Relationship breakdown and mortgage question

Swiftpebble92

Morning all

Unfortunately, a family member has reached the end of the line with her relationship. She has been with her partner for 10 years(unmarried) and has a 3 yr old child

This is the situation and wondered if anyone has been in a similar situation and can offer some hope and advice! My husband and myself have advised her to get some legal advice in the new year but it would be nice to go back to her with some hope.

They have lived together for 5 yrs. They bought their house for £340K. She put down a £6k deposit and her partner and his mother put the rest down - I don't know how much this deposit was on their side but it was more than her share. My family member and her husband have a joint mortgage and are tenants in common on the deeds for 50% each. Even though his mother contributed to the deposit, she has no claim on the house, is not on the mortgage or deeds

All household bills including the mortgage are split 50/50. My family member has under £200 pcm left from her salary after her share whilst her partner is much more comfortable - he earns at least 3 times what she does

There is obviously a whole other side to this as splitting up involves a child as well but that's another story for a different forum!

She will absolutely not be able to buy him out of his share and we think its likely he will not want to sell. We suspect he has substantial savings - probably in excess of 100K but I don't think he'll go quietly(!)

 As a minimum, what do you think she would be entitled to if he would buy her out? Surely as a minimum it would be her original deposit and what she has contributed every month for 5 yrs? It would be nice to think that she would be entitled to a 50/50 split but wondered because she didn't put down herself as much deposit as he did, if that would alter things?

Any stories of hope appreciated!

Swiftpebble92

my mistake - -I said her husband but should read her partner!

Isthisforreal99

With a child involved definitely seek legal advice. Child maintenance will need to be sorted.

What equity is in the property? 

Swiftpebble92

I'm not sure - I shall ask

Isthisforreal99

Also note that a court may order the ex-partner to continue contributing to the mortgage until the child reaches a specific age (and that partner moves out).

Which is why legal advice is imperative in this scenario.

elsien

Unless an agreement was drawn up at the time particularly with reference to the Deposit, then ownership is 50-50 and her share would be 50% of the equity.
However although he may have more savings would he be able to pass the affordability checks were taking on a mortgage on his own? 

elsien

Isthisforreal99 said:

Also note that a court may order the ex-partner to continue contributing to the mortgage until the child reaches a specific age (and that partner moves out).

Which is why legal advice is imperative in this scenario.

Far less likely than it used to be when women did not earn their own wage. 

ACG

Legally she is entitled to 50% of the equity. 
Morally though, my personal view is if he put in significantly more, then there should be an element of fairness and that should be taken into account. Had he put down less, the repayments would have been more. 

But I suppose a lot depends on how amicable everything is. 

itsthelittlethings

If she has been doing more of the housework and childcare there is also that to be considered.

Swiftpebble92

There is about 100k equity in the property. I do see your point @ACG and that would be very valid. I just wondered if the bare minimum would be her initial deposit and any payments she has made since taking out the mortgage should it get to him buying her out

ACG

She is entitled to 50% of the equity (after costs of selling, if it is sold). 
If she wants to take less than that, she can. If she doesnt want to then she does not have to. 

I assume that is more than her contribution but only because the ex put more in. If both sides wanted their share of their deposit plus the monthly repayments they had made, there would not be enough equity in the property.