Money Moral Dilemma: I put in a much bigger deposit - but should we split the property equally?

newkitchenfund

gothvixen said:

I don't go along with the smugness of anyone who thinks this isn't a committed relationship, or that being "so sure of each other" is a guarantee of anything. There's no need for such statements, they really are just about showing off and are begging for the fall that follows such pride. I believe in fairness. The ownership, and any proceeds on sale, should be split according to contribution. It would be easy enough to calculate once any final profit or loss is taken into account. To contribute 1/9th of the deposit then wish for 50% ownership is unfair and unacceptable, and would have me thinking twice about that person and their immense sense of entitlement. Offering a 60-40 split is immensely generous.

Well said. No one goes into a joint house purchase (or a marriage) expecting to split up, but in reality many people do end up going their separate ways. Think of it in the same way as insurance, you hope you'll never have to make use of it but nonetheless you should still do it. 
The couple should of course take out life insurance so that if one of them dies, the other has the mortgage paid off, and make or update their wills. 

todifor

Please learn by my granddaughter's mistake.  She entered a partnership six years ago, she paid 26K he paid 5K deposit.  She has paid for all the improvements, new kitchen, new en suite, new bathroom, etc.  All he has actually bought in the house is a bed and TV.  They decided they wanted a family and had a daughter Nov 20.  Fast forward to 28 Dec 21 and he decided he needed space.  They remortgaged Aug 21 and had an extension which added to their mortgage.  She has now sold the house,as one person's wage could not cover the costs, this has cost them 9K in a penalty on their mortgage.  There was no agreement in place as to how the assests would be split.  Please Please get an agreement signed.  She went into the relationship thinking it was for ever.  Apparently not, the stress she is now under is taking its toll.  

bayness

Biy the property as tenants in common rather than joint tenants, then you both own an agreed share of the property, based on contribution. A much safer way of doing it. You own your percentage of the asset and you can leave it to whomsoever you want via your will.

Just be careful because without a will it goes to your next of kin.

Ed264

Very simply - perhaps your partner, for whatever reason, just can't afford to put down more than 5% deposit. Maybe you earn substantially more than your partner which therefore means you probably have more savings than your partner. However, I do feel it's unreasonable for your partner to be expecting 50/50 ownership, but it's your decision as to whether or not you'd be happy with that. Best to seek advice from a respected Solicitor.    

youth_leader

I have given my daughter some cash towards a deposit, and will be having a deed of trust set up in the event she splits with her partner.

Section62

gothvixen said:

I don't go along with the smugness of anyone who thinks this isn't a committed relationship, or that being "so sure of each other" is a guarantee of anything.

To be fair to the poster who made the comment you are responding to, anyone in a relationship who needs to go to an internet discussion forum to get advice on the fairness of financial arrangements between them really ought to think carefully about the nature of the relationship prior to entering into a massive financial commitment with them, which also represents the place they will consider to be 'home'. Untangling the joint purchase of a home is not an easy thing to do.

gothvixen said:

To contribute 1/9th of the deposit then wish for 50% ownership is unfair and unacceptable, and would have me thinking twice about that person and their immense sense of entitlement. Offering a 60-40 split is immensely generous.

Indeed.  See above.

Gillyribs

60 - 40 seems quite generous, but I’d also want to consider what your partner is adding to the partnership value wise. Maybe they don’t earn as much as you so can’t afford the higher deposit. Is that because they work less hours outside the home and do the bulk of the unpaid work in the home? Maybe childcare or elder-care? Jobs which enable you to earn more and progress in your career?  In which case 50-50 wouldn’t be so unreasonable.

Scillydiver

gothvixen said:

I don't go along with the smugness of anyone who thinks this isn't a committed relationship, or that being "so sure of each other" is a guarantee of anything. There's no need for such statements, they really are just about showing off and are begging for the fall that follows such pride. I believe in fairness. The ownership, and any proceeds on sale, should be split according to contribution. It would be easy enough to calculate once any final profit or loss is taken into account. To contribute 1/9th of the deposit then wish for 50% ownership is unfair and unacceptable, and would have me thinking twice about that person and their immense sense of entitlement. Offering a 60-40 split is immensely generous.

I am in total agreement with gothvixen both about smug comments and the apparent greed,and questionable relationship with someone demanding a 50/50 ownership split, despite making a much smaller initial contribution. 50/50 is only fair if when the property is sold, both parties were to get their initial contribution back then any balance split 50/50 if  they have subsequently paid equal amounts. I would suggest the writing is on the wall for this partnership to fail.   

efftaa

teetkac said:

2. Split it proportionally right from the start you 67.5% and her 32.5% (see a comment further up for the math rather than writing it out again for you).

Interesting assumption that the lower contributor is a 'her' when the original posts states neither.

I would suggest considering that if the lower contributor is expected to only get a smaller percentage of the house if you split, are you also happy for them to also only contribute a smaller percentage to the mortgage repayments, do a smaller share of any renovations/redecoration, buying furniture etc?
lets just say the lower contributor does all the renovations that increase the value of the property thereby increasing your profits when selling, would that be fair then?

I think you need to consider far more factors than the deposit. For all we know the reason you have a larger deposit is due to an inheritance/windfall and the other person may actually have the larger or more stable income which comes into play when deciding how much you can borrow, could you actually buy this house on your own?

 

hairypitz

teetkac said:

No, I don't think you should split 50/50. You could do two things:

1. Have an agreement drawn up that upon sale or split you get your 40% back and she gets her 5% and you could split the remainder 50/50. Or

2. Split it proportionally right from the start you 67.5% and her 32.5% (see a comment further up for the math rather than writing it out again for you).

Personally, I'd only split the whole property value 50/50 if you'd be willing to hand over your money if you split up. 

You’re being a bit patronising, assuming the female is putting in a lower deposit. 

When me and my OH bought our property I put in 15K more than him. He paid money into my account every month until we were even. So we own the house 50:50.