Oh Fell. It Seems To Have Triggered...
Body & Soul0 min ago
Couple splitting up
A friend of mine has just found out that her partner has been cheating on her, so it looks like they're going to split up. The problem is they bought a house together about 6 months ago and now they're probably in negative equity. He put a large deposit down and had recently drawn up a deed of trust to say that if they sold the house he would get his deposit back plus interest and the rest would be split. She didn't sign because this seems wrong � he is buying the house too so if the value drops he should lose out as well, it's not a guaranteed return is it and they never agreed to that.
Anyway I don't know the ins and outs I'm just wondering if anyone has had the same thing. It seems my friend might lose out big time with having to pay half the negative equity, but because he caused the breakdown in the relationship I wonder if there is any way he can be held liable? I'm guessing probably not but just thought I'd ask. If anyone has had a similar situation would be grateful to hear what happened with you.
Many thanks
Anyway I don't know the ins and outs I'm just wondering if anyone has had the same thing. It seems my friend might lose out big time with having to pay half the negative equity, but because he caused the breakdown in the relationship I wonder if there is any way he can be held liable? I'm guessing probably not but just thought I'd ask. If anyone has had a similar situation would be grateful to hear what happened with you.
Many thanks
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Emu2005. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi Ethel
Thanks, that's what I thought about the deposit, I can't see that she would have to pay for him to get his money back.
But ignoring that part, what do you think about the rest of the negative equity? Do you think there's any chance it could all be left with him because he's the one who caused the relationship to end? Clutching at straws a bit but it seems so unfair that she has pushed herself to buy a house with someone she thought she would be with for the rest of her life, and now he's done this to her and she'll have to pay out, with money she doesn't have.
Thanks again
Thanks, that's what I thought about the deposit, I can't see that she would have to pay for him to get his money back.
But ignoring that part, what do you think about the rest of the negative equity? Do you think there's any chance it could all be left with him because he's the one who caused the relationship to end? Clutching at straws a bit but it seems so unfair that she has pushed herself to buy a house with someone she thought she would be with for the rest of her life, and now he's done this to her and she'll have to pay out, with money she doesn't have.
Thanks again
I am assuming that they are legal joint owners - both names are on the mortgage and the Registered Title
Both will be equally liable for the debt - the mortgage company doesn't give a hoot about blame.
It is a horrid situation but unless she is prepared to spend a lot of money on equity lawyers and court processes with only a slim chance of winning, she can't put the debt on to him legally.
She could appeal to his better nature but that isn't likely to work.
Hopefully the house won't be in negative equity as he put a large deposit down so there will be little or no debt to pay.
Both will be equally liable for the debt - the mortgage company doesn't give a hoot about blame.
It is a horrid situation but unless she is prepared to spend a lot of money on equity lawyers and court processes with only a slim chance of winning, she can't put the debt on to him legally.
She could appeal to his better nature but that isn't likely to work.
Hopefully the house won't be in negative equity as he put a large deposit down so there will be little or no debt to pay.
Legally there's no way he can force the deposit thing back now but I have to say, notwithstanding he may be a cheating bar steard, I don't think it's unreasonable that his deposit be taken into account in sorting out proceeds of the house sale. Factored back for any negative equity fair enough but he's still put more in.
My wife and I had a similar arrangement when we bought our house together, albeit it was arranged in advance. I put in a deposit of a good few thousand pounds more than she did and we signed an agreement that in the event of a split and sale of the house I would get this excess back before division of house profits. We weren't married at the time but I presume it remains in force even though we have married since? Can't say I'm overly bothered at this point whether it does or doesn't and certainly I've paid the majority of the mortgage payments since but I guess it's still valid.
My wife and I had a similar arrangement when we bought our house together, albeit it was arranged in advance. I put in a deposit of a good few thousand pounds more than she did and we signed an agreement that in the event of a split and sale of the house I would get this excess back before division of house profits. We weren't married at the time but I presume it remains in force even though we have married since? Can't say I'm overly bothered at this point whether it does or doesn't and certainly I've paid the majority of the mortgage payments since but I guess it's still valid.
I doubt that just because he cheated on her, means that he can get penalised. If that term is in the contract, and it was before or at the time of the purchase, it is binding-simple contract law, especially if it has been signed! Simple rule, if you sign something, you are basically bound by every term, with some exceptions.
As for the equity, thats just bad luck, people who purchased a house when the price of houses were at its peak, are the losers. It was obvious that that trend was not going to continue, and the real winners are the previous owners who sold it to you.
If you sell the house now for less than what you paid for it, then you would have to cover the loss. It seems harsh, but i can't see any other way around it. You could buy the house yourself, or maybe even share it with a friend, rent out a room etc etc, but it seems your friend is going to loose out big time.
As for the equity, thats just bad luck, people who purchased a house when the price of houses were at its peak, are the losers. It was obvious that that trend was not going to continue, and the real winners are the previous owners who sold it to you.
If you sell the house now for less than what you paid for it, then you would have to cover the loss. It seems harsh, but i can't see any other way around it. You could buy the house yourself, or maybe even share it with a friend, rent out a room etc etc, but it seems your friend is going to loose out big time.
Hi corbsy
She never signed anything saying how the value was going to be split.
Apparently he just wants to take on the house now, which would be good news for her.
If that doesn't happen and they sell, who says the deposit has to go back to him? If the house sale price covers the mortgage and nothing else, he'll have lost ihis deposit buy my friend won't have to pay anything. If they have the mortgage jointly and the house jointly and she never signed any deed of trust saying otherwise, would this not be the case?
I think maybe he was just trying to get her to sign the dodgy deed of trust before it came out about his cheating so he would get his money back (what a ba5tard).
But because nothing has been signed, she should be alright if the deposit covers the drop in house value? Or am I getting a bit mixed up here...
She never signed anything saying how the value was going to be split.
Apparently he just wants to take on the house now, which would be good news for her.
If that doesn't happen and they sell, who says the deposit has to go back to him? If the house sale price covers the mortgage and nothing else, he'll have lost ihis deposit buy my friend won't have to pay anything. If they have the mortgage jointly and the house jointly and she never signed any deed of trust saying otherwise, would this not be the case?
I think maybe he was just trying to get her to sign the dodgy deed of trust before it came out about his cheating so he would get his money back (what a ba5tard).
But because nothing has been signed, she should be alright if the deposit covers the drop in house value? Or am I getting a bit mixed up here...
1 to 6 of 6
