Ex wants me to pay him for mortgage in negative equity

johnsomers10

Hi all,

Hope someone can tell me how to go about this one lol
I split with my ex 4mths ago he moved out and rented a new place, i now stay in the property on my own and pay the mortgage with no contribution from him.
Originally the plan was for me to take over the mortgage alone ( i am in a position to do this) the property is in around 10k negative equity . This was all fine until my ex has decided that he wants 5k to remove him from the mortgage, or wants me to pay the mortgage on my own until the property is out of negative equity and he gets half the profit ?????? ultimately meaning i could be paying for this property alone and he will get the half the profit having not contirbuted to the mortgage for the foreseeable future

any advice anyone ?

Thrugelmir

Suggest that the property is sold and your ex contributes 50% of the shortfall. So not just negative equity but selling fees as well.

May help focus them on the issue you both face.

holly_hobby

You need to be aware that whilst the property is in negative equity, the lender won't release him in any event (as they would rather 2 parties to pursue than just 1) - so you and he may be a trifle stuck unless you start thowing money at the mge to reduce the LTV, or you sell and deal with any neg equity sfall at that point (the lender will require a scheduled payment plan).

I know not great news ... but at least you know what the issues are !!

Hope this helps .. wish you well

Holly x

property.advert

This needs to be resolved now. According to some reading I did recently, I was surprised to find that even if someone had moved out and was not paying the mortgage but were still on the deeds, then they were entitled to their share of the property.

Issues as to missing mortgage payments, the resident partner having full use of the property instead of 50% etc. would be separate arguments and secondary arguments to boot.

maninthestreet

johnsomers10 wrote: »

Hi all,

Hope someone can tell me how to go about this one lol
I split with my ex 4mths ago he moved out and rented a new place, i now stay in the property on my own and pay the mortgage with no contribution from him.
Originally the plan was for me to take over the mortgage alone ( i am in a position to do this) the property is in around 10k negative equity . This was all fine until my ex has decided that he wants 5k to remove him from the mortgage, or wants me to pay the mortgage on my own until the property is out of negative equity and he gets half the profit ?????? ultimately meaning i could be paying for this property alone and he will get the half the profit having not contirbuted to the mortgage for the foreseeable future

any advice anyone ?

You are already paying the mortage on you own, and the lender is unlikely to allow his name to be removed from the mortgage.

Valli

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Suggest that the property is sold and your ex contributes 50% of the shortfall. So not just negative equity but selling fees as well.

This would be fairer than you paying the mortgage until the property does increase in value. As it stands this way you both lose £5K - his way you're going to be down AT LEAST £15 K (the £10K shortfall + the £5K he wants)...and THAT doesn't take into account you paying the mortgage in the interim!

pink_pirlie

When I split with my ex 3 years ago we did a "transfer of equity" on a property in negative equity. I took over the whole property and mortgage and his name was taken off the deeds. Not sure if this is common practice / position changed more recently, but may be worth looking into.

If he isn't contributing, you should sort this out asap and ensure that you do it properly. Get yourself an independent solicitor and speak to your mortgage provider about the principle of transferring the mortgage into your name alone.

kingstreet

It's at lender discretion. Some may do it, some won't. All you can do is ask...

Thrugelmir

pink_pirlie wrote: »

When I split with my ex 3 years ago we did a "transfer of equity" on a property in negative equity. I took over the whole property and mortgage and his name was taken off the deeds. Not sure if this is common practice / position changed more recently, but may be worth looking into.

Much has changed in past 3 years.

zzzLazyDaisy

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Suggest that the property is sold and your ex contributes 50% of the shortfall. So not just negative equity but selling fees as well.

May help focus them on the issue you both face.

Except that he holds all the cards - he can just refuse to pay 'his share' of the selling fees and shortfall - the lender won't agree to the sale unless you can pay back the loan so you'd be stuck. Or he can simply refuse to agree to the sale.

And he is right, if he sits it out long enough and you eventually want to sell at some point in the future (when you meet someone new, perhaps?) he will be entitled to his share of the equity in the property, as it is in joint names. You should also be aware that as a joint owner he can walk in - even move back in - at any time and it is unlawful for you to change the locks without giving him a key (though I doubt many resident homeowners with absent co-owners take much notice of that).

In short, he has you over a barrel.... and he probably knows it....

Thrugelmir

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Except that he holds all the cards - he can just refuse to pay 'his share' of the selling fees and shortfall - the lender won't agree to the sale unless you can pay back the loan so you'd be stuck. Or he can simply refuse to agree to the sale.

I made the suggestion to "wake him up". He may think he's got the cards. But he hasn't. As the downside to him is considerably worse.

Lenders are open to sensible and reasoned suggestions. Often they will accept full and final settlement from one party for a share of the liability. Which leaves the other party to fend for themselves.

From a lenders point of view. The state of the property could deteriorate due to neither party wishing to spend money on maintenance. Resulting in the loss actually getting larger.

Forced sale through the courts is an expensive option. With no equity in the property there's no possibility of recovering costs.

Better to take action now. Than have the matter drag on. When ideally both parties wish yo move on with their lives.