Mathematicians in here please

Must be some template examples of the agreements couples have set up ?

If there is a property split agreement, I don't see how that avoids declaring how bills will be shared, otherwise inequalities could legitimatly be used to increase/decrease deposit 'refund', if you split.
 
I think it's more a case of if one partner has invested a lot more capital than the other and protecting that investment if the worst should occur.
It's just this, really. We're both putting our life savings into this so it's only right and fair that each side is protected from any outcome.

Getting the deposit back, yes. Totally agree. Investment returns on the deposit? :cry: Even with nominal house price growth we are talking pennies unless you are going into the half-decade, decade time horizon. There wouldn't even be enough investment growth to offset the expense to buy in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're on about. Property has famously performed much better as an investment than say, a cash ISA in this country. We're looking long term, hence why we are sorting these calculations out to be frank and fair given either scenario of a house price crash or the continuing boom. May I remind you my current neighbours (not where we're buying I hasten to add) bought their house for c £700k 14 years ago and just sold it for £1.7m... I'm of the age where property has become the biggest differences in the 'haves' and 'have nots' so we're acutely aware of doing the financials fair and properly in case of any event.

If you entered the agreement as 57/43% now and split in a year, you'd take a hiding on your deposit amount.
I was just using the MSE mortgage overpayment calculator to look at this (without any overpayment) to dig into this a bit more and it seems you're right. I'm not sure if I've done it correctly though :p

Must be some template examples of the agreements couples have set up ?
Most things online just say 'get back the deposit you put in then split remainder 50/50' which is fine in the short term but not really applicable once you get a few years down the line, and especially when there's a large deposit swung to one party as well.
 
I'm not sure what you're on about. Property has famously performed much better as an investment than say, a cash ISA in this country. We're looking long term, hence why we are sorting these calculations out to be frank and fair given either scenario of a house price crash or the continuing boom. May I remind you my current neighbours (not where we're buying I hasten to add) bought their house for c £700k 14 years ago and just sold it for £1.7m... I'm of the age where property has become the biggest differences in the 'haves' and 'have nots' so we're acutely aware of doing the financials fair and properly in case of any event.
That's my point...you're talking about solving a problem that is in the half-decade, decade, 15 year time horizon. Are you pair still going to be worried about who gets the lion's share of your house sale if you split up that far down the line? Odd starting point for a relationship.

If I was your partner I'd be coming back with a counter offer as without her you have no house purchase in the first place. You can't access those gains without her. That transcends the pure mathematics of what investment growth you think you're entitled to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's my point...you're talking about solving a problem that is in the half-decade, decade, 15 year time horizon. Are you pair still going to be worried about who gets the lion's share of your house sale if you split up that far down the line? Odd starting point for a relationship.
I think you're being facetious for the sake of it. Of course any conversation like this is looking at what may happen whether or not it's 1yr down the line or 21yrs down the line :confused: With prices ever-rising, and more equity involved as the mortage gets paid off... further down the line is almost more important. That's pretty obvious to me :confused:

Back to the maths, as some posters already said @MrRockliffe 's method doesn't take into account the fact that you get no equity for the first XX years. Immediately straight off the bat you're saying the person who put in the smaller deposit gets bumped up from 25% of the deposit size, to 42% of the same number when it sells? No? lol... :confused:
 
I'm still confused as to how your increased contribution to the deposit somehow makes you more liable to more of the resale value when your mortgage is split.

Each to their own, can't help with your math predicament :p
 
I think you're being facetious for the sake of it. Of course any conversation like this is looking at what may happen whether or not it's 1yr down the line or 21yrs down the line :confused: With prices ever-rising, and more equity involved as the mortage gets paid off... further down the line is almost more important. That's pretty obvious to me :confused:

Back to the maths, as some posters already said @MrRockliffe 's method doesn't take into account the fact that you get no equity for the first XX years. Immediately straight off the bat you're saying the person who put in the smaller deposit gets bumped up from 25% of the deposit size, to 42% of the same number when it sells? No? lol... :confused:
What's pretty obvious to you has been wrong several times, so take the hint on this occasion once again. You get your original deposit back and split the rest 50/50. You aren't buying a stake in an investment, you are co-owning a home together.
 
I think it's easy to forget the reason he's looking for easy percentages is because the solicitor has asked for that as part of the tenants in common agreement.

Whatever split you pick out, will disadvantage one party at virtually any point from now until the mortgage is paid off and cause arguments in the unfortunate event of a split. (There would obviously be a point where 'investments made' match the nominal 'agreed split' as you go from start to finish)

I don't know if it's even possible to set up a tenants in common arrangement that amounts to '50/50 split of whatever is left after we take back our original deposit amounts'?

Edit - maybe this is helpful @Scam ? I've bolded the part that you might want to research more - sounds more appropriate for your situation than the simplistic fixed split your solicitor is currently trying to put in place for you.

Q I wonder if you can help. I’m struggling to put my practical head on in the midst of the romantic adventure that is buying my first home with my partner.

We’re going to own the house as tenants in common, which we’re both fine with, as we’re putting significantly different amounts into the deposit: I’m putting in 15% and he is contributing the remaining 85%. We are planning to pay the mortgage 50/50.

We’re about to get the declaration of trust written, but there are a few things I’m not sure of. We plan to put a lot of time into doing up the house and, at some point down the line, build an extension. As with the deposit, I’ll pay 15% and my partner 85% of the cost of the extension. Bearing all this in mind, if we do break up, will the increase in value be split 50/50 as per the mortgage payments or will I get back 15% and my partner 85%, as per the investment in the original deposit?

If the latter is the case, this feels a shame as the work (mainly time) put in to do up the house would have been a joint effort. I had thought that we would get our original deposit back, plus 50% of the increase in costs but now I am not so sure. Can you please help? JP

A It is sensible of you to have a deed of trust drawn up so that you can set out, among other things, what share each person owns, who is responsible for paying what and the procedure that should be followed when one or more of the joint owners want to go their separate ways. Having a deed of trust is especially important when, as in your case, each person is contributing differing amounts to the deposit, buying costs or mortgage repayments.

Most standard deeds of trust set out what each person will get back on the sale of the property either as fixed percentages or fixed amounts, or a mixture of both. In the simplest terms, you can say that if you contributed £1,500 to the deposit and your partner contributed £8,500, on the sale of the house – and after clearing the mortgage debt – you would get back your £1,500 and your partner his £8,500 with anything leftover being split down the middle. The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t take into account any increase in the value of the property. So instead, you can say that after paying off the outstanding mortgage with the sale proceeds, you would get whatever percentage of the purchase price your original contribution to the cash deposit represented when you bought the property.

So if you put £1,500 towards a house costing £100,000, your percentage share would be 1.5% and your partner’s 8.5% (to calculate the percentage, divide your cash contribution by the purchase price and multiply the result by 100). If you sold the house for £150,000, your share would now be worth £2,250 (1.5% of £150,000) and your partner’s £12,750. After deducting these amounts from what was left of the sale proceeds and clearing the mortgage, whatever remained would be split down the middle.

What a standard deed of trust does not address is the kind of situation you will find yourself in where uneven contributions are made over time – as with your intended contributions to the cost of the extension. The solution to this is to have a “floating deed”, also called a commensurate share deed, drawn up. Instead of giving fixed amounts or percentages, the deed sets out the formula to be used to calculate each owner’s share at the point the property is sold or one owner buys the other out. This kind of deed is also more appropriate for people who are contributing uneven amounts to the mortgage.

One way of calculating how much of the sale proceeds (after clearing the mortgage and deducting estate agents’ fees) is to add up the total contributions you have both made to the purchase and improvement of the property. Then you add up the contributions – which should include how much of the mortgage you have paid off – you have each made. You then calculate what percentage of the total contributions each of your individual contributions are. So if your contributions to the deposit, extension costs and mortgage debt paid off were, say, £15,000 but your partner’s were £35,000, the total contributions would be £50,000, making your percentage share of the sale proceeds 30% and your partner’s 70%.
 
Last edited:
Can a solicitor not draw up a tailormade legal document to spell out the agreement? i.e. both take their original deposits and then split the rest 50/50?
Or even put in conditions such as in the first year the split will be xx / xx, second year xx/ xx etc so that the above calculations mentioned are applied correctly?

Looks like the deed of trust is the way to go for you as mentioned in the post above.

If you do get married and end up staying longer then a few years would this agreement trump any divorce rights? Are you planning to get married?
 
I'm still confused as to how your increased contribution to the deposit somehow makes you more liable to more of the resale value when your mortgage is split.
Because from the larger deposit you immediately 'own' more of the property than the other person. It's a very decent deposit and is very unevenly split so unfortunately this has much more bearing on it right from when we sign on the dotted line.

I think it's easy to forget the reason he's looking for easy percentages is because the solicitor has asked for that as part of the tenants in common agreement.
Yes, exactly. I think they've thrown us down the wrong path actually.

Edit - maybe this is helpful @Scam ? I've bolded the part that you might want to research more - sounds more appropriate for your situation than the simplistic fixed split your solicitor is currently trying to put in place for you.
That is very helpful thank you. Trying to work out sums from that but I'm going to have to call the solicitor on this one. We've gone round in circles, they must know what they're talking about with this.
 
I don't think the simplistic percentage works in what is a progressive and fluid situation. At the start you will own 30% of the value of the property, and to my mind this is the only way which might work.
The first 30% of the value split as per the original investment, the remaining 70% split 50/50

That should make it all fair whether you split up in year one or five, or continue to the end of the mortgage.
 
Most things online just say 'get back the deposit you put in then split remainder 50/50' which is fine in the short term but not really applicable once you get a few years down the line, and especially when there's a large deposit swung to one party as well.

Because from the larger deposit you immediately 'own' more of the property than the other person. It's a very decent deposit and is very unevenly split so unfortunately this has much more bearing on it right from when we sign on the dotted line.

What sort of deposit difference are we talking about because that might make things clearer, also have you looked back at the examples to consider how long you have to stay in the property and how much of the outstanding mortgage you would have to pay back before a % split agreement becomes more favourable then a deposit return + 50/50 split after, because it can take quite a bit more then a few years, and relies heavily on a strong housing market on top of that as well.

Even then the differences in the grand scheme of things over the years should not be significant enough to over complicate this for something you would hope never arises, and when/if it does you likely want to focus on more important factors then a few ££ split either way?
 
Using a more complicated % approach you will often benefit the smaller deposit payer to a greater degree, is that fair? Also why overcomplicate things?

Buy house for £300k, £200k mortgage.

Sell house for £400k, outstanding mortgage £150k
£250k remaining to distribute.

% driven distribution:
£75k deposit payer - 58.33% effective share receives £145,825. Net of deposit £70,825
£25k deposit payer - 41.66% effective share receives £104,158. Net of deposit £79,158

Same situation but fixed deposit return:

Sell house for £400k, outstanding mortgage £150k
£250k remaining to distribute - £100k in deposits.
Final remaining £150k

£75k deposit payer - £75k deposit + £75k 50% of remaining, total return £150k (net of deposit £75k)
£25k deposit payer - £25k deposit + £75k 50% of remaining, total return £100k (net of deposit £75k)


As the sale price reduces the higher deposit payer loses out to a greater degree.

Hence why keeping it simple is often fairest by for both parties and least likely to cause any contention.

It only becomes favourable to the higher deposit payer in these examples once the house is selling for 33% more then purchase price and outstanding debt to clear after sale is 33% or less of the original purchase price.

Also, is it really worth the extra hassle and over complication, return of original deposits then 50/50 split is the simplest solution.

No, the percentage is correct but because it's based on the full price of the house and how that's shared it must be applied in the correct order when the sale occurs.

e.g.

The percentage share must be applied to the sale price first.

400k

75k deposit payer, 400k x 0.5833 recurring, 233,333.33 then deduct the 50% share of the outstanding mortgage 75k = 158,333.33 - deposit 75k = profit from rising house price 83,333.33

25k deposit payer, 400k x 0.4166 recurring, 166,666.67 then deduct the 50% share of the outstanding mortgage 75k = 91,666.67 - deposit 75k = profit from rising house price 16,666.67


To explain a little further the 75k deposit payer owns 3/4 of a third value of the home. If the home rose to 400k then a third of the home is now worth 133,333.33 of which this person owns 3/4 of that which is now worth 100k. They then also get their 50% share of the remaining value of the property 400k - 133,333.33 = 266,666.67 /2 = 133,333.34 - 50% of the outstanding mortgage 75k = 58,333.34. Therefore 100k + 58,333.34 = 158,333.34.

So any reference to share percentage in any contract should also stipulate how the proceeds of the home sale should be calculated using the stated percentages.
 
Last edited:
Fair point, actually that makes sense.

Still, its massively dependant on deposit size vs purchase price comparison, if we are talking an overall 10% deposit for example thats going to equate to marginal if any difference in % split, but it because very different if that deposit is 30%+ say.
 
Fair point, actually that makes sense.

Still, its massively dependant on deposit size vs purchase price comparison, if we are talking an overall 10% deposit for example thats going to equate to marginal if any difference in % split, but it because very different if that deposit is 30%+ say.

Yes that's the point though, one party is coming to the table with a vastly different contribution that presumably occurred on their own merits before their relationship started. Even when the relationship started is kind of irrelevant if both parties have their own careers and no children involved.
 
The other alternative here might be to reduce the size of the deposit so that both parties pay equal and then the party with the spare cash invests that money totally separately like a stocks and shares ISA. The interest rate is so low it's more likely that well invested money would rise better vs the low interest rate your paying on a mortgage.
 
If this property subsequently became a 2nd home and (post split) you invested in a primary residence, what calculation would the chancellor demand for capital gain calculation if you sold ... maybe that dictates which, of the percentage ownership, versus, separated deposit, schemes is appropriate.
 
Back
Top Bottom