No declaration of trust/equity split with ex

Mortgage_99

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help with this. 

I stupidly made a decision to buy a new build property with my now ex almost 2 years ago. We split up and have been living separately for 6 months. It was as nasty a split you could imagine. The initial plan was to sell the property as soon as possible, but with it being a HTB new build… it was of course in negative equity. Both of us wanted to stay in the property but couldn’t live together, in the end I decided to just leave and rent somewhere else (which the ex wanted)… and with the advice from the mortgage broker to sign to a new 2 year fixed term with the lender we decided to do that which ends in couple years, with the hope and expectation prices would have returned and would be in positive equity. 

As I have left without wanting to, I stated I will not make any payments to the mortgage because I don’t reside there and it would be financially impossible whilst renting elsewhere. The ex agreed they are able to cover the payments during those years. 

This is where the disagreement is between the ex and I. They believe because they are paying the mortgage, at the end of the 2 years when it is to be sold, they should be getting more because of mortgage payments made, and i strongly disagree and refuse by stating that technically I don’t have access to my half of the property, so surely I’m entitled occupation rent? 

This property is owned as tenants in common at equal shares of 50/50. There was no deceleration of trust made when purchasing. 

If this was to be taken further and ended up in court, could a judge rule against me for not making these payments despite owning half the property and technically receiving no rent for it, and award the ex more? Or is this more a straight forward open and shut case as surely my interest in the property shouldn’t be affected. I also believe the ex will try to be difficult about this and refuse a sale of the property as a result which is going to lead me to have to force a sale. 

I am worried as having read the news about property prices increasing over the next few years by a large amount, the ex could try do me over.

Brie

Married and now separated?  Or co-habiting and now split?  

Seems from what you have said a 50/50 split is justified.  And if you own it 50/50 then when sold it should be 50/50 no matter who is paying the mortgage.  But I am not a lawyer.

But you haven't said how long you were together and what else there might be to take into account.  Like if you've been married for 10 years and you have a high salary and a great pension.  That should be included.  Or your ex has and then that should be included.  

Mortgage_99

Brie said:

Married and now separated?  Or co-habiting and now split?  

Seems from what you have said a 50/50 split is justified.  And if you own it 50/50 then when sold it should be 50/50 no matter who is paying the mortgage.  But I am not a lawyer.

But you haven't said how long you were together and what else there might be to take into account.  Like if you've been married for 10 years and you have a high salary and a great pension.  That should be included.  Or your ex has and then that should be included.  

Apologies, I should have included this information. 

So we were together for about 2 years before purchasing the property in 2022. Lived together in the house until summer 2023 and broke up. So together about 3.5 years. We were not married and also no children, so cohabiting.

The ex has a higher salary than mine. But if it wasn’t for my salary nor my deposit ex wouldn’t have been able to purchase the property without me. The deposit and purchasing costs were equal, but once moved in we had a verbal agreement to split the mortgage payments unequally as it would make more sense and would be unaffordable for myself. 

I have now had to pay expensive rent elsewhere, so hence why I believe it would be immoral of the ex to fully gain from the property whilst I completely lose out on renting elsewhere…all whilst the ex has the luxury of living in ‘our’ property….then on top of that wanting to just keep their mortgage payments.

And because of the nastiness of the situation, I already made it clear to the ex I would not be accepting any buy-out offers when the time comes in 2 years… so the only option is to sell.

MWT

Mortgage_99 said:

And because of the nastiness of the situation, I already made it clear to the ex I would not be accepting any buy-out offers when the time comes in 2 years… so the only option is to sell.

Given the current negative equity and hence the possibility that there is still only limited equity in the property in another year or two, I'd think really hard about that stance as it may represent your best hope to get out of the liability you still have for the mortgage...

BarelySentientAI

It might sound harsh, and it's probably your frustration, but it sounds a lot like you're letting personal anger and a desire to 'spite' your ex write this post rather than logic.  Unfortunately, the precedents for married couples don't apply to cohabitation.

You can't say "I get more because I'm not getting rent for my half" whilst also not paying any of the mortgage.  Plus even when co-habiting, you weren't contributing half either.  Those sort of things work well when skies are blue, but verbal ad-hoc arrangements don't last through strife.

Immoral of your ex to gain by paying the whole mortgage?  Interesting definition of immoral.

Also deciding now that you're not going to be bought out in two years?  Any logic to that other than wanting to keep the animosity going into the future?

I wonder what the reaction would be to this post the other way around - "I paid more than half of the mortgage, then my ex moved out and left me with the whole payment, and now they're claiming they deserve an 'equal' split"?

I fear you're going to stop yourself being happy with whatever resolution comes out of this.

What ownership did you declare on the initial purchase?  Were there specified percentages, some sort of deed to define proportions, etc?

Mortgage_99

BarelySentientAI said:

It might sound harsh, and it's probably your frustration, but it sounds a lot like you're letting personal anger and a desire to 'spite' your ex write this post rather than logic.  Unfortunately, the precedents for married couples don't apply to cohabitation.

You can't say "I get more because I'm not getting rent for my half" whilst also not paying any of the mortgage.  Plus even when co-habiting, you weren't contributing half either.  Those sort of things work well when skies are blue, but verbal ad-hoc arrangements don't last through strife.

Immoral of your ex to gain by paying the whole mortgage?  Interesting definition of immoral.

Also deciding now that you're not going to be bought out in two years?  Any logic to that other than wanting to keep the animosity going into the future?

I wonder what the reaction would be to this post the other way around - "I paid more than half of the mortgage, then my ex moved out and left me with the whole payment, and now they're claiming they deserve an 'equal' split"?

I fear you're going to stop yourself being happy with whatever resolution comes out of this.

What ownership did you declare on the initial purchase?  Were there specified percentages, some sort of deed to define proportions, etc?

I understand what you are saying. 

But look at it from it from this point of view. I didn’t just “leave” her to pay the mortgage on her own. I wanted to stay and agreed I’d pay it by myself….the ex wanted to stay and pay. We couldn’t live together at all, so one person had to leave so I decided it would be myself. It’s not like it was done by choice…of course I wouldn’t want to lose out on equity. 

The property is under help to buy, there was discussions to rent it out but we quickly came to the realisation that’s not possible with HTB unless a lodger comes in. 

So now…50% of a property of which I own, which the ex now is living in…surely I would be entitled to rental payments for my 50% which are obviously not being paid…and obviously the ex would say “but I’m paying the whole mortgage” then that should cancel itself out no?

the ownership at the outset was 50/50, no declaration of trust. Owned as tenants in common. 

So my point here is, I am paying rent…when theoretically I could be receiving rental payments if I rented half my property to cover my rental payments elsewhere. Why do I stand to lose out on 2 years binning money paid to rent elsewhere, then at the end of it the ex just gets to keep full equity of the property which is still mine. 

Southend_2

Why are you so focused on getting a share of the equity when there isn't any equity? Even if there is a little when the time comes to sell the property the difference between splitting it 50/50 or whatever other percentage would be negligible. Just think of it as a small price to pay not to have to live with someone you don't get on with. 

BarelySentientAI

Mortgage_99 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

It might sound harsh, and it's probably your frustration, but it sounds a lot like you're letting personal anger and a desire to 'spite' your ex write this post rather than logic.  Unfortunately, the precedents for married couples don't apply to cohabitation.

You can't say "I get more because I'm not getting rent for my half" whilst also not paying any of the mortgage.  Plus even when co-habiting, you weren't contributing half either.  Those sort of things work well when skies are blue, but verbal ad-hoc arrangements don't last through strife.

Immoral of your ex to gain by paying the whole mortgage?  Interesting definition of immoral.

Also deciding now that you're not going to be bought out in two years?  Any logic to that other than wanting to keep the animosity going into the future?

I wonder what the reaction would be to this post the other way around - "I paid more than half of the mortgage, then my ex moved out and left me with the whole payment, and now they're claiming they deserve an 'equal' split"?

I fear you're going to stop yourself being happy with whatever resolution comes out of this.

What ownership did you declare on the initial purchase?  Were there specified percentages, some sort of deed to define proportions, etc?

I understand what you are saying. 

But look at it from it from this point of view. I didn’t just “leave” her to pay the mortgage on her own. I wanted to stay and agreed I’d pay it by myself….the ex wanted to stay and pay. We couldn’t live together at all, so one person had to leave so I decided it would be myself. It’s not like it was done by choice…of course I wouldn’t want to lose out on equity. 

The property is under help to buy, there was discussions to rent it out but we quickly came to the realisation that’s not possible with HTB unless a lodger comes in. 

So now…50% of a property of which I own, which the ex now is living in…surely I would be entitled to rental payments for my 50% which are obviously not being paid…and obviously the ex would say “but I’m paying the whole mortgage” then that should cancel itself out no?

the ownership at the outset was 50/50, no declaration of trust. Owned as tenants in common. 

So my point here is, I am paying rent…when theoretically I could be receiving rental payments if I rented half my property to cover my rental payments elsewhere. Why do I stand to lose out on 2 years binning money paid to rent elsewhere, then at the end of it the ex just gets to keep full equity of the property which is still mine. 

Of course I see your point of view - these are all the difficult things about unmarried house purchases without some sort of documented agreement for 'what if things go wrong?'  You're not the first, and won't be the last, to come here with questions like this and there are often no good answers, you just end up with the least worst.

Similarly, you're still saying you own 50%.  Up to the point of you moving out, they had paid more than you for the house.  You can see an argument for it not actually being 50/50, even if we ignore what's happening now.

And I don't get that last paragraph at all - nobody is saying that you would get nothing at all when it sells.  For 2 years, they are paying mortgage, you are paying rent, both are still owners.  Where does "just gets to keep full equity" come from?

The others make good points too.  You seem to have an expectation that there is going to be a big chunk of money to split because prices are going to rocket.  That's a long way from being certain or even likely.  You're in negative equity now, so what you're arguing about is whether you keep a 50% share of the extra debt!  There was even one poster recently on here who was asking "how can I take myself off the deeds and mortgage of the house I bought with my ex?".

Probably, and I'm no lawyer, one of two things is likely to be considered an equitable outcome, and each party will think one is fair and one is unfair.  Both have been done in the past.  Either a 50-50 split on eventual sale (best for you) or a split based on initial equity + percentage of mortgage payments (worst for you).

50/50 split is the default presumption for TIC I think, but that doesn't mean its the only outcome.

The advice normally given on here to people thinking of buying with a partner is to agree these things in a legal document up front - of course most don't do that because everyone goes in with the best intentions.

Mortgage_99

BarelySentientAI said:

Mortgage_99 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

It might sound harsh, and it's probably your frustration, but it sounds a lot like you're letting personal anger and a desire to 'spite' your ex write this post rather than logic.  Unfortunately, the precedents for married couples don't apply to cohabitation.

You can't say "I get more because I'm not getting rent for my half" whilst also not paying any of the mortgage.  Plus even when co-habiting, you weren't contributing half either.  Those sort of things work well when skies are blue, but verbal ad-hoc arrangements don't last through strife.

Immoral of your ex to gain by paying the whole mortgage?  Interesting definition of immoral.

Also deciding now that you're not going to be bought out in two years?  Any logic to that other than wanting to keep the animosity going into the future?

I wonder what the reaction would be to this post the other way around - "I paid more than half of the mortgage, then my ex moved out and left me with the whole payment, and now they're claiming they deserve an 'equal' split"?

I fear you're going to stop yourself being happy with whatever resolution comes out of this.

What ownership did you declare on the initial purchase?  Were there specified percentages, some sort of deed to define proportions, etc?

I understand what you are saying. 

But look at it from it from this point of view. I didn’t just “leave” her to pay the mortgage on her own. I wanted to stay and agreed I’d pay it by myself….the ex wanted to stay and pay. We couldn’t live together at all, so one person had to leave so I decided it would be myself. It’s not like it was done by choice…of course I wouldn’t want to lose out on equity. 

The property is under help to buy, there was discussions to rent it out but we quickly came to the realisation that’s not possible with HTB unless a lodger comes in. 

So now…50% of a property of which I own, which the ex now is living in…surely I would be entitled to rental payments for my 50% which are obviously not being paid…and obviously the ex would say “but I’m paying the whole mortgage” then that should cancel itself out no?

the ownership at the outset was 50/50, no declaration of trust. Owned as tenants in common. 

So my point here is, I am paying rent…when theoretically I could be receiving rental payments if I rented half my property to cover my rental payments elsewhere. Why do I stand to lose out on 2 years binning money paid to rent elsewhere, then at the end of it the ex just gets to keep full equity of the property which is still mine. 

Of course I see your point of view - these are all the difficult things about unmarried house purchases without some sort of documented agreement for 'what if things go wrong?'  You're not the first, and won't be the last, to come here with questions like this and there are often no good answers, you just end up with the least worst.

Similarly, you're still saying you own 50%.  Up to the point of you moving out, they had paid more than you for the house.  You can see an argument for it not actually being 50/50, even if we ignore what's happening now.

And I don't get that last paragraph at all - nobody is saying that you would get nothing at all when it sells.  For 2 years, they are paying mortgage, you are paying rent, both are still owners.  Where does "just gets to keep full equity" come from?

The others make good points too.  You seem to have an expectation that there is going to be a big chunk of money to split because prices are going to rocket.  That's a long way from being certain or even likely.  You're in negative equity now, so what you're arguing about is whether you keep a 50% share of the extra debt!  There was even one poster recently on here who was asking "how can I take myself off the deeds and mortgage of the house I bought with my ex?".

Probably, and I'm no lawyer, one of two things is likely to be considered an equitable outcome, and each party will think one is fair and one is unfair.  Both have been done in the past.  Either a 50-50 split on eventual sale (best for you) or a split based on initial equity + percentage of mortgage payments (worst for you).

50/50 split is the default presumption for TIC I think, but that doesn't mean its the only outcome.

The advice normally given on here to people thinking of buying with a partner is to agree these things in a legal document up front - of course most don't do that because everyone goes in with the best intentions.

But surely, as there was no declaration of trust, and it clearly states 50/50 ownership by law that cannot just suddenly be changed because of circumstances. Shouldn’t be 50/50 by default unless there is a declaration of trust stating otherwise. 

In many relationships, mortgage payments etc are rarely straight 50/50 as it is highly likely someone will pay more…but make up in other areas which are not detailed financially. But of course, once a break up is now occurring people love to suddenly change their stance and make it look worse than it is. 

BarelySentientAI

Mortgage_99 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Mortgage_99 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

It might sound harsh, and it's probably your frustration, but it sounds a lot like you're letting personal anger and a desire to 'spite' your ex write this post rather than logic.  Unfortunately, the precedents for married couples don't apply to cohabitation.

You can't say "I get more because I'm not getting rent for my half" whilst also not paying any of the mortgage.  Plus even when co-habiting, you weren't contributing half either.  Those sort of things work well when skies are blue, but verbal ad-hoc arrangements don't last through strife.

Immoral of your ex to gain by paying the whole mortgage?  Interesting definition of immoral.

Also deciding now that you're not going to be bought out in two years?  Any logic to that other than wanting to keep the animosity going into the future?

I wonder what the reaction would be to this post the other way around - "I paid more than half of the mortgage, then my ex moved out and left me with the whole payment, and now they're claiming they deserve an 'equal' split"?

I fear you're going to stop yourself being happy with whatever resolution comes out of this.

What ownership did you declare on the initial purchase?  Were there specified percentages, some sort of deed to define proportions, etc?

I understand what you are saying. 

But look at it from it from this point of view. I didn’t just “leave” her to pay the mortgage on her own. I wanted to stay and agreed I’d pay it by myself….the ex wanted to stay and pay. We couldn’t live together at all, so one person had to leave so I decided it would be myself. It’s not like it was done by choice…of course I wouldn’t want to lose out on equity. 

The property is under help to buy, there was discussions to rent it out but we quickly came to the realisation that’s not possible with HTB unless a lodger comes in. 

So now…50% of a property of which I own, which the ex now is living in…surely I would be entitled to rental payments for my 50% which are obviously not being paid…and obviously the ex would say “but I’m paying the whole mortgage” then that should cancel itself out no?

the ownership at the outset was 50/50, no declaration of trust. Owned as tenants in common. 

So my point here is, I am paying rent…when theoretically I could be receiving rental payments if I rented half my property to cover my rental payments elsewhere. Why do I stand to lose out on 2 years binning money paid to rent elsewhere, then at the end of it the ex just gets to keep full equity of the property which is still mine. 

Of course I see your point of view - these are all the difficult things about unmarried house purchases without some sort of documented agreement for 'what if things go wrong?'  You're not the first, and won't be the last, to come here with questions like this and there are often no good answers, you just end up with the least worst.

Similarly, you're still saying you own 50%.  Up to the point of you moving out, they had paid more than you for the house.  You can see an argument for it not actually being 50/50, even if we ignore what's happening now.

And I don't get that last paragraph at all - nobody is saying that you would get nothing at all when it sells.  For 2 years, they are paying mortgage, you are paying rent, both are still owners.  Where does "just gets to keep full equity" come from?

The others make good points too.  You seem to have an expectation that there is going to be a big chunk of money to split because prices are going to rocket.  That's a long way from being certain or even likely.  You're in negative equity now, so what you're arguing about is whether you keep a 50% share of the extra debt!  There was even one poster recently on here who was asking "how can I take myself off the deeds and mortgage of the house I bought with my ex?".

Probably, and I'm no lawyer, one of two things is likely to be considered an equitable outcome, and each party will think one is fair and one is unfair.  Both have been done in the past.  Either a 50-50 split on eventual sale (best for you) or a split based on initial equity + percentage of mortgage payments (worst for you).

50/50 split is the default presumption for TIC I think, but that doesn't mean its the only outcome.

The advice normally given on here to people thinking of buying with a partner is to agree these things in a legal document up front - of course most don't do that because everyone goes in with the best intentions.

But surely, as there was no declaration of trust, and it clearly states 50/50 ownership by law that cannot just suddenly be changed because of circumstances. Shouldn’t be 50/50 by default unless there is a declaration of trust stating otherwise. 

In many relationships, mortgage payments etc are rarely straight 50/50 as it is highly likely someone will pay more…but make up in other areas which are not detailed financially. But of course, once a break up is now occurring people love to suddenly change their stance and make it look worse than it is. 

Take an absurd example then.  Assume no declaration of trust and no stated percentages on the original transfer.

A couple bought a £1million house on a 95% mortgage, but put  £25k in equally as deposit.

One month later, one of them moves out, into another property they already owned independently, and stops contributing.  The other remains in the house and pays the full mortgage.

They don't agree to sell the house until the mortgage has been completely paid off.

Do you think they should split the house £500k each?

If not, then you're accepting circumstances can change the balance, and the argument is whether they should in your case and by how much.

Unless you have specified 50/50 - and many people don't - then it's not "clearly stated by law", it's a starting presumption.  I personally think 50/50 is right in your situation, but it's not my decision.

You're slipping back into the emotional wording again too, "people love to suddenly change their stance".  That won't help you work it through.

Hoenir

If there's little equity in the property. Then fighting over the split simply isn't economic. Hold firm for a 50/50 split. Many encourage your ex to taken action ooner rather than later.