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

Maverick2016

In your situation, no, I don't think its not fair your partner expects a 50% proportion going from the information you have given, but agree together a way forward to make it fair for you both, which is what my partner and I have done.  

We are currently in the process of purchasing a house. We've been renting together for 10 years (We have no intention of getting married), time and circumstances now mean we can now buy a property. However, everything is based on my salary alone. He is older than me, and having him named on the mortgage makes the monthly payments ridiculous. We are in a privileged position where we can afford to to save a deposit and pay legal fees and get a large enough mortgage on just my salary alone.

On the flip side, I have to trust him with certain financials. Whilst I'll pay the mortgage and anything else to do with the property being in solely my name, he'll pay for my car and utility bills along with paying the maximum we can off our mortgage each year to bring the mortgage term down. 

All in all, we trust each other not to shaft the other in the future. All about communication and understanding the others circumstances will always effect yours and agreeing a way forward before you take the plunge.

alittlejam

I'm currently buying a property with my partner and I am putting in most of the deposit.  We agreed to pay for and enter into a Deed of Trust which ensures that we each get our respective deposits back first and then the remainder is divided equally 50/50. 

Considering that we are sharing all costs related to buying the property 50/50 including fees, taxes, insurance and all mortgage payments similarly will be paid 50/50.

It's impossible to predict whether a relationship will last.  Things change, people change and it's important that things like this are discussed and agreed at the outset.  It makes it so much easier and clearer years later.

double0

When my partner and I bought our house 4 years ago, I had a flat to sell so had more money for deposit.  My £90k paid for the deposit, solicitors fees (for the buying part, not selling) and stamp duty.  My partners £30k paid for the structural survey and the remainder was put into a joint savings account which we used to make improvements to the house.  The mortgaged part of the property is split 50/50 and we have a Deed of Trust saying that if we split, I take £90k out, my partner their £30k and we split any remaining capital 50/50.  All joint bills are paid 50/50 from a joint account, but we keep the rest of our finances separate.  We had wills drawn up to say a surviving partner gets the others share of the house and details where we want any savings to go (siblings, charity etc).  We also have life insurance to pay off the entire mortgage should one of us pass away.

This seemed so much more straightforward than having to work out a percentage split! In order to have kept it completely at the same percentage, we would have had to have paid differing amounts in the mortgage.  Also, once the £30k ran out for house improvements (which it does a lot faster than you think!), any subsequent work we've had done, I would have had to have paid out a higher percentage to keep that split the same.  That may have meant waiting longer whilst I saved up more money than my partner in order to get something completed.  If one of us wanted to pay a lump sum towards the mortgage that the other couldn't match, then we can just get the Deed of Trust updated to reflect the higher amount that person has contributed.

I know effectively it means my £90k doesn't work as hard as the £30k in terms of return, but the way I saw it was that I wouldn't be able to afford the house on my own and without my partner and their money and salary, my £90k would be earning me considerably less on my old flat!

SuseOrm

FTB_Dan said:

SuseOrm said:

I don’t think you should buy a house with anybody that there’s an even remote possibility you might split up from Personal

Granted you shouldn't, but you also need to be realistic and plan for the worst. 

Me and my partner aren't contributing an equal deposit but as others have mentioned, this will be taken into account in the percentages so I own slightly less. No issue from my behalf and if the worst does happen then its a fair split.

The point being though,  if children enter the mix,  everything gets torn up anyway.  If even they dont you’ve still potentially got to leave with the fact that a disproportionate split might mean one part is condemned to a lifetime of renting.  If theyd bought what their contribution of deposit afforded them alone,  that wouldnt be the case.  

Personally i think id refund the deposit contributions and then split the profits.  

honestcove

You could suggest they keep their deposit, you buy the property wholly in your sole name but identify the partner as beneficiary of your estate for some of the property equity or a life interest in it.

Philip_P

Tenants in common purchase is required with a 1/3rd and 2/3rds split 

JayD

Not enough info!

Do you intend to marry later?

What is the difference between your incomes?

How are the mortgage repayments going to be split?

What would the mortgage repayment situation be if you end up having or choosing to adopt a child, so that you or your partner can no longer pay their share?

What cover will you have to protect each other's investments other than on death i.e. if the relationship fails?

And - why haven't you sought legal advice on how to best arrange these matters fairly and securely, rather than just throwing half the information out to a public forum?

nick1234

I personally wouldnt risk it and buy with someone more financially compatible, as the courts will always favour the weaker partner e.g. women in a split.  

purplepopcorn777

If your partner is unhappy that you are not going 50/50, why not put in the same amount of deposit as they are then. Keeping everything equal.

[Deleted User]

'I personally wouldnt risk it and buy with someone more financially compatible, as the courts will always favour the weaker partner e.g. women in a split.'  We all know it is almost certainly true that in all probability the woman in a partnership will be in a weaker financial situation than the man, no need to give any reason, it's a fact of life.  Yet there are still men claiming that women have it all.  It's disgraceful, decades after 'womens lib' it's clearly still very much a man's world.  As for the deposit, get it sorted legally, anyone demanding 50/50 whilst making a minor contribution would make me pause for thought.