Tenants in Common but with unequal % ownership

RoystonV

D123456789 said:

Has she been living at his place the last 2 years? Has she contributed to the mortgage? How have they worked out what is fair in their current living situation? 

She has and she pays him an amount every month for shared resources such as groceries, utilities etc. but nothing formally towards his mortgage, which they both considered from the outset to be his and his alone. Ironically, he was reluctant to accept anything like the amount she suggested until they sat down and calculated the increase in such costs due to her being there.

RoystonV

housebuyer143 said:

Honestly the situation you describe is exactly how my husband and I started, as he paid more and I less. We have been married 12 years now and have a kid so that's completely out the window and we pool our money and just pay the bills now, and we have an equal share. He isn't likely to benefit much from the arrangement unless they plan to never start a family or leave it 10+ years. 

Do make sure it's stated though that they get their cash deposit sums back firstly and then equity split.

Thanks housebuyer143,

I know times move on but my wife and I pooled everything from Day 1 and still do; the concept of having your 'own' disposable income pot is alien to us both. I agree that once kids arrive, the playing field changes beyond recognition (and in almost every aspect) but I struggle to see why it takes such an event to effectively force couples into a unified approach to their finances.

Once old-school, always old-school I guess.

D123456789

When we bought our house as joint tenants we were not married, one paid more deposit than the other. We paid 50/50 for expenses to joint account and kept our own accounts. We then got married and had a child and had an uneven split of childcare and working full time vs part time arrangement. It’s all swings and roundabouts, 

Myci85

I would say the only way his suggestion would be fair to both would be if the initial outlay is also in the ratio 60:40, so your daughter covers less of the deposit and stamp duty costs. Because if they both pay 50:50 deposit, agree ownership in the ratio 60:40, then split up after 6 months and sell, your daughter would be massively disadvantaged.
That or as others have suggested, agree that they both get back their initial outlay and then any remaining equity is split 60:40. That does however bring up issues if the property were to decrease in value. 

BonaDea

My thought is that in the event they split up, the percentage of the property value that each party contributed initially should be deducted from the final sale value and the remainder split according to later contributions.  So, if your daughter and her partner each contributed 7.5% of the house's purchase price, then when they sell they should each get 7.5% of whatever it sells for before considering how to divide the rest.  The remaining 85% of the sale value should be split according to their contribution to the mortgage repayment, and if that was 60:40, then that's how the 85% should be divided.  However this would only be fair if all the other household costs were split equally.  You wouldn't want your daughter to have only 40% of the 85% if she had been paying more than 50% of other household costs.  And conversely, if her partner had been paying more than 50% of other household costs, he might feel that having only 60% doesn't adequately reflect his input.  But then we get into the weeds of whether one of them does more housekeeping and childcare, and whether that should be compensated for when considering the differing financial inputs of each - would the partner who earns more be willing to give up some time working outside the house (in a job or self-employment) in order to spend more time working inside the house on those unpaid household and family tasks, so the person who earns less could spend more time earning outside the house?  These sorts of trade-offs will need to be discussed.