Is he entitled to 50/50?

PrincessWiggs

Hi

My sister has recently split from her boyf of 9 years! They own a flat together (joint names on mortgage). She would like to buy him out and needs to decide on a figure. He has never paid 50/50 towards the flat.

For the past 5 years he paid a total of £14k into the joint account for the mortgage and bills and she paid a whopping £49k!!

This works out he has paid 22% towards the mortgage and my sister 78%.

They have had 3 valuations ranging from £175k-£195k.

He has asked for £34k which after taking out the remainder of the mortgage is about 50/50 if you use an average of the three valuations.

Surely he cannot be entitled to 50/50 when he has never paid his way?

Any advice would be great!

Sarah

therealdelboy

If they bought as joint tenants, then he will be entitled to half the equity irrespective of any differences in financial contribution made.

moneysavinmonkey

did they make any kind of written arrangement beforehand to decide how the property would be split - my sister had a legal document drawn up by a solicitor.

HellieCopter

I think (think!) if she can prove the difference in contributions, that she might be able to fight it legally if she chooses to take it to that level. I am sure as custard that someone can clarify that better than I though!

JimmyTheWig

Why did he make such a smaller financial contribution?

Was it because he was out of order and wasted the rest of his money?
Or was it because the rest of his money was used as household spending money?
Or was it because he earned less?

If it was the first one then good riddance and no he shouldn't (morally, at least, get 50/50).
If it was the second or third then I think he is entitled to half. If she was happy with the payment arrangements when they were together (presumably they used the house equally - there weren't parts of it he wasn't allowed in because he didn't pay half) then she should be happy with them no they're not.

If the house had gone down in value (as may well happen over the next few years) would she have insisted that she bore the cost of more than half the loss?

moneysavinmonkey

From Shelter Website

I am a joint legal owner
If you are a joint legal owner then you have the right to stay in your home. The other joint owner has the same rights as you to stay in the home.

If you feel you and your partner shouldn't have the same rights to the property, because, for example, you feel you've made more contributions towards the home, you can apply for beneficial interest to try to alter your share of the property.


You'll have to do a bit of research about this 'beneficial interest' thing - how easy it would be to prove + how much it would cost etc.

try here to start

therealdelboy

Some good stuff here on joint ownership, and a link to free Legal advice on the matter:

http://www.legal-advice-centre.co.uk/private/joint-ownership.html

PrincessWiggs

Thanks for your replies.

They did not have an agreement that she would pay a higher percentage and nor did she mind at the time. Although after 3 years of him paying £0 she asked him to start to contribute to the joint account, which he did (albeit a small amount).

If she can prove that he paid nothing for the majority of the time do you think she has a case if it goes to court?

angelavdavis

Were the bills in joint name or your sister's name? If she can prove she made a larger contribution to bills, etc, then she might be able to show that her interest has been higher than her ex's.

Sometimes, as happened with my divorce, you can take away the half input he should have made into the bills, etc from his 50% of the house value.

Is the ex still living at the house? If not, is he still paying 50% of bills/mortgage etc? All this can be taken from his 50% interest also even though he is no longer living there.

Its definitely worth your sister getting a legal opinion though - my divorce was around 7 years ago and laws change constantly.

dopester

Surely it's not really a big deal?

Your sister let the guy have 9 years of her life.

A few tens of thousands lost to him on top of that isn't much to worry about.

I know that sounds mean... but if she went in to the whole thing with him not paying a fair share.. seems a bit late to whine about it now.

PrincessWiggs

Well it was his decision to break, why should he be allowed to get away with being a tight sod for all those years then he gets to walk away with £20k more than he invested. It means she walks away losing £20k she invested!

It just doesn't seem fair.