relationship breakup and house

[Rude-boy]

Breadvan72 said:

Many people on PH appear to have rather odd (that is to say selfish) notions of what is right, and threads such as this one and their counterparts about a woman retaining possession of a jointly owned house often bring out some fairly ugly misogyny. I wonder if the pub lawyers suggesting that the ex should jog on would be telling the OP to jog on if the roles in the story were reversed. I suspect that we'd have lots of "she's robbing you, mate", suggestions of calling the cops, suing her for every penny etc.

Whilst I cannot disagree with the rest of your post I do think that what you perceive is a case of form following substance. A better way to question the mentality of this place would be to change the sex of the OP and then ask what the likely response would be.

As touched upon in other threads it is a natural state of mind, regardless of the legal side of things, to side with those you feel the closest affinity to. As such you will quite often see people tying themselves in knots to try to engineer the best outcome for the poster (a fellow PHer) than look at the 'case' of the other side.

As to the morality of the situation in hand that is something for each individual to determine for themselves. In this case my morality (ignoring legalities!) would say that the ex should get her money back for certain. Given the shortness of the relationship during the period of ownership, together with the unequal monetary contributions towards the usual outgoings, I would question just how much of any increase in equity I would be willing to agree she is entitled to. Certainly not 1/2. More likely a man maths calculation based on the initial figures above and a bit on top. As was finally proved in JvK you can't have your cake and eat it, although you are entitled to some of the cake.

From a legal POV (ignoring morality) this is an interesting matter as the information available suggests that she would have trouble making any reasonable claim beat the £10k barrier (although this is not 100% impossible). As such her claim, which almost certainly exists, is all but a non claim if the OP were the sort to 'Deny All' and would rather pay his legal fees than buy her out. Her 'winnings' less her legal fees are likely to be back to that £3.50 and a packet of crisps level if she can not beat the £10k. More expensive for the OP but we have all had clients who would rather spend more than they need to just to ensure that another does not get what they are after! When negotiating anything it is my opinion that your worst case and the other sides worst case need to be considered (as well as other factors) so that you can plan your angle.

100% above all though the OP needs to get specific, paid for, legal advice from a specialist in this area who has all of the facts and who can ask the real time questions that are pertinent. In this thread it is fairly easy to spot the wheat from the well meaning chaff. It is not always the case and asking about issues like this on PH should only ever be taken in the same way as reading a Wiki entry - highly likely to give you a good starting point but not always reliable, sometimes dangerously wrong and certainly not in depth enough to rely on in anything more rigorous than a pub quiz.

Edited by Rude-boy on Thursday 14th August 10:46

[sugerbear]

Rude-boy said:

Whilst I cannot disagree with the rest of your post I do think that what you perceive is a case of form following substance. A better way to question the mentality of this place would be to change the sex of the OP and then ask what the likely response would be.

An even better way would be remove "sex" from any argument completely. This is Person A vs Person B. It doesn't matter if they are male/female/ex/new partner/grey blob from the planet Gorb.

[anonymous-user]

gaz1234 said:

the problem is that there is no black and white answer.

Is this the same gaz from page 1 of the thread?

gaz1234 said:

Mortgage and bills in your name. She fked

Still, if at least one pub lawyer has learned that in real life there is nuance, maybe that's a job well done.

[gaz1234]

Breadvan72 said:

Still, if at least one pub lawyer has learned that in real life there is nuance, maybe that's a job well done.

op will be fine.

[Gargamel]

Just one point here confuses me.

Is the OP entitled to deduct *any* money in lieu of the utility value of her having a roof over her head for the period she was in the house.

Effectively if she paid say £4000 deposit, £2,400 in bills - but lived there for a year. Surely there must be some kind of utility in the fact that she had a place to live for that year ?

If the OP now has to put her financially back in the position she was in had she not lived there, then she has effectively lived rent/cost free for a year ?

[anonymous-user]

Think that through. When you sell a house, do you deduct from your sale proceeds the amount you would have paid if you had been renting it? No, you don't. The OP has also had a roof over his head. Does that lessen his share in the equity of the house? No, it doesn't. Some posters seem determined to find some way of chiselling the ex. Why? Because she has dared to split up with a PH'er?

We are talking about an agreed joint venture to acquire an asset. The ex was not the OP's lodger.

Also, it's not a case of paying the ex back what she put in (how many more times must I say that?). It's a question of valuing her share of the equity in proportion to her contribution.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 14th August 13:07

[12lee]

Breadvan72 said:

We are talking about an agreed joint venture to acquire an asset.

...and in the case of an interest only mortgage vs. a repayment mortgage?

[anonymous-user]

What about it? What matters is the value of the equity, even if that value is not rising very much because the mortgage principle isn't being reduced.

[Carthage]

A good few years ago, I attempted to buy a house with my then partner. The deal was that I would provide the £30k deposit (he had none), we would split all other costs between us. I did want him to agree that should we split or sell, I would be given exactly my £30k back, then we would then divide the rest 50% each.

My partner would not agree to this - he wanted half of everything, as he was paying half of the mortgage etc. He thought that deducting my £30k deposit from the sale price was me trying to 'rip him off'.

This thread has been enlightening - I now realise that many of his friends were probably unable to recognise just what a nice deal I was offering him. Sigh.

[RYH64E]

12lee said:

...and in the case of an interest only mortgage vs. a repayment mortgage?

The equity in this case is deposit plus capital appreciation, capital repayment in the first year of any mortgage is likely to be insignificant.

[Gargamel]

Breadvan72 said:

Think that through. When you sell a house, do you deduct from your sale proceeds the amount you would have paid if you had been renting it? No, you don't. The OP has also had a roof over his head. Does that lessen his share in the equity of the house? No, it doesn't. Some posters seem determined to find some way of chiselling the ex. Why? Because she has dared to split up with a PH'er?

We are talking about an agreed joint venture to acquire an asset. The ex was not the OP's lodger.

Also, it's not a case of paying the ex back what she put in (how many more times must I say that?). It's a question of valuing her share of the equity in proportion to her contribution.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 14th August 13:07

Ah, I think your rage here is a little misplaced, it was a genuine question and certainly not an attempt to find a loop hole.

Perhaps if I elaborate. Say she has contributed in a ratio of 1/3, Would she also be liable for 1/3 of the costs of running the house during the time she lived there, eg Council Tax, Domestic utilities, insurance. I am looking for enlightenment, nothing more.

I went through this situation many years ago, when I first bought a flat. However we resolved everything amicably and equitably. Without the need for grumpy lawyers

[anonymous-user]

Liable to whom? The OP and his ex agreed between themselves who paid what. All financial matters between them depend on the agreement that they made expressly or that is to be inferred from their conduct. It sounds like the agreement was not "you must pay X proportion of expenses". She paid what she paid, and her interest in the property relates to that.

I'm not at all grumpy, and if you think that my post above indicates rage, you must live a quiet life, but I am not sure why the apparent urge to make something that's quite simple appear complex.

[Phud]

I would suggest sorting it out between you, I have just found out that if you sell a joint property and the ex decides too they can get the assets held.

Fine, but there seems to be no time limit or movement required once they have placed a dispute, so my funds are all tied up and just need to let the ex decide if the are going to take action or not...

Not fun

[Red 4]

Breadvan72 said:

Think that through. When you sell a house, do you deduct from your sale proceeds the amount you would have paid if you had been renting it? No, you don't. The OP has also had a roof over his head. Does that lessen his share in the equity of the house? No, it doesn't. Some posters seem determined to find some way of chiselling the ex. Why? Because she has dared to split up with a PH'er?

We are talking about an agreed joint venture to acquire an asset. The ex was not the OP's lodger.

Also, it's not a case of paying the ex back what she put in (how many more times must I say that?). It's a question of valuing her share of the equity in proportion to her contribution.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 14th August 13:07

Perhaps, but she was paying £200 per month.

The op was paying all bills (gas, water, electric, gas, council tax I presume) and the mortgage.

£200 isn't much. I would imagine that just covered half the bills. She was, in effect, not contributing to the mortgage but yet she wants a share of something she has not paid for (apart from a small deposit).

The mortgage was in the op's name alone. It is his debt and not hers. This was not a "joint venture".

She wants something for nothing in my view.

Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 14th August 13:54

[Gargamel]

Liable as a deduction from any settlement figure naturally.

[jonamv8]

I went through something relatively similar a year or so ago, many on PH advised on it actually.

Thing that get's me here is that she is not on Land Registry, not on mortgage, so your not tenants in common. You worried about your legal bill, what about hers, I'd say she is facing an uphill struggle. Tell her to forget it

[Red 4]

jonamv8 said:

I went through something relatively similar a year or so ago, many on PH advised on it actually.

Thing that get's me here is that she is not on Land Registry, not on mortgage, so your not tenants in common. You worried about your legal bill, what about hers, I'd say she is facing an uphill struggle. Tell her to forget it

I agree.

I think I'd get a second opinion if Breadvan was advising me on this matter.

[anonymous-user]

Red 4 said:

Perhaps, but she was paying £200 per month.

The op was paying all bills (gas, water, electric, gas, council tax I presume) and the mortgage.

£200 isn't much. I would imagine that just covered half the bills. She was, in effect, not contributing to the mortgage but yet she wants a share of something she has not paid for (apart from a small deposit).

The mortgage was in the op's name alone. It is his debt and not hers. This was not a "joint venture".

She wants something for nothing in my view.

Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 14th August 13:54

Is £200 a month nothing? It's not much, but it's something. The OP's ability to pay outgoings was assisted by the ex's contribution. Not a joint venture? The OP's description of the house is "our first house". You can have your view, but you'd have to persuade the Supreme Court or Parliament to change the law if your view is to carry any weight.

[Red 4]

Breadvan72 said:

Red 4 said:

Perhaps, but she was paying £200 per month.

The op was paying all bills (gas, water, electric, gas, council tax I presume) and the mortgage.

£200 isn't much. I would imagine that just covered half the bills. She was, in effect, not contributing to the mortgage but yet she wants a share of something she has not paid for (apart from a small deposit).

The mortgage was in the op's name alone. It is his debt and not hers. This was not a "joint venture".

She wants something for nothing in my view.

Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 14th August 13:54

Is £200 a month nothing? It's not much, but it's something. The OP's ability to pay outgoings was assisted by the ex's contribution. Not a joint venture? The OP's description of the house is "our first house". You can have your view, but you'd have to persuade the Supreme Court or Parliament to change the law if your view is to carry any weight.

You appear to be basing your opinion on the fact that the op used the phrase "our first house" and little else.

The mortgage is in the op's name. The ex wasn't on the mortgage or the deeds.

The op has already returned her (her grandparent's actually) money - which was a gifted deposit. That is more than fair. I'd tell her to whistle for anything else.

I think you are giving bad advice.

I'd like to see the law you refer to.

Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 14th August 14:09

[gaz1234]

Red 4 said:

Perhaps, but she was paying £200 per month.

The op was paying all bills (gas, water, electric, gas, council tax I presume) and the mortgage.

£200 isn't much. I would imagine that just covered half the bills. She was, in effect, not contributing to the mortgage but yet she wants a share of something she has not paid for (apart from a small deposit).

but even if this can be proved she may get more, because of the stupid grey areas of law.
agreement is what he needed beforehand