relationship breakup and house

[RYH64E]

Du1point8 said:

So the £200 sent was for bills and not for the mortgage then.

The mortgage repayment is just another bill, in the early years the payment is almost all interest and hardly any capital repayment. The equity in the house is likely to be any increase in value since purchase and the original deposit, of which she paid 1/3rd.

I'm not sure of the significance of the OP repaying his girlfriend's grandparents part of their gift, he didn't owe them any money and she might prefer to retain the stake in the house she arguably bought with their gift.

[gaz1234]

RYH64E said:

The mortgage repayment is just another bill, in the early years the payment is almost all interest and hardly any capital repayment. The equity in the house is likely to be any increase in value since purchase and the original deposit, of which she paid 1/3rd.

I'm not sure of the significance of the OP repaying his girlfriend's grandparents part of their gift, he didn't owe them any money and she might prefer to retain the stake in the house she arguably bought with their gift.

Contributing to mortgage will not help op

[anonymous-user]

OP, I hope that you are filtering out the amateur BS advice and "tell her to do one" nonsense from the sensible advice based on knowledge and experience above.

I would not ignore the problem. Making your ex jump through hoops or run up expense would be spiteful and pointless, and if the matter ever gets before a court that sort of behaviour would not help your case. Far better to communicate with your ex on a calm and rational basis and negotiate with her for a fair settlement.

If she insists on more than a fair share, the fact that you have made sensible proposals may well assist you later on. Initial proposals should be without prejudice (not to be referred to in court) but there may come a point at which you make an offer that is without prejudice save as to costs (ie an offer that can be referred to when costs come to be determined) or even an open offer.

[Rude-boy]

BV - Questions for you. You have mentioned the 'not make her run up costs as the court might take a dim view of this'. Whilst I understand that this can be the case is there not an issue here that before the OP is put to the trouble and cost of dealing with any claim the ex might have there should at least be a more compelling claim than "I want money".

As it stands I do not think that the level of the claim has in anyway been quantified. It is hard to fight a beast you cannot see and have no idea of the size of.

I would have said (bloke in the pub style) that she should at least be required to set out her claim before the OP should have to defend it. We are all bantering about 1/2 and small value, etc but no one has any idea what she actually wants (other than money)! She could just be after her contributions, she could think that she is going to get 1/2, she might just be after the missing £1k. Why would the OP be wrong to insist that she sets this out?

[okgo]

swerni said:

You'll love Dirty Dicks.

Ha, that is our local too (Edgar I mean) you'll see us scruffy lot as we're the only non suited lot that ever go in there!

[Muzzer79]

Breadvan72 said:

OP, I hope that you are filtering out the amateur BS advice and "tell her to do one" nonsense from the sensible advice based on knowledge and experience above.

I would not ignore the problem. Making your ex jump through hoops or run up expense would be spiteful and pointless, and if the matter ever gets before a court that sort of behaviour would not help your case. Far better to communicate with your ex on a calm and rational basis and negotiate with her for a fair settlement.

If she insists on more than a fair share, the fact that you have made sensible proposals may well assist you later on. Initial proposals should be without prejudice (not to be referred to in court) but there may come a point at which you make an offer that is without prejudice save as to costs (ie an offer that can be referred to when costs come to be determined) or even an open offer.

This. Technically, you may be right in telling her to do one but in reality it's potentially not quite as easy.

The house must be worth £150k+ at the bare minimum, no matter where you are?

A couple of grand to make this problem go away for good, rather than have potential stress and greater expense of lawyers, court, etc will pay for itself several times over and is totally worth it relative to the value of the property.

Just make sure you get any agreement signed off in writing and above board.

[tenpenceshort]

Rude-boy said:

BV - Questions for you. You have mentioned the 'not make her run up costs as the court might take a dim view of this'. Whilst I understand that this can be the case is there not an issue here that before the OP is put to the trouble and cost of dealing with any claim the ex might have there should at least be a more compelling claim than "I want money".

As it stands I do not think that the level of the claim has in anyway been quantified. It is hard to fight a beast you cannot see and have no idea of the size of.

I would have said (bloke in the pub style) that she should at least be required to set out her claim before the OP should have to defend it. We are all bantering about 1/2 and small value, etc but no one has any idea what she actually wants (other than money)! She could just be after her contributions, she could think that she is going to get 1/2, she might just be after the missing £1k. Why would the OP be wrong to insist that she sets this out?

Being a pedant, in the OP it says she rang demanding 'half'. Has anything changed since then?

I still think the OP should seek an hour's worth of insured, professional advice, so his response to future contact from the ex is proportionate to her likely rights.

[Rude-boy]

tenpenceshort said:

Being a pedant, in the OP it says she rang demanding 'half'. Has anything changed since then?

I still think the OP should seek an hour's worth of insured, professional advice, so his response to future contact from the ex is proportionate to her likely rights.

Nope, good point well made, although being a pedant would then lead one to ask half of what? the bricks, the money, the equity, etc.



I will happily bow to the litigator on the point of what would look best to the court, I just have a distaste for having to defend against a moving target. If you think I owe you something and I don't think I do the quickest way to bring me to the table is to tell me how much and why you think you are owed it. Then I can see if you might have a point.

Whilst it has been opined that the ex likely has a claim (although one far smaller than she is suggesting) there is nothing that I can think of that has been reported that begins to suggest any substantive grounds for a claim of half. IMO of vital import to disabusing her of this notion and bring her round to much more realistic figures is to know why the heck she even begins to think that she should be entitled to half when even her original contribution towards the deposit was less than that!

[12lee]

Breadvan72 said:

OP, I hope that you are filtering out the amateur BS advice and "tell her to do one" nonsense from the sensible advice based on knowledge and experience above.

I would not ignore the problem. Making your ex jump through hoops or run up expense would be spiteful and pointless, and if the matter ever gets before a court that sort of behaviour would not help your case.

On that basis if a confused/angry/drunk person says 'Mate, I am going to f***ing kill you' is it better to be prepared to have a fight to the death than ignore them? I'd contend until she communicates formally/in writing, all she has done is vent her anger without any clear communication or demand as to what she actually wants. Be prepared but let sleeping dogs lie. She is perhaps out of pocket by (4k - 3k) + (7 x £200) less (7x household bills + mortgage payments)/2 and cohabited for 7 months. If she thinks she has a claim it's up to her to present it for subsequent discussion. In my experience responding to a simple and uneducated phone call simply qualifies it and fuels its further progression.

[dancole90]

I've spoken to her grandad (he's the only person in the family who you can speak sense to).
I said i will find the last £1000 of the 'gift'.
All in all i received £1400 over 8 months from the ex, which she will also get back.
He agreed to this and thanked me. He doesn't want any legal fuss and was happy with the £3000 anyway!! But the others don't listen to him even when he tells them there's no way they'd get half or anything close and they're arguing over a few grand max when money isn't a problem for the family.
Seems if i get the grand to him asap I at least have an ally on the other side?
Sorting out a written agreement that the £2400 to them will be made monthly over the next 12 months (quickest I can afford to do unless a get a tidy bonus this year.

That way they haven't lost out. Even if the house was to be sold and it was more than the purchase price, the costs of selling and sorting the mortgage could possibly mean they say goodbye to any extra from the sale.

Like others have posted, I may have been able to go through the courts and had to pay naff all to her but could cost me a fortune. This is just the easiest way.

Muzzer79 said:

The house must be worth £150k+ at the bare minimum, no matter where you are?

I bought the house for £168,000 as a new build in July 2013. Moved in in August 2013. Next door has just accepted an offer of £182,000. The house is identical to mine.

[12lee]

The £1k is very decent.

The £1400 sucks.

Feels like a case of good cop, bad cop with the result the girl has lived rent free for 8 months further building a sense of entitlement.

[Du1point8]

12lee said:

The £1k is very decent.

The £1400 sucks.

Feels like a case of good cop, bad cop with the result the girl has lived rent free for 8 months further building a sense of entitlement.

Yep... would not be giving the £1400 back at all.

If it was my Ex and she had been living there, I would never be entertaining it and if she came after me for it she would be presented for a bigger bill for the actual half of the bills when she was living there minus mortgage.

(she was living there correct?)

[tom2019]

In hindsight what could op have done to paid this situation. I own a house and I have nightmares about this happening to me.

Personally if i were the OP i would give back the grand plus a gesture, and take the £200 a month as contribution towards bills.

[12lee]

£182k (theoretical) sale price less (say) 1.75% + VAT commission (£3822) = £178k
1% stamp duty on £168k purchase price = £1680

Net gain on house over the period = £182k - £3.822k - £1.68k - £168k = £8.498k of which the ex will no doubt think she is entitled to 33% based upon the 4k/8k deposit ratio, but in fact it would be equitable to point out that the £8.498k is a 5% capital appreciation, therefore the £4k is 'worth' £4200 based upon this uplift. Oh, and there is documentation saying that the source of the £4k has no interest in the house anyway...

£1k to the grandfather is decent.
Additional £200 representing the 5% value increase is very decent in light of the documentation
£200 per month being returned to live rent free in someone else's house? Get real. Tot up half of the mortgage, bills, etc., over the 8 months and I'm sure it's in excess of £1600.

That is the position I would have prepared for the time if and when a letter from a solicitor arrives and I'd dig my heels in before writing cheques/committing to £2400. Nor would I be discussing this with the grandfather as blood is thicker than water.

[anonymous-user]

OP, you appear to be hearkening somewhat to the pub lawyers, perhaps because they tell you what you would like to hear (ie: your ex has no claim against you). On the information you have put forward, your ex has a valid claim against you for a share in the equity in the house proportionate to her contribution to it. If as is likely the house has increased in value since the purchase, then the claim will be for more than just the amount paid in.

Paying the grandparents without obtaining a partial or full release of claim. from the ex was perhaps unwise, as it would have been better to wrap any payment or offer of payment up in a settlement.

My experience as a litigator is that a prompt and clear answer to a claim is a good idea. You need not involve a lawyer at this stage, but I see no downside in you writing a calm and polite letter to your ex setting out what you consider her entitlement to be (percentage of equity based on percentage of payments to the house), with your proposals for staged payments, to be made in return for a release of all claims over the house. You could make your initial approach without prejudice but be prepared to make it open.

[Rude-boy]

tom2019 said:

In hindsight what could op have done to paid this situation. I own a house and I have nightmares about this happening to me.

Personally if i were the OP i would give back the grand plus a gesture, and take the £200 a month as contribution towards bills.

Each matter is different and the best advice for you might be different for others.

If you are buying together as in the OP's case the best option for them day one would have been to have a Declaration of Trust in place setting out what each had put in and what each intended to contribute and finally what each would get on sale. Now the tricky bit is that the payments towards the mortgage and usual outgoings were not equal, nor in proportion with the basic equitable interests fro the deposits from each. In these cases it is often a question of the parties agreeing what they think is fair and reasonable. If they can't agree on that without needing to take independent legal advice at that stage the chances are the purchase would be off as would the relationship! From experience I have had Client's with very similar stories to the OP's at the time of purchase. You don't buy a house with someone expecting that you are going to split 6 months later and so the chances are that they would have agreed that each would get back their original deposit and any additional equity would be split in those proportions as the fairest and cleanest way. Yes OP would end up a little out of pock in these circumstances but it would be set out clearly and any claim quantifiable. You could make it more complex and drill into the exact payments each will be making but the World doesn't always work like that so taking a broad but fair brush is often the sensible way.

Obviously if things were to change before the house sold and another bought you can do variation to the deed. You do need to be careful here though as SDLT returns could easily start to loom and cause nightmares.

[tom2019]

Breadvan72 said:

OP, you appear to be hearkening somewhat to the pub lawyers, perhaps because they tell you what you would like to hear (ie: your ex has no claim against you). On the information you have put forward, your ex has a valid claim against you for a share in the equity in the house proportionate to her contribution to it. If as is likely the house has increased in value since the purchase, then the claim will be for more than just the amount paid in.

Paying the grandparents without obtaining a partial or full release of claim. from the ex was perhaps unwise, as it would have been better to wrap any payment or offer of payment up in a settlement.

My experience as a litigator is that a prompt and clear answer to a claim is a good idea. You need not involve a lawyer at this stage, but I see no downside in you writing a calm and polite letter to your ex setting out what you consider her entitlement to be (percentage of equity based on percentage of payments to the house), with your proposals for staged payments, to be made in return for a release of all claims over the house. You could make your initial approach without prejudice but be prepared to make it open.

How does she have a claim. I'm assuming the mortgage is more than £400 so she carnt claim to be paying half the mortgage. The 4 grand was a gift which was in writing. It seems she's been paying towards the bills.

I don't understand how the £200 a month is contribution to the house when there are other bills to pay aswell.

[RYH64E]

12lee said:

...but in fact it would be equitable to point out that the £8.498k is a 5% capital appreciation, therefore the £4k is 'worth' £4200 based upon this uplift. Oh, and there is documentation saying that the source of the £4k has no interest in the house anyway...

The OP's investment is only £8k, using your 5% argument he's entitled to £400, so if the house has increased in value by £14k who owns the balance of the equity?

If I were arguing the ex's case I'd ask for deposit plus 1/3 of any capital appreciation, less a proportion of selling costs (estate agent and solicitor), say £8k total.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Breadvan72 said:

OP, you appear to be hearkening somewhat to the pub lawyers, perhaps because they tell you what you would like to hear (ie: your ex has no claim against you). On the information you have put forward, your ex has a valid claim against you for a share in the equity in the house proportionate to her contribution to it. If as is likely the house has increased in value since the purchase, then the claim will be for more than just the amount paid in.

It should also be noted that 'contribution' to the property does not mean only financial. Work maintaining and or improving the property can also count as a contribution.

[barryrs]

tom2019 said:

How does she have a claim. I'm assuming the mortgage is more than £400 so she carnt claim to be paying half the mortgage. The 4 grand was a gift which was in writing. It seems she's been paying towards the bills.

I don't understand how the £200 a month is contribution to the house when there are other bills to pay aswell.

But you cant state that her contribution was purely household bills and not mortgage.

If the household bils, mortgage, gas, electric, TV licence etc came in at £1000 a month then her contribution is 20%