All advice welcome - selling a house!

Confused2015_2

mambo69 wrote: »

no but look at it logically you/your parents put in 10% and she/her parents put in 90%. when its sold why should you now get 30%?

personally i think 15% is fair

So, hypothetically speaking, if for some reason we were selling the house now and it was in negative equity, she would be liable for 90% of the deficit and I would only be liable for 10%? As joint mortgagees, I am pretty sure she would be coming after me for 50%!

For 2 years of our ownership period we paid everything equally, for 4 years it has been self sufficient. Okay, there was a 2 year period where she took care of the property, but I hardly think that warrants an 85/15 split! I hope not anyway!

Confused2015_2

lee111s wrote: »

He paid towards the mortgage for 2 years. That's why.

Correct

lee111s wrote: »

The property he was still jointly and severally liable for was also rented out for 4 years, I assume paying off capital, why should the other partner benefit from all of that?

It was indeed paying off capital.

lee111s wrote: »

In future, if you buy another property with someone you're not married to, look at getting a deed of trust sorted out.

Good advice. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I won't make the same mistake twice

Silk

Confused2015 wrote: »

For the first 18 months we divided everything equally.

For the 2 year period that she lived there with a lodger I made no contribution as the rent received from the lodger paid 50% of the mortgage.

For the last 4 years, neither of us have had to contribute anything as the rent has covered the mortgage payment in full.

I have suggested settling 70/30 in her favour to factor in the 2 year period where she was solely responsible for the property. I believe this to be a fair settlement

The way I would see it is ......
First 18 months 50/50 so no problem


Second 2 years lodger funded 50% of mortgage so you should both be liable for the other 50% ....so you would owe 25% of mortgage for two years


Last 4 years mortgage covered so again no problem.


I would say return the deposits to the parents giving a reasonable rate of interest ......from what's left deduct the 25% mortgage payments along with the costs for improvements then split the residue 50/50

mambo69

look at it another way after 96 mortgage payements (8 years) he contributed to 18 of them. 18/96 is 18.75%

how the mortgage was covered for the rest of the time is irrelevant, he made no contribution

Silk

mambo69 wrote: »

look at it another way after 96 mortgage payements (8 years) he contributed to 18 of them. 18/96 is 18.75%

how the mortgage was covered for the rest of the time is irrelevant, he made no contribution

Not really ...the house was jointly let by the couple to both the lodger and the tenants. The funds earned during this period should be split 50/50 in any event

Thrugelmir

Take the initial deposit out of the equation. Assume that these monies are repaid to your respective parents.

Then ask for 30%.

Morgage_Confused

simple 50%....if it was massive neg equity and she was out of a job the mortgage company would come after you for the lot.

Silk

Morgage_Confused wrote: »

simple 50%....if it was massive neg equity and she was out of a job the mortgage company would come after you for the lot.

So you are saying that if you had paid the equivalent of 12 months more mortgage, spent time effort and money on improvements you would be happy giving your partner 50% based on sharing liability?

amnblog

Take the money and move on.

You wont benefit from any other course of action.

lee111s

Silk wrote: »

So you are saying that if you had paid the equivalent of 12 months more mortgage, spent time effort and money on improvements you would be happy giving your partner 50% based on sharing liability?

I bet if there was negative equity you'd be wanting 50% from the other party to make up for the shortfall.

You can't have your cake AND eat it.