so hindsight is a wonderful thing. DD and ex-fiancé bought a flat together. She paid the £20k deposit, he put in £1000 to cover some of purchase fees. 3 years later they have split up and flat is on the market. At first he was being quite civil, but he is now demanding an arbitrary figure of £7k to move out. (Maybe that’s a year’s rent?).

They didn’t get a deed of trust as they (he) said they would respect what each had brought in. They bought as joint tenants (yes I did say they should have bought as tenants in common with unequal share - hindsight as I say)

Her view - sell flat, should hopefully get enough to repay mortgage, give each back what they put in, then split the rest 50/50 after fees. Should mean they get £2/3k each if lucky on top of their original payments.

My question is, and obviously I’ll seek legal advice if he kicks off, can he insist that all the equity is split 50/50 as they legally own the place jointly? Even though she put in £20k, which was money she had before she met him, can he actually take half of it?

They both earned equally and had no kids, so no issues of anyone having been forced into not earning. He has basically told her it’s not fair that she is better off from him (we can have her back home and she has her savings if she gets them back, his mum has redecorated his room and he can’t go back so will have to rent).

Hopefully someone with more expertise will respond but I’m pretty sure that, as it’s set up, any equity will legally be split 50/50 and there’s nothing she can do about it.

from what ive read and heard - yes

He is a dick though for doing that

Yes he can claim 50:50 reguardless of who paid more - and he has more to gain by going via solicitors

I think £7K is reasonable - he could as for £13K

Tell her to offer him £5K and count heralded lucky this time

Unfortunately having bought as joint tenants rather than tenants in common he is legally entitled to half. I am in same position. If your DD can get him out for less than that I’d tell her to bite his hand off, as if he goes to a solicitor they will tell him to fight for half and without any legal agreement otherwise he will get it.

I say ‘fight for half’ but there would be no fight, he can legally get Land Registry to register the property as owned 50:50 tenants in common without your DDs agreement (just has to notify her that it’s happening) and then that’s it, he’d get half automatically. This is what has happened to me. She really does need to act fast to get him out before he takes legal advice.

But surely when they sell half will be paid to him directly, so there’s nothing she can do about that in advance?

Given the cost of selling and buying somewhere new, is there any possibility she could buy him out? Give him say £10k to come off the deeds and go away?

Its usually paid as a ‘joint’ cheque any way - so they split it later unless agreed by the solicitor.

Personally she should buy him out and then sell if that’s what she wants

That’s pretty much reaffirmed what I thought - he’s agreed to sell and is wanting £7k, his mother also didn’t understand where that figure came from. To be honest, if he’s happy with £7k we’ll go with that, far better than losing £10k

GreenTulips conveyancers generally send two separate sums if the owners are separated.
She might also want to sever the joint tenancy. If she dies now, he'd get the whole property.
www.gov.uk/joint-property-ownership/change-from-joint-tenants-to-tenants-in-common

What others have said is not 100% true. I am not a solicitor but actually going through court for the exact same issue.

If it was a mistake to tick joint tennants on the TR1 and there is evidence to back that up (witness statements from people who heard conversations as to what your intentions were) then it can mean a judge reconfigures the equity percentages.

Having said that both sides current fees are 30k plus, so its probably not advisable over a few k....

Indeed I think it would be better to give him more than he is morally (if not what he is legally) due than end up losing loads in legal fees

Hang on, though. They weren't married. Why does he think he deserves more? They don't have children together. I know you don't want to spend a lot on lawyers but I would have thought one session with a lawyer would tell you whether it's better to pay him off or to fight it.

Unfortunately he’s entitled. He sounds like a dick though. How has he come up with the figure?

But why is he entitled to more? If she'd bought with a female friend she wouldn't be expected to hand over £7K.

Doesn’t matter about morally

This is the law

If she'd bought with a female friend she wouldn't be expected to hand over £7K

Yes she would.

As the house was owned as joint tenants they own the property equally regardless of their contributions to the purchase price. It sounds like there is around £25k equity since they put in £21k between them and the OP suggests that, after repaying that, they would each get an additional £2k/£3k. So they are each entitled to £12.5k or thereabouts. He seems to be settling for less than he is entitled to.

The same rules would apply if she had bought the house with a female friend or, indeed, a complete stranger. The sex of the other owner and the relationship between the owners is irrelevant as they weren't married.

It’s so frustrating that they didn’t do the tenants in common (unequal shares) or write a deed of trust. She has evidence (her old building society books) that her money was there before they even got together, so it’s bit like he can claim he supported her whilst she siphoned off cash

*not like