Split up with girlfriend. Taking over mortgage

pphillips

Her solicitor should only be concerned that the transaction is legal and that she is not being pressured into it. If she wants advice about pursuing more money then I think it's up to her to raise this with her solicitor.

swingaloo

Well I agree that its none of my business. However you did post on an open forum and so people will give opinions which may not agree with you but that's a chance you take.

Obviously all any reader knows is what you choose to disclose on here.

Quoting from your first post that you 'Don't want a pushy solicitor trying to get her to change her mind' suggests that you know she is entitled to more.

Entitled to legally and morally are indeed two different things. I would also say that trying to keep someone from seeing a solicitor of their choice in order to see them settle for less than they are entitled to is also morally wrong.

But if she is as bright as you say then she will probably realise she needs to take advice.

Its no one business but yours and your ex's but as I said -you did post on an open forum!

Why would you have 'selling expenses' when you are not selling?

Red-Squirrel_2

JamesHiggon wrote: »

Entitled to legally and entitled to morally are two different things. Not that it's any of your business but a huge chunk of the money was put down by my parents. Which she is now 'entitled' to. Hence we have discussed things and she is happy to go for a few thousand. We have only lived here for 3 years and would have selling expenses.
She is intelligent and knows full well the situation. I didn't come here for people to attempt to pass judgment on a situation they know nothing about.

Any particular reason why you didn't bother with a declaration of trust when you bought together?

Stoke

swingaloo wrote: »

Well I agree that its none of my business. However you did post on an open forum and so people will give opinions which may not agree with you but that's a chance you take.

Obviously all any reader knows is what you choose to disclose on here.

Quoting from your first post that you 'Don't want a pushy solicitor trying to get her to change her mind' suggests that you know she is entitled to more.

Entitled to legally and morally are indeed two different things. I would also say that trying to keep someone from seeing a solicitor of their choice in order to see them settle for less than they are entitled to is also morally wrong.

But if she is as bright as you say then she will probably realise she needs to take advice.

Its no one business but yours and your ex's but as I said -you did post on an open forum!

Why would you have 'selling expenses' when you are not selling?

You know what's morally reprehensible, stitching up someone out of 50% of a house that they are not entitled too. For someone like me, that would have set me back 10 years, made me borderline homeless (although I'd have had to move into a tiny flat by selling all my possessions and living on 6p noodles every day) and basically destroyed any quality of life that I had worked hard to give myself, while she would have moved back home to live with her parents with a wedge of free money. Luckily, I got a solicitor involved and had a declaration of trust.

Still.... you were alright with that in your post above, yet you're giving someone a mouthful on morality?

Personally, I would recommend letting her make her own decisions. If she goes a solicitor, she goes a solicitor. Don't try and advise her either way. My breakup was made 10x worse by our attempts to work closely over the house. It didn't work. Keep it to writing and phone calls only when necessary. Get your own solicitor and if she gets one, then unfortunately, you deal with it. Don't forget mediation.

Good luck, long road ahead and it's not a nice one.

swingaloo

Stoke wrote: »

You know what's morally reprehensible, stitching up someone out of 50% of a house that they are not entitled too.

Still.... you were alright with that in your post above, yet you're giving someone a mouthful on morality?

Firstly, at no point did I say that she was entitled to 50%. Nor did I suggest that she should 'stitch him up for 50% of the house. So quite how you come to the conclusion that 'I am alright with that' I have no idea.
Don't put words in my mouth.

I agree that some people ruin others lives by taking away what they have worked for and Im speaking as a woman who left her husband after nearly 30 years and did not make any claim on the family home until he was ready to leave it when he married again and then we split 50-50.


I think you need to read the thread again. This is not a case of someone asking for more than she is entitled to. Its a case of someone (the op) hoping that is ex is not talked into going for her fair share.

That is morally wrong.


He himself states that she would probably be entitled to £20K but wants her to take less.

Trying to take something you are not entitled to at the end of a relationship is wrong but it works both ways.

You think trying to do someone out of what they are entitled to is acceptable?

Stoke

swingaloo wrote: »

Firstly, at no point did I say that she was entitled to 50%. Nor did I suggest that she should 'stitch him up for 50% of the house. So quite how you come to the conclusion that 'I am alright with that' I have no idea.
Don't put words in my mouth.

I agree that some people ruin others lives by taking away what they have worked for and Im speaking as a woman who left her husband after nearly 30 years and did not make any claim on the family home until he was ready to leave it when he married again and then we split 50-50.


I think you need to read the thread again. This is not a case of someone asking for more than she is entitled to. Its a case of someone (the op) hoping that is ex is not talked into going for her fair share.

That is morally wrong.


He himself states that she would probably be entitled to £20K but wants her to take less.

Trying to take something you are not entitled to at the end of a relationship is wrong but it works both ways.

You think trying to do someone out of what they are entitled to is acceptable?

The op is hoping the ex is not advised to stitch him up. They have a joint mortgage and without a declaration, she is 'possibly' entitled to 50% from a legal standpoint, despite most of the money being provided by the op+op family. I've just been through a similar situation, except it was my money, not my parents, so you can understand why this puts a lump in my throat.

He actually states she's entitled to 20k if it goes the court route, because in all likelihood, they will probably find in favour of giving 50/50, but that the deposit for the house was put up by his parents and I suspect that means a significant majority of the equity, morally, is his. Exactly why is she entitled to this? She's only entitled to it because (apologies to the op) he didn't do the due diligence to read up on a declaration of trust.

I'm not remotely interested in doing someone out of what they are entitled to, but you're yet to explain why she's entitled to it, if as the op claims, the money for the house was mostly contributed from his own family.... if your answer is legal, then I stand by my original point about you hypocritically lecturing people on morality.

To the OP, you need to work out exactly what you think she's owed. That should be any legitimate equity in the house, half the price increase, and anything else you can think of.... and do it properly. You can do this easily on a spreadsheet and by finding out your original deposit, who put what quantities in, who paid what amounts for the mortgage etc.... you don't need a solicitor to work out the financial side of this. If you are attempting to screw her over, then I take it all back.

Gavin83

Well morals are down to interpretation. I'd suggest that morally they should work out what both have paid in, deposit and mortgage payments, work out the percentage based on that and then split the equity on that percentage. Legally I believe they'll return the deposits and split the rest 50%.

We can't really give much advice as the OP doesn't really wish to provide many details. It does somewhat come across like the OP has convinced his partner she's entitled to less than she actually is and is worried a solicitor might correct this.

In answer to your question it's likely the solicitor will advise her what she's entitled to, that is their job after all. However your partner is free to ignore this advice and take whatever amount she wishes. It's unlikely a solicitor will push this if they don't want them to. If it's a case that your partner doesn't actually know what they're entitled to and your worried a solicitor will correct this then yes, you're right to be concerned.

Stoke

Gavin83 wrote: »

Well morals are down to interpretation. I'd suggest that morally they should work out what both have paid in, deposit and mortgage payments, work out the percentage based on that and then split the equity on that percentage. Legally I believe they'll return the deposits and split the rest 50%.

We can't really give much advice as the OP doesn't really wish to provide many details. It does somewhat come across like the OP has convinced his partner she's entitled to less than she actually is and is worried a solicitor might correct this.

In answer to your question it's likely the solicitor will advise her what she's entitled to, that is their job after all. However your partner is free to ignore this advice and take whatever amount she wishes. It's unlikely a solicitor will push this if they don't want them to. If it's a case that your partner doesn't actually know what they're entitled to and your worried a solicitor will correct this then yes, you're right to be concerned.

That in itself, is immoral, but it wasn't how I interpreted it.

Still, over to you OP. Put us all out of our misery.

swingaloo

Stoke wrote: »

The op is hoping the ex is not advised to stitch him up.

[I]No, he himself says he thinks she is entitled to about 20K, there is no mention of stitching him up. He is the one doing the stitching here as he says himself that he knows she is entitled to more than she is settling for. The Op never mentions her stitching him up.
[/I]
[/I]He actually states she's entitled to 20k if it goes the court route,

Again, you are mis quoting. He does not mention it going the court route


[/B]I'm not remotely interested in doing someone out of what they are entitled to, but you're yet to explain why she's entitled to it, if as the op claims, the money for the house was mostly contributed from his own family.... if your answer is legal, then I stand by my original point about you hypocritically lecturing people on morality.

I don't have to explain why she is entitled to the 20k, its the OP himself who says she is.


Im responding to the OPs statements rather than yourself, who seems to be speculating rather a lot instead of replying to the facts as the Op has written them.
Neither am I lecturing people on morality. Its a forum and people are entitled to share thought and opinions.

Stoke

swingaloo wrote: »

Neither am I lecturing people on morality. Its a forum and people are entitled to share thought and opinions.

And I'm not out to stop you I'm entitled to share my thoughts and opinions too