Soldato
Apparently not going by what’s being said here.You say jaded, I say rational
The relationship is doomed if you dare to think about possibility that things may change in the future lol.
Mortgage Relationship Query
- Thread starter tang0
- Start date
The relationship is doomed if you dare to think about possibility that things may change in the future lol.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,349
Sub’d to read in a year with a very large bucket of popcorn.
To the second part.
Yeah it's not great to assume it's gonna end. But when it might be 10 years of saving or more.. And you never know how things are going to go...you have to be realistic.
The consequences of it going wrong are substantial.
I still go back to.. Why Would anyone insist on 50:50 if they hadn't contributed? Maybe for the OP the other party haven't.
We also don't know if the partner is very new or a decade long relationship.
People are basing their judgement of the situation after being told "3rd hand", without any knowledge of the individuals themselves of their personal agreements or decision's they may have come to between themselves and then instantly jumping to the conclusion "it's dodgy".
Even you yourself said it "smells very fishy" - a judgement made solely from the "3rd hand" information from the OP.
Just read the thread and look at how many people are automatically jumping to the conclusion that he's gonna get ripped off.
I think @Gray2233 said it best....
Quite frankly given the OP's propensity for having an "imaginative" relationship with the truth, Im surprised just how many people are so quick to take his 3rd-hand observations and assume she's going to fleece him.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,349
OP gave a story, and people have given their opinion based on it. If there IS more information, then people may or may not change their opinion upon reciept of that.
Maybe the situation is fine or maybe it isn’t. Maybe he’s being an idiot or maybe he isn’t. Maybe he’s aware of the risks involved and maybe he isn’t - we can only go on what the OP has said and the majority of opinion so far says it sounds like a dodgy situation. This is only because the male is paying and the female isn’t. If it was the other way round and she was paying for everything for him, would your opinion be any different?
Maybe he’ll get screwed over for potentially tens of thousands and maybe he won’t. Either way he is financially at risk - that part is not up for debate.
She’d best be able to suck a golf ball through a garden hose is all I can say.
Soldato
Agreeing that it's weird not to take sensible precautions isn't the same as assuming she's going to fleece him.
Last edited:
I've always been somewhat split when it comes to the topic of "who had what before we got together".
On the one hand, I can see people's point when they say things such as "I/we acquired all this <stuff> from my/our own efforts before we got together, so if we were to split we should at least walk away with what we came into the relationship with".
It does seem sensible and reasonable, it's certainly what any sensible business would do.
And I guess that is where "the other hand" comes into play for me. A relationship is not a business deal or a contract of employment, if someone is concerned enough about "their stuff (acquired before the relationship)" are they really ever "100% all-in" on the relationship?
I realize the second half of that is of course tempered by the reality of the world we live in, where gold-diggers and such do exist, sadly.
With regard to your 2nd point... the first mention of the word "insist" in this thread came in your post (Post #48), not the OPs.
In fact, the OP actually said...
Last edited:
I see what you are saying, but how many times have you heard about a couple breaking up and and the house being split 50/50.. regardless of mortgage payment arrangements!
If they have a child the female will be allowed to stay in the house until the child is 18.
It’s a very awkward situation
Last edited:
Soldato
Love the "Shes going to have half his house" stuff 
Lets say the house is 200k, deposit 10%. They split and have to sell, sale price is 210k. Once advertising, agent fees and legal fees are taking into account with the possibility of giving it a bit of a spruce up for the sale, maybe staging it with some rented furniture etc there isn't going to be very much left of that initial deposit for her to run away into the sunset is there?
Lets say the house is 200k, deposit 10%. They split and have to sell, sale price is 210k. Once advertising, agent fees and legal fees are taking into account with the possibility of giving it a bit of a spruce up for the sale, maybe staging it with some rented furniture etc there isn't going to be very much left of that initial deposit for her to run away into the sunset is there?
He could probably also prove that he’s paid 100% of the mortgage to that point and retrieve a portion of the proceeds(minus legal fees).Love the "Shes going to have half his house" stuff
Lets say the house is 200k, deposit 10%. They split and have to sell, sale price is 210k. Once advertising, agent fees and legal fees are taking into account with the possibility of giving it a bit of a spruce up for the sale, maybe staging it with some rented furniture etc there isn't going to be very much left of that initial deposit for her to run away into the sunset is there?
I bet the OP wish’d he’d never asked now
Is there a precedent that if your name is on the deed you aren't entitled to an equal split regardless of who was contributing the £££ (if there wasn't a formal agreement beforehand)?He could probably also prove that he’s paid 100% of the mortgage to that point and retrieve a portion of the proceeds(minus legal fees).
I bet the OP wish’d he’d never asked now
Just curious
Last edited:
Soldato
I don't believe so, not in England anyway. Scotland is different as they have the common law laws which don't apply south of the border. When I went through it (nearly 20 years ago) the law sees you as two single people and is applied regardless of your relationship, GF, pair of mates or even a sibling. Names are on the deed then it's split 50/50.
I came to an agreement with her solicitor before it got to court. I did do a lot of reading on the subject first though, rather than just watching that bit in the Eddy Murphy stand up like a few on here have to form my legal opinion.
Financial contributions are taken into consideration if there’s a dispute. Lawyers acting on behalf of the parties can negotiate proceeds and if it ever got to court, they’ll look at all the circumstances.
Sadly I’ve been there but got majority.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,250
There's a term that's often thrown about lazily which referes to a small and unique arrangement of ice, but that's banned here - how is incel any different?
Given that you have no frame of reference for their relationship status, it could also be inferred as an ad-hominem/personal attack, which are against forum rules.
He's paying the full deposit, mortgage, her bills and HER kids bills, then giving her 50% of any part he owns, that seems absolutely mental to me - What's wrong with "you can live in my house, all bills paid for you and your kids, for as long as we are together"?
(Edit: and yes, as far as I'm aware there would be a case for a non-equal split of the estate if the contributions aren't balanced! But that's going to be a long and expensive conversation)
Last edited:
I think the OP’s brother is an utter moron, but it’s hilarious that this computer tech forum filled with a lot of clear incels, to the point where there is such a lack of self awareness it has resulted in calls for the term incel to be banned.
I love this forum, it’s so perfect and does its job better than I could ever imagine.
The frame of reference is the misogynistic angry world view espoused that can only come from bitter miserable people, who are likely incels.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,250
To be clear I don't think either term should be banned, although both are broadly applied without adding anything useful to the conversation.
This is about as dumb as the OP's brother's scenario.
My relatives had exactly the reversed scenario where the woman was looking to gift half the title of a new property while being the sole person on the mortgage and putting down a 6 figure deposit. No marriage just a one sided contract to gift half the title.
That was steered externally to there being no title sharing and if and when they get married so be it.
You make me doubt you can handle the reality that women do the exact same thing and also get strongly criticised for making apparently "love" distorted decisions about property and finances.