Shared ownership - selling my half

Ulfar

I would personally take the 4k, assuming the other joint owner can actually take on the full mortgage debt himself.

If they were to sell now once you take into account solicitor fees and estate agent fees they would both end up with nothing. This also assumes they get asking price.

4k or nothing isn't a hard choice.

What is going to happen in the future is uncertain.

If the OP stays a joint owner it will cripple his finances as he will still be paying half costs for mortgage, service charges and will affect the affordability of any rent he has to pay.

He could get a renter in to offset his costs, but this has its own pitfalls and as an accidental landlord is asking for trouble. This also assumes the lease allows subletting.

zappahey

dorset_nurse wrote: »

All you have pointed out in the above is that I admitted in post #22 that I should have been clearer in my language that I was not talking about a financial gain so that people like you didn't ASSUME I was. It is not my problem if you cannot understand posts. I won't mention comprehension again.

Not particularly wishing to interfere in your tiff but your words in post 22 were quite unambiguous with no scope for misunderstanding.

From the OP's post, it is quite clear that his equity has diminished substantially.

<a whole bunch of other stuff deleted, since the OP has not returned to the thread to look at the responses to their first ever post and is looking like another throwaway trolling account>

dorset_nurse

dorset_nurse wrote: »

Good point- but he actually has "gained" some equity over the last 4 years, prehaps not the best choice of words in the circumstances.
It's only a loss when he walks away with 4k having put much more in.

Zappahey; My words were not ambiguous- he has gained some equity, albeit a small percentage compared to the money the OP has paid in. He is not yet into negative equity.

His equity hasn't deminished as you say because he never owned it in the first place- he owned half of the mortgage and has just paid a hell of a lot to obtain the 4K worth share he now owns in the property. (Which it is only worth that if someone will pay the price suggested for it)

I thought I made myself quite clear in the many times I have had to re-iterate the same thing!

Orpheo

dorset_nurse wrote: »

Zappahey; My words were not ambiguous- he has gained some equity, albeit a small percentage compared to the money the OP has paid in. He is not yet into negative equity.

His equity hasn't deminished as you say because he never owned it in the first place- he owned half of the mortgage and has just paid a hell of a lot to obtain the 4K worth share he now owns in the property. (Which it is only worth that if someone will pay the price suggested for it)

I thought I made myself quite clear in the many times I have had to re-iterate the same thing!

He began with equity of 15/118 which was 12.7% equity.

He now has equity of 8/96 which is 8.3% equity.

His equity has reduced from 12.7% to 8.3%.

Where has he gained equity, Einstein?

No doubt you will soon follow up with a post explaining how you are quite correct and everyone else has poor comprehension. Heavens forfend that you are assaulted by the realisation you are either clueless and therefore talking complete !!!!!! or that you are unable to explain yourself.

zappahey

dorset_nurse wrote: »

Zappahey; My words were not ambiguous- he has gained some equity, albeit a small percentage compared to the money the OP has paid in. He is not yet into negative equity.

His equity hasn't deminished as you say because he never owned it in the first place- he owned half of the mortgage and has just paid a hell of a lot to obtain the 4K worth share he now owns in the property. (Which it is only worth that if someone will pay the price suggested for it)

You don't appear to understand what equity actually means.

Equity is the cash difference between the value of the property and the debts secured against it.

When they bought the house, they had £30k in equity between them (£118k value - £88k mortgage). Now they have £8k in equity (£96k value - £88k mortgage).

The money he paid in represents the equity at time of purchase, the money he gets out equals equity at time of sale and, if it is less, it has clearly diminished.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equity?rskey=yzajqL&result=1#m_en_gb0271400

Pronunciation:/ˈɛkwɪti/
noun (plural equities)

I]mass noun[/I

• 1 the quality of being fair and impartial:equity of treatment
• Lawa branch of law that developed alongside common law and is concerned with fairness and justice, formerly administered in special courts.
• 2 the value of the shares issued by a company:he owns 62% of the group's equity
• (equities) stocks and shares that carry no fixed interest.
• 3 the value of a mortgaged property after deduction of charges against it.

zappahey

Orpheo wrote: »

He now has equity of 8/96 which is 8.3% equity.

4/96 or 4.1% as the £8k is between both owners

Orpheo

zappahey wrote: »

4/96 or 4.1% as the £8k is between both owners

Thanks. I was under the impression that they had 8K equity each. It appears that I am guilty of a reading error in that respect.

Nevertheless, this makes dorset nurse wrong by a wider margin.

Effectively the OP is being offered full asking price.

Orpheo

It would appear that the OP has either not paid down any capital (IO?) or is not aware of the current mortgage balance.

dorset_nurse

Jees, you guys really are bored aren't you?!

He has gained equity because he bought the house having none, and now has some. Its as simple as that. I'm not disputing the amount of equity has reduced since.

There is no point in looking further into the values, the question here is what does the OP do.

Orpheous it looks like you are intent on arguing throughout just about every thread you write looking at recent replies to your posts.
Shame you don't spend the same amount of time looking into the facts of the OP and sticking to the thead.
If you actually owned a house or mortgage you may be in a better position to give him advice (thats your own way of thinking isn't it?).
His mortgage rate could be peanuts right now; his payments are probably less than the rent you are paying to your LL.

Orpheo

dorset_nurse wrote: »

Jees, you guys really are bored aren't you?!

He has gained equity because he bought the house having none, and now has some. Its as simple as that. I'm not disputing the amount of equity has reduced since.

There is no point in looking further into the values, the question here is what does the OP do.

Orpheo[STRIKE]us[/STRIKE] it looks like you are intent on arguing throughout just about every thread you write looking at recent replies to your posts.
Shame you don't spend the same amount of time looking into the facts of the OP and sticking to the thead.
If you actually owned a house or mortgage you may be in a better position to give him advice (thats your own way of thinking isn't it?).
His mortgage rate could be peanuts right now; his payments are probably less than the rent you are paying to your LL.

Nice shift of the goalposts there. Or is it just that you are really that simple?

Pretty much all of my recent posts have been in this thread, so its no wonder is it?

I have been a mortgagee twice, so I have some experience. The difference is that I didn't lose money. The notion that anyone who isn't a mortgagee shouldn't have an opinion is ludicrous, or as you might put it, ricidulous.