What would you think as fair

[granadagirl]

Met dp 19 yrs ago, now at the age of me 62 him 65
I had my own property, he rented his house.
After 2 yrs or so, I sold and we bought property together 160k
Using my Equity of 80k as deposit, he came with nothing.
He took mortgage out for remaining 80k, in joint names tenants in common. He pays the mortgage himself. I offered to pay half but said that would mean I owe 75%. He didn’t want that. The solicitor due up if the event of anything happening my 80k was protected.
Years done the line this as goaded him and he resents me for it.

Anyway, things are going pear shaped, more arguments over silly things.
Things have been said, by both of us maybe in anger and hurt.

So house is worth at a guess maybe 280k, outstanding mortgage 19k(his)
We got cheaper mortgage because of LTV 16 years ago using my Equity.

So if we go our separate ways
What do you think is a fair split??

you have benefitted too, because you got to live in a £160K house for £80K and not have to pay the mortgage for the reamining £80K

so he still has £19K to pay on his mortgage, that needs to come out of his share, which should be split 50:50

there is no reason why you should get more. Yes he got a good rate, but equally the rate could have skyrocketted over those years and he would still have had to pay the mortgage

80K increasing to 140K in 16 years is not bad, especially given whats happened financially since then, recession/austerity etc

I am confused as to why you think you should get more than half?

Had you have been paying the mortgage, I would understand that. The mortgage was for 80k, but including interest he will have paid more than that. That wouldnt entitle him to more.

He does need to clear the outstanding 19k from his half though.

I agree with everyone else: split the value of the house, and he pays off the £19k remaining on the mortgage as that's his 'half' of the initially equal investment.

Who cares if he got a better interest rate because of the equity you put up back in the day? Presumably you loved him at the time, and wouldn't want him to hand extra profits over to bank CEOs for no good reason?

50/50 and he clears remaining mortgage from his half. You have both benefitted from this arrangement.

I imagine what he has resented all these years is not the £80k line about the equity being yours by the way, but that his income has had to first pay the mortgage to match it all these years while you got to keep your entire income.

That was entirely fair under the circumstances .. I'm not saying it wasn't! ... but I'm sure it has bugged him all these years.

But you have a SN child to consider and take care of in future. Who cares if it grated or what he thinks. I imagine he's not going to be helping with your child once the house is sold and you both move on...

I don’t think I should get more, maybe reading back it looks like that

Bit back ground regarding my property
My mortgage was only £120 mth
So was easily paid. Ex husband and I bought back in 1984 for 19k
25yr mortgage so only had handful of years left.

Suppose what I’m thinking in my head is
Currently my ex house is valued at 189k, so I’d off got more than I’m getting now and can’t get property in the area I’ve lived before meeting him since 1984

But that’s life.

You get your £80k back. That leaves £200k, less the £19k outstanding mortgage. So there's £181k left. That gets split 50/50 so £90,500 each.

So you get £170,500 and he gets £90,500. That's the way I would do it.

Actually, I've changed my mind and think it would be fair to do 50/50. You both get £140k and he has to pay the £19k left on the mortgage himself out of his share. So you get £140k and he gets £121k

I missed the bit where he has paid the mortgage alone

I suppose I’m just annoyed ( annoyed might be wrong word) that he’s made money off my back, as he would probably still be renting iget your bitter about the split but you have no idea where you would be had you not got with him 20 years ago, yoi can't now put a financial cost on that and say he owes it you for being in your life.

The agreement protects the first 80k as yours. If there's more than 160k equity then it gets split in half. The mortgage remains his to pay off so you're 19k better off than you were.
That means you look for joint ownership if you can get it or your equity goes into rent.

I don’t think I should get more so what are you asking cos obviously you don't think you should get less. If you dont think you should get more or less then you think you build get half. Is he disputing this?

I just wanted other people’s opinion
If they were in my shoes that’s all.

I suppose it’s because he’s been arguing the toss recently about him paying more than 80k in mortgage with the interest over the years

I just want wants fair, and not a war

Suppose what I’m thinking in my head is
Currently my ex house is valued at 189k, so I’d off got more than I’m getting now and can’t get property in the area I’ve lived before meeting him since 1984

But you dont live in the ex house. If you wanted to own that property outright, you should have stayed in that one, had legal paperwork drawn up to protect it and had him move in there.

Then he wouldnt have paid the mortgage of all these years.

The house was set up 50:50. He has paid a mortgage, more than the 80k, but that's life, that's what having a mortgage is. Thats what all of us with a mortgage does. Mine was 72k. I will pay more than that to own the house outright. He decided to get the mortgage knowing that. You are entitled to 50:50. You also bought the house knowing he was paying for half of it and is entitled to half.

paying more than 80k in mortgage with the interest over the years point out that your 80k has also acquired interest. He's paid 61k and you've paid 80k so actually you've acquired more interest on your half. However you wouldn't like to be a pedantic arse so 50/50 makes the most sense

the interest he had to pay isn't your problem and shouldn't be factored in. He made the decision and wanted 50% equity in the house, rather than 75%, and he had to pay interest to get his hands on the money to do it. Such is life.

Sell the house for £280k, clear the £19k mortgage from the sale and split the remaining £261k between you (£130.5k each)

He benefited from your 80k deposit, which helped get him on the property ladder. But you have lived rent & mortgage payment free while your £80 appreciated, you have also not paid any interest on the mortgage. (He will have already paid more than £80 in total)

paying more than 80k in mortgage with the interest over the years
tis the nature of mortgages
You had to presumably pay on the mortgage that you had previously had on the property that gave you the £80K to invest.
Its all swings and roundabouts.

(He will have already paid more than £80 in total)
So what?
OP will have paid interest on the amount she borrowed in her original mortgage, so her 80k cost her more thsn 80k ...

What does it say in your Deed of Trust? That is was agreed between you when you were happy.

We were in a similar position, and ours says that the mortgage gets paid first, then he gets an equivalent amount to the mortgage, and after that the remainder is split 50/50. We felt that was fair.