MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Liam roll with it?

allsinginganddancing

I think there are natural leaders and those that will let you do all the work.. and regardless of which role you take you can not then demand more share than the other. Then, add two brothers or in the real world....two life long friends who's personalities have been shaped thought their upbrining and the question should not even be raised. Liam may be lazy (and he has been aloud to be) but he should not be treated like an idiot... even if ...bless him.... he acts like one!

rosieshines

I think they should both get 50% of the house - same amount of deposit is put down. The amount of work that goes into finding the house is irrelevant, it's not his professional job! He should state before they agreed to buy together that that is what would happen & both brothers agree otherwise it is unfair.

trejoy

f they are arguing already, they should forget it. If no contract for extra share was negotiated at the beginning of the house hunt then you can`t impose one at end. Methinks Noel should find more responsible mortgage-mate.:rotfl:

meerustar

Noel wouldn't do that to his bro ... he loves him

But if it's 50/50 at the start, then it's 50/50 all the way!!!

KeithP

cliverowland wrote: »

Noel can't ask more than 50:50 but he can have first choice on room (and decoration, girlfriend etc).

First choice of girlfriend???

How does that work then?:rotfl: :rotfl:

bunnyhop_2

To my mind, it would be gentlemanly of the one who had contributed less to offer the other a sum of money or slightly increased share of the house ownership amounting to maybe 1 or 2k, as a kind of agent's fee for doing all the work and conferring a benefit by making the amount of money he had to find for his 50% 12.5k less. He would still be in a very good position if he paid an amount as a gesture, compared to what he would have been and should be grateful.
On the other hand, presumably the person who did the work could not have bought a house alone and needed the benefit of the lazier person's contribution and the discount he negotiated he also negotiated for his own benefit. Unless he specifically said otherwise at the time, he can not rely on anything but goodwill, and if that is not forthcoming he has no real complaint. It is perfectly fair that he should want some remuneration, but it is not fair for him to claim something out of the blue that was not part of the arrangement. Perhaps the lazy one would have contributed more work if he knew of the expectation?

It's harsh, and the lazy friend is being exploitative, but if there wasn't a clear deal and nothing was written out then that's that.