House Advice Following Separation

ThePants999

NewHomeOwner wrote: »

So would it be fair if he got his deposit back (£2500) got 50% of the £2350 equity paid off through mortgage payments whilst he was still contributing (£1175), 10% (proportionate to his share of deposit) of the £25,000 increase (£2500) and 50% of the furniture we bought jointly (£750).

So total £6925.

And then we split selling costs jointly? Or should I be paying more of the selling costs?

Personally, I think any increase in the house value while he was helping to pay the mortgage is half his, and any increase after he ceased to contribute to the mortgage is entirely yours. Fortunately, 50% of £5,000 and 10% of £25,000 work out to be exactly the same thing

Selling costs is an interesting one. Let me just take an impossible scenario for a moment. Imagine that you didn't sort this out for years and the price of the house trebled. We're arguing that's irrelevant to what he's owed - but it affects the selling costs to the point where, if you split them equally, he might get nothing. Is that fair? I don't think so. I think that as you've split everything else up according to contribution, it would then be fair to split the selling costs according to what you're each getting from the sale.

AnotherJoe

ThePants999 wrote: »

Personally, I think any increase in the house value while he was helping to pay the mortgage is half his, and any increase after he ceased to contribute to the mortgage is entirely yours.

That was my first thought but look at it another way, they couldn't live together so one of them had to move out. Maybe they flipped a coin. The one that moved out had to pay rent which likely is a similar cost. So the one that moved out should get some percentage, why should they lose out?
People who agree with that, disagree whether it's in proportion to the original deposit, or should be 50/50 or one person said 75/25. I think I'm going back to 50/50

NewHomeOwner_2

AnotherJoe wrote: »

That was my first thought but look at it another way, they couldn't live together so one of them had to move out. Maybe they flipped a coin. The one that moved out had to pay rent which likely is a similar cost. So the one that moved out should get some percentage, why should they lose out?
People who agree with that, disagree whether it's in proportion to the original deposit, or should be 50/50 or one person said 75/25. I think I'm going back to 50/50

Not sure it's relevant to my original post, but just to say though that's not always the case. Renting would have been FAR cheaper as I've been paying a large mortgage on a 3 bed family house. Going back and renting a one bed would have been at least 50% cheaper and I was the lower earner by quite a lot so my salary has only just covered mortgage and bills for the last year. Its been really, really tight. It's not always as simple as flipping a coin as to who stays and who goes.

In what was a tricky time 18 months ago neither of us wanted to stay in the house. But as most of the money put into the property was mine, it was far harder for me to leave as I had the most to lose.

I guess my point is. It's not always simple.

Anyway thank you for all the advice given so far. You've all been very helpful

pollydollydoodah

To keep it friendly I'd show him how you've worked it out and take selling costs 50% off hid total. As you would have both incurred them anyway.

Having seen friend s go through similar-just aim to keep the friendliness as there's nothing worse than money ruining it.