help - advice on mortgage/sale following split

Thrugelmir

jam14 wrote: »

in the deeds the first money out is there equal split (same each as he put in) then over that amount she starts to get more of hers back until its cleared then they share any profit over that mark.

Legally drafted and witnessed document?

Did the ex receive independent legal advice prior to signing the document?

holly_hobby

70/30 of lawful ownership/equity split, means 70/30 of its independent total value at the time of they disolving the arrangement.

Unless and within the deeds, the apportioning as you have described it above was noted and agreed by the parties at the point of pch (ie - the actual deposit amount is returned to the indviduals in the same monetary figure that they entered the agreement, with then any additional equity gained during the period of ownership, unequally split in a further 70/30 divisionary exercise - have I understood your rationale correctly ? Is this what you want from him ?

Holly

jam14

rough figures - bought for 100,000 with each paying 5000 deposit, further 10,000 put into renovations etc.. from daughters side, signed on deeds 70/30 by both sides at the solicitors prior to purchase.

we want to buy his share of the mortgage, hes trying to make a quick profit from no effort - I believe how its written is they both get there initial 5000 back if the house makes that then after that point her pot grows until all her % is repaid - after that point they receive 50/50 any profit

We need to buy him out but he doesnt yet understand the maths

jam14

thanks for all your advise Im going to add a brand new post with clarification of the situation as things are getting cloudy

holly_hobby

Hey Jam,

Is this my correct understanding of your post.

Property pch - financial details

Pch price 100k

Total deposit 10k @ 5k each

90k mge = 90% ltv

Tenancy In Common Deed

70/30 split of legal ownership (after reimbursement of original 5k deposit)


Upgrading

D has input 10k into costs of improvements, and wants this money back before any 70/30 divison, and in addition to her initial 5kr


That is pretty straight forward (although legally I think she's said goodbye to the 10k, if he won't have it, and there was no additional legal deed executed re the further reimbursement of her 10k). Although a court may seen it differently, or then again may not ..... could the legal costs be justified if they didn't find in her favour ?

I say pretty straight forward because, the house is valued at whatever it is (3 independent market vals is the usual), deduct 10k deposit off this figure (lets leave her additional 10k for the moment).

The remaining value is then apportioned as per the 70/30 agreement - it being a % figure means that the value of the legal ownership is reflective of it as a % of the current value, so by virtue it will automatically be adjusted by any movement in the market price (either a gain on the original pch price or not).

The remaining owner then provides the leaving owner the capital sum due, so for him its 30% & 5k in my estimation (which I know may disappoint re the 10k home imps, but if not in a sep deed, I think she'll struggle to have that viewed as legally ringfenced from inclusion.

Have I confused things ?

Probably .. sorry if I have !

Hope this helps

Holly

jam14

Sort holly just reposted it's 30/70 split of all equity