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
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

What's fair in this case - advice for friend

45 replies

KentuckyFreudChicken · 01/01/2007 15:55

My friend and her ex partner bought a house together 3 years ago. 2 months after they moved in they split up and he moved out (was having an affair).

He put in the deposit 11k
She paid 4k for solicitors bills, costs etc

Other than first 2 months, she has paid all mortgage, bills etc

He refused to sign it over to her unless she paid him 11k (couldnt afford to).
He refused to let her sell it earlier unless she paid the 3k early redemption penalty out of her profits (and split the rest)...she did not want to do this.

So 3 years later, early redemption penalty ends in March. What should my friend do? If they sell how should they split profits to make it fair? She still can't afford to give him his 11k back but he still wont sign it over unless she does and she doesn't want to keep paying all the mortgage forever when he's still on the deeds.

How can my friend safeguard her best interests and what is her ex dp entitled to?

Any help would be greatly appreciated as this has been a big stress to her.

OP posts:
QuootiepieTheHogmanayAss · 01/01/2007 15:59

It's only fair she pays him the 11k... thats all he put in, but it's still alot to "lose". Can she pay him in instalments? Or get an official agreement written up?

DoesntChristmasDragOn · 01/01/2007 16:05

She should give him the 11K back. Probably plus an amount to cover the increase in value of that 11K share of the house.

TheBlonde · 01/01/2007 16:06

Surely he should pick up half the costs though

QuootiepieTheHogmanayAss · 01/01/2007 16:06

yeah, I guess if 11k bought 10%, he should get that percentage of the profits.

QuootiepieTheHogmanayAss · 01/01/2007 16:07

Oh, and he should pay 1/2 the fees.

DoesntChristmasDragOn · 01/01/2007 16:13

Yes, costs should be taken out of his share but not necessarily half since he doesn't own half the house.

TheDevilsAdvocate · 01/01/2007 16:14

I think she needs to calculate everything put in first.

He put in 11K + 2 months mortgage (or 1/2 of 2 months mortgage?). Call it A

She put in 4K plus + ?? number of mortgage payments (bills not relevant). B

What percentage of the original cost was the 11K? C

She needs to pay him A - B + C% of price increase.

jampots · 01/01/2007 16:16

i think it all hinges on how the house was bought - tenants in common or joint tenants. One ensures the total ownership is split equally (joint tenants i think) and the other ensures they each preserve their initial investment percentage.

Original poster
KentuckyFreudChicken · 01/01/2007 16:27

wow - fast responses, thanks everyone.......She estimates she will have paid close to 18K in mortgage payments by March.

11k was 10% of the property price - other than this he has paid £500 towards the mortgage in first 2 months.

She also paid the house insurance for 3 years.....does this make any difference???

He is trying to get 11k plus half of the profits from the sale, minus his half of the fees....surely this is not at all fair??????

OP posts:
Original poster
KentuckyFreudChicken · 01/01/2007 16:27

they were joint tenants

OP posts:
TheBlonde · 01/01/2007 16:29

presumably she has had the benefit of living in the house

DoesntChristmasDragOn · 01/01/2007 16:30

So your friend has paid £22k and he has paid £11.5k?

House insurance etc won't count, it's purely what has been paid for the house.

jampots · 01/01/2007 16:30

joint tenants would assume he is entitled to 50% of the profits. I would advise her to see a solicitor and a valuer who is happy to undervalue hte house

smittenkitten · 01/01/2007 16:30

i'm not entirely sure, but didn't they specify when they bought the house what the ownership would be? I remember doing this when I bought house with DP and specified that we would own it 50/50 so if we ever separate she's entitled to half regardless of the fact that i put in all the equity and pay the mortgage. (my solicitor was horrified and advised against it!)

Original poster
KentuckyFreudChicken · 01/01/2007 16:30

yes she has lived in the house - and struggled to pay for it all for the whole time!

OP posts:
Twiglett · 01/01/2007 16:31

if they were joint tenants he gets 50% profits from sale I would think

DoesntChristmasDragOn · 01/01/2007 16:32

It may be more complicated - of the £18k mortgage payments, only a part will have been capital repayment, the rest would have been interest. I would imagine that only the capital repay,ent part counts as money put in although I don't know for sure. She really needs to sort it via a solicitor. If nothing was drawn up when they purchased the house then it may be down to negotiation.

Original poster
KentuckyFreudChicken · 01/01/2007 16:40

well, he arranged the mortgage etc - she was a bit silly but obviously trusted him - it was only after they split she looked a bit deeper. There was no equity protection for her ex.

Thing is there's not a huge amount of profit for her if he insists on getting his 11k back first and then splitting whats left. There's probably 25-30k equity in the house -she just wanted to split it 50/50 and pay half fees each. So say 15k each

he wants to take 11k and then split it so she'd get 9.5k and he'd get 20.5k (if they sell at 30k). Shes very reluctant to do this as she needs money for decent deposit on a flat. Can he legally do this???

OP posts:
Original poster
KentuckyFreudChicken · 01/01/2007 16:42

it was an interest only mortgage - does this mean her mortgage repayments don't count???

OP posts:
QuootiepieTheHogmanayAss · 01/01/2007 16:43

I dont think he should get 1/2 profits, because he hasnt maintained the house etc. I think it's fairer for him to get 11k +10%. If he's really picky, the 2 months mortgage payments and the insurance or whatever he paid aswell.

Original poster
KentuckyFreudChicken · 01/01/2007 16:44

I agree she needs to see solicitor but can't really afford it - she would prefer tonegotiate but he won't shift from having his 11k back before any other kinda deal.

He's not forcing her to sell btw - she could stay there but is this in her best interest?

OP posts:
nothercules · 01/01/2007 16:44

Does the fact that she has been living there get taken into consideration. Presumably he would have had to pay to stay elsewhere whilst didnt.

MamaG · 01/01/2007 16:48

tenants in common/joint tenants are a way of owning a house, it has nothing to do with what percentage you own.

If you own as joint tenants, if you die your share goes to the other joint tenants.

If you own as tenants in common, you leave you share of hte house, by will, to whoever you want.

I'm a lawyer by the way, its not just a wild guess! Your friend must see a sol. Fairest thing is to work out what percentage 11K was, each pay half the costs and for him to get the same percentage out of the net equity now.

MamaG · 01/01/2007 16:49

Would he be willing to have a charge on the house so taht when she does eventually sell, he gets X%?

Judy1234 · 01/01/2007 16:54

It has nothing to do with contributions in law. They chose to buy as joint tenants, 50% each. TRhey could have agreed otherwise but they were too stupid to see a lawyer or draw antying up so now they pay the price. We own half my father's house. That has nothing to do with who paid for anything. Legally it's our half and he can't turn round and say well I paid XYZ towards it. It's an irrelevance. She may want to try to argue that she had an agreement with him that he would pay back mortgage costs but I bet when he left they didnt' sign anything saying on what basis she paid the mortgage. Most men who move out who have had an affari on a divorce situation there is then a bit of an argujment about whether he pays the mortgage or half of it or none of it. In this case they are unmarried and she chose to pay at her own risk and loss.

So is 50% of the profits actually less than the £11k he put in? If so she actually wins out from having joint tenancy like this in a sense.

He may of course not know the law and she may be able to negotiate a better deal. They should share all sale costs.

Swipe left for the next trending thread