Gifted deposit and protecting contribution.

Pixie5740

Homeowner2be wrote: »

yes i am in a possition to move out and stle down but im just trying to protect my self if it goes pear shaped i dont see why this seems to be a bad thing, or shal o just accept all conditions with none of my own, pay far more and possibly end up with less.
personaly i earn enough to save up a deposite over the course of a year or 2 but my girlfriend is that desperate to move out that she really liked the idea of taking her dads money and getting out now rather than later and im just trying to figure out a fair way of giving her what she wants without putting my self at risk.

i think im just going to accept the money and get a mortgage as tenants in common work out a monthly payment that in the end would work out to 50%.

Do you really need the £25k from her parents then? If she is still living at home with mum & dad her outgoings must be pretty low, how much has she managed to save so far?

This money from her parents seems like more hassle than it's worth so either go down the route of something like the Barclays springboard mortgage where her parents retain the money, or just wait a year or two. If your girlfriend is desperate to move out then that should focus her mind to maximise the amount she is saving.

[Deleted User]

If your gf is so desperate to move out, why can't she move into a house or flat share?

It will give you both a bit of time to figure out what a relationship is, and organise your finances so you can save more.

I know you feel attacked, I can understand why.., but you aren't getting at the moment that 'me' ideas aren't ideal in a relationship. Maybe you both need to mature a little more and work on what a relationship is, what works etc. Living together in a private rental would help too.., rather than jumping straight into a mortgage that you are having problems with independently (i.e. not a high enough or no deposit). Sometimes the 'quick' way is the wrong way. You would both have a lot at stake if the relationship doesn't work, which is why you are getting stuck on the finances. Why not work through these in the less long term commitment of a private rental for a year or two?

smile88egc

That last post is so patronising..... I can't even.

My dads (civilly partnered) have split property unequally for the entire time they have owned a house together (12 years).

Now in their fifties, one has paid off his half and the other continues to make repayments until the mortgage is paid off. In the end they will own 50/50. The one who has his half paid off keeps some savings in an offset account to help keep the interest down.

The idea that you can't be in a couple without completely merging your income/assets is ridiculous and really old fashioned. Please don't anyone else suggest the OP "matures", the MATURE thing to do is exactly what he is doing by fully considering his future financial liabilities

I think a deed of trust and tenants in common is a good solution OP, a solicitor can advise you on a fair split that works for both parties. Best of luck to you.

franklee

Kynthia wrote: »

Did you read my post?

If you are going to make 70% of the mortgage repayments then you could own 70:30 as tenants in common. Then also have a trust deed that specifies she gets the first £25k back and the rest of the equity is split 70:30. Yes it's not perfect as her £25k is more protected for a drop in property value than your share, but also she's losing out on any interest that would normally gained on that money if it was in a savings account or invested. These aren't big risks and only apply if you split up so why not go for it?

That's better than the OP's suggestion but still isn't allowing for the fact that the OP is gaining from leverage of the deposit which wasn't his. Without the deposit there would be no investment in the house, at least not for a couple of years. In this case cash up front has huge value. So if the 250K house goes up 10% in year one that deposit has allowed a 25K windfall that otherwise wouldn't be possible. The mortgage paid by either party over that year is far less than this so it's the deposit that has done the work. Without it they would have sat in rented and missed out in the house price rise.

Over the years the deposit's influence compared to mortgage payments will lessen but by then the couple's life may have changed, they may have kids, different jobs etc. as Deanna said already.

franklee

Homeowner2be wrote: »

yes i am in a possition to move out and stle down but im just trying to protect my self if it goes pear shaped i dont see why this seems to be a bad thing, or shal o just accept all conditions with none of my own, pay far more and possibly end up with less.
personaly i earn enough to save up a deposite over the course of a year or 2 but my girlfriend is that desperate to move out that she really liked the idea of taking her dads money and getting out now rather than later and im just trying to figure out a fair way of giving her what she wants without putting my self at risk.

i think im just going to accept the money and get a mortgage as tenants in common work out a monthly payment that in the end would work out to 50%.

If you haven't lived together yet then I'd suggest you rent together for two years, save own deposit and then buy. Her parents can use some of the 25K to pay for the wedding in a few years time if they want to and save the rest as investments for their grandchildren

I really wouldn't want to go into a situation of buying together with the resentments the unequal deposit and earnings can create without having lived together first.

Thorson

Like Franklee has asked have you both lived together before?

If not I would honestly not buy a property with someone I haven't lived with, especially with the whole I earn more than you issue as I certainly wouldn't put up with it. If this get brought up all the time sounds harsh but will your gf put up with it?

When you live with someone things are very different it's not just like being on holiday for 2 weeks it's normal everyday life with stresses and strains thrown in for good measure living together can make or break some relationships.

getmore4less

Homeowner2be wrote: »

yes i am in a possition to move out and stle down but im just trying to protect my self if it goes pear shaped i dont see why this seems to be a bad thing, or shal o just accept all conditions with none of my own, pay far more and possibly end up with less.
personaly i earn enough to save up a deposite over the course of a year or 2 but my girlfriend is that desperate to move out that she really liked the idea of taking her dads money and getting out now rather than later and im just trying to figure out a fair way of giving her what she wants without putting my self at risk.

i think im just going to accept the money and get a mortgage as tenants in common work out a monthly payment that in the end would work out to 50%.

that is really easy

you just make the difference in the amount of mortgage you each support £25k.

but if she cannot afford that amount you still have a problem

Money_saving_maniac

smile88egc wrote: »

That last post is so patronising..... I can't even.

My dads (civilly partnered) have split property unequally for the entire time they have owned a house together (12 years).

Now in their fifties, one has paid off his half and the other continues to make repayments until the mortgage is paid off. In the end they will own 50/50. The one who has his half paid off keeps some savings in an offset account to help keep the interest down.

The idea that you can't be in a couple without completely merging your income/assets is ridiculous and really old fashioned. Please don't anyone else suggest the OP "matures", the MATURE thing to do is exactly what he is doing by fully considering his future financial liabilities

I think a deed of trust and tenants in common is a good solution OP, a solicitor can advise you on a fair split that works for both parties. Best of luck to you.

Well gays IMO have not yet fully adapted to the idea of joint, probably because in the past generally gay relationships have not lasted as long as heterosexual ones, possibly due to the inability to legally enter a partnership.

smile88egc

More judgemental rubbish!

Please do not generalise about a huge group of people without any evidence.

This is 2016. Catch up.

Money_saving_maniac

smile88egc wrote: »

More judgemental rubbish!

Please do not generalise about a huge group of people without any evidence.

This is 2016. Catch up.

LOL I apologise for being a 57 year old gay.
I can't help my age.
Stop being so ageist and assuming I am out of date, when in fact you're just too new to the world to understand historical issues.

Boasting about 'your dads' is not the same as living it yourself, pet. Furthermore a lot of social research has been done on the subject of length of gay relationships. You need to look it up before you call it rubbish.

:rotfl: