Joint mortgage, splitting up

Putta

Hi all,
Just want to know what to expect when we go about sorting out the mortgage?

We haven't decided whether we're just going to try and sell it or if one of us is going to take over the whole thing.

If I decide to "buy her out" how would we calculate how much she is owed.

From my understanding we would need to get the house valued again and if it is worth more than when we first bought it she would be entitled to half?

On top of that then, would the deposit for the mortgage come into it, is she entitled to her deposit back?

Also, I have been the person paying the mortgage, ESB, Sky, Broadband, Health insurance, House insurance etc, whole she pays the furniture loan and bins
Am I entitled to bring that up or is it just the mortgage and only the mortgage that should be considered?

I guess when we get down to we are both going to have to go to solicitors and pay them a fortune to sort this out or is there another option?

Thanks for any help.

ash23

Putta wrote: »

Hi all,
Just want to know what to expect when we go about sorting out the mortgage?

We haven't decided whether we're just going to try and sell it or if one of us is going to take over the whole thing.

If I decide to "buy her out" how would we calculate how much she is owed.

From my understanding we would need to get the house valued again and if it is worth more than when we first bought it she would be entitled to half?

On top of that then, would the deposit for the mortgage come into it, is she entitled to her deposit back?

Also, I have been the person paying the mortgage, ESB, Sky, Broadband, Health insurance, House insurance etc, whole she pays the furniture loan and bins
Am I entitled to bring that up or is it just the mortgage and only the mortgage that should be considered?

I guess when we get down to we are both going to have to go to solicitors and pay them a fortune to sort this out or is there another option?

Thanks for any help.

Were you married? Are there kids?

In my own experience I wasn't married.

We had 2 options. One of us buy the other out. Or we sell.

What has to be paid is whatever the house is valued at unless you can come to an agreement that one party removes their name from the mortgage (this will need to also be agreed with the mortgage provider).

If the house was bought for 300k and the mortgage is 200k and you want to buy her out, you have to pay her 150k. She is entitled to half the value of the house, regardless of the mortgage or the deposit. If the house is worth 150k you can buy her out for 75k, again regardless of the mortgage though she might not agree to that.
It doesn't matter who paid for what etc.
As far as the law is concerned, you both own the house equally.

If you cannot agree who will buy out who, then it may end up in court and a sale can be forced.

Best for all concerned if you can do it all amicably, especially as it will cut right down on legal costs. Perhaps try mediation.

Putta

ash23 wrote: »

Were you married? Are there kids?
If the house was bought for 300k and the mortgage is 200k and you want to buy her out, you have to pay her 150k. She is entitled to half the value of the house, regardless of the mortgage or the deposit. If the house is worth 150k you can buy her out for 75k, again regardless of the mortgage though she might not agree to that.

You cannot be serious :eek:

We are literally only in the house a year when she decided she wasn't happy.

And your telling me that even though she put in 10k for a deposit and nothing else to pay the mortgage she would be entitled to half the value of the house (75k) if I wanted to buy her out?

Surly this is only trough if the house was sold she would be entitled to half of any profit?


i'm sorry but you have to be wrong on this one!?!?!?!

No kids, not married.

ash23

Putta wrote: »

You cannot be serious :eek:

We are literally only in the house a year when she decided she wasn't happy.

And your telling me that even though she put in 10k for a deposit and nothing else to pay the mortgage she would be entitled to half the value of the house (75k) if I wanted to buy her out?

i'm sorry but you have to be wrong on this one!?!?!?!

No kids, not married.

No, not wrong. She owns half the house. You and her are not married therefore are no more involved than 2 investors who own a property. If the property has increased in value since you both bought, she is as entitled as you are to the equity in the house.

Her name is on the deeds yes?

If you chose to allow her to not pay anything off the mortgage, well, thats a hard lesson learned for you. But as the law stands, if you want to buy her out, you have to pay half what the house is valued at.

If you sold it, you'd have to pay off the mortgage and split the proceeds.

Putta

ash23 wrote: »

No, not wrong. She owns half the house. You and her are not married therefore are no more involved than 2 investors who own a property. If the property has increased in value since you both bought, she is as entitled as you are to the equity in the house.

Her name is on the deeds yes?

If you chose to allow her to not pay anything off the mortgage, well, thats a hard lesson learned for you. But as the law stands, if you want to buy her out, you have to pay half what the house is valued at.

If you sold it, you'd have to pay off the mortgage and split the proceeds.

That's madness! :eek:

I just can't understand how this could be possible.

This doesn't have to be the case if both parties agree to a lesser sum?

Blanchguy

Well if the previous poster is correct, just tell your ex she owes you 75k and hit the road.

seamus

ash has it mostly right there for 99% of cases.

When you bought the house you may have done some "odd" things which would affect the outcome:

- If either party put up a signifcantly larger portion of the deposit and this was noted in one document or other, then that party may be able to claim the full value of that deposit back. However, usually what happens is that all of the deposits are chopped in half.

- If you weren't married at the time of the sale, your solicitor should have advised you to sign the deeds/papers as "tenants in common". This would mean that you both own a specific % of the house and either "tenant" would be entitled to sell their share on without the consent of the other. However, most people sign as "Joint Tenants" which means that neither can sell without the other's agreement and everything is effectively split 50-50.

To figure out how much each person is due, imagine that you (the couple) are selling the house to yourself (the individual).

So imagine that the house will be bought at €300k and you currently have a mortgage of €200k. Each person out of the couple will then take €50k each from the sale. The person buying the house (you) needs to provide €300k. So your new mortgage is the full original mortgage plus the profit that your ex-partner is entitled to from the sale - in this case €250k.

Now, this has been turned onto its head somewhat in recent years with negative equity. However the sums are identical if you allow negatives:
Let's say the house is worth €200k and you have a mortgage of €300k. When you sell the house, each person comes out with -€50k. Your new mortgage now becomes the full original mortgage (€300k) plus the profit that your ex is entitled to from the sale (negative €50k), so your new mortgage is €250k and your ex must pay you €50k to hand over the property to you.

It sounds wrong, but when you think about it, if the property is in negative equity, each partner is equally liable for the losses as they were entitled to the profits.

Edit: Just to update - Putta you're probably forgetting about the mortgage. Yes, she's "entitled" to €75k, but she is also liable for half the mortgage; you can give her €75k but she *must* pay off her half of the mortgage. She effectively transfers her half of the mortgage into your name and she walks away with nothing. Unless you're in negative equity, in which case she must pay you the difference.

ash23

Putta wrote: »

That's madness! :eek:

I just can't understand how this could be possible.

This doesn't have to be the case if both parties agree to a lesser sum?

I'm not sure. You would need to be able to get a mortgage for the current balance yourself. And then offer her a sum of money.
If she agrees to sign away her half of the house for a lesser sum, I'd imagine it's do-able. But then, why would she really.

My house is up for sale. I don't live there. My ex does and he pays the mortgage. If it sells I will expect half of any profit.

Putta

Blanchguy wrote: »

Well if the previous poster is correct, just tell your ex she owes you 75k and hit the road.

Ha ha ha Fact, it would be some profit!

But we are trying to do this as friendly as possible. so the only option (if this is set in stone) would be to sell. Simply as that.

She cannot afford the mortgage herself and there no ****ing way i'm handing that kinda money for nothing.

I would rather sell and be in neg equity that that.

alibaba12

hi, I worked in a solictors a long time ago and there was a law at the time (not sure if it still applies) that if a person moved in with you and no matter how much decoration they did or bills (apart from mortgage) they paid they werent entitled to claim a stake in your property. That being said you signed the mortgage together. You would need to be able to prove she gave you no money for the mortgage (other bills that you or you gf paid for dont count).

The only other thing is if the house is worth 100k less than you paid for it you will need to get a mortgage to cover your stake in the new valued amount as well as pay back the original valued amount to make up the shortfall, if that makes sense

You need to get legal advice from a solicitor.

Blanchguy

Just be aware that if you do sell for less than the mortgage you still owe the bank the difference - both of you are responsible for all this money. The interest rate on it will go up as the bank now has no security.

Putta

Thanks Seamus, So even though I would have borrow 75k to get the mortgage into my name, she would still have to put that 75k back into the mortgage to pay her half.

Which just sounds stupid?!?!?

Its just getting money from the bank to give to her to give back to the bank.

I ll have to ask the solicitor of course but surely if she agreed to a smaller sum we could avoid all that crap.

seamus

Putta wrote: »

But we are trying to do this as friendly as possible. so the only option (if this is set in stone) would be to sell. Simply as that.

She cannot afford the mortgage herself and there no ****ing way i'm handing that kinda money for nothing.

These two are a little bit at odds. If you want to do it the easy way, then you split everything in half. If you only want to give her back her deposit, then you will need to get her to agree to that or take her to court to show that you were the only person paying the mortgage.

But before you do anything, do your sums. You bought a year ago. Unless you stumped up a huge deposit, then you're in negative equity. In which case she must give you half of the loss that the property has sustained in order to buy out of the mortgage. Of course, the reverse on the mortgage payment is true - she can take you to court to show that only you were paying the mortgage and therefore the loss is all yours (except for her deposit).

seamus

Putta wrote: »

Thanks Seamus, So even though I would have borrow 75k to get the mortgage into my name, she would still have to put that 75k back into the mortgage to pay her half.

Which just sounds stupid?!?!?

Its just getting money from the bank to give to her to give back to the bank.

Yep. That's the way it works. In reality she will never see that €75k. The agreement will be done on paper and the movement of money is done behind the scenes by the bank(s).

Paulw

Putta wrote: »

That's madness! :eek:

I just can't understand how this could be possible.

This doesn't have to be the case if both parties agree to a lesser sum?

I don't mean to sound bad, but did you not discuss things like this with your solicitor before you bought? :eek:

I bought my apt by myself, but when my gf and I discussed moving in together, I did consult my solicitor to get details of what possible situation could arise if we broke up. Thankfully, we didn't break up (we got married).

But, situations like yours are not uncommon at all, and like you, many people learned some very hard lessons.

Putta

Paulw wrote: »

I don't mean to sound bad, but did you not discuss things like this with your solicitor before you bought? :eek:

I bought my apt by myself, but when my gf and I discussed moving in together, I did consult my solicitor to get details of what possible situation could arise if we broke up. Thankfully, we didn't break up (we got married).

But, situations like yours are not uncommon at all, and like you, many people learned some very hard lessons.

Ah, no! I wasnt going to lean across the table in front of the GF and ask the solicitor what happens next year when this one decides she wants out

Thanks lads, you have cleared up a lot for me. I just misunderstood at first how it all worked.

Simply fact is there is no way she can afford to buy me out so its either I do or we sell.

selling will take a long time as there has been 4 other houses in our area on sale for 2 years and are still there.

The worst thing is I never saw it coming. hell we did nothing but talk about spending the next 10 years in the house and SLAP! Wakey wakey!

Oh, ye of experience, how much (ball park) did the solicitors fees cost ya?

ash23

OP, is the house in negative equity?

I'm confused by whether or not you are talking profit or loss if the house sells.

Our house is still up for sale as neither of us could afford to buy the other out.
But when we bought we paid 1.5% of the value of the house for solicitors fees. It worked out at about 3k at the time.

The worst thing is I never saw it coming. hell we did nothing but talk about spending the next 10 years in the house and SLAP! Wakey wakey!

Lol, none of us ever do. It's a crap hand to be dealt but live and learn.

Putta

ash23 wrote: »

OP, is the house in negative equity?

I'm confused by whether or not you are talking profit or loss if the house sells.

Our house is still up for sale as neither of us could afford to buy the other out.
But when we bought we paid 1.5% of the value of the house for solicitors fees. It worked out at about 3k at the time.

Sorry Ash23,
It was bought last July for 151,000 euro and + 10,000 deposit.

I do not know what the current value of the house is so I couldn't tell you if it is in positive or negative equity!

Paulw

Putta wrote: »

Ah, no! I wasnt going to lean across the table in front of the GF and ask the solicitor what happens next year when this one decides she wants out

I didn't mean it quite like that, but I certainly would have had a quiet (private) word with the solicitor, just in case.

Clearly no one plans a split, but these things do happen, all too often.

Anyway, hopefully you'll be able to come to a proper agreement, and you're not both in too much debt.

Putta

Paulw wrote: »

I didn't mean it quite like that, but I certainly would have had a quiet (private) word with the solicitor, just in case.

Clearly no one plans a split, but these things do happen, all too often.

Anyway, hopefully you'll be able to come to a proper agreement, and you're not both in too much debt.

Thanks mate, it is a valuable lesson learned and probably a costly one.

ash23

Putta wrote: »

Sorry Ash23,
It was bought last July for 151,000 euro and + 10,000 deposit.

I do not know what the current value of the house is so I couldn't tell you if it is in positive or negative equity!

Ah ok. Well, thats the first step then, get it valued and go from there.
If it's in negative equity and you can get a mortgage for the full existing mortgage, she might be happy enough to walk away.

If I could walk away from my house (without debt) I'd grab that with both hands.

professore

In fairness to him, my solicitor always points out stuff like this, e.g. "if you agree this and X happens, then Y will get all the money - are you happy with this" kind of thing.

Simon201

Interesting thread...

Anyhow Putta, the present climate could work in your favour in some way. Your house is now valued at around €145000 according to the Permanent TSB house price calculator....

Putta

Simon201 wrote: »

Interesting thread...

Anyhow Putta, the present climate could work in your favour in some way. Your house is now valued at around €145000 according to the Permanent TSB house price calculator....

Good to know, thanks Simon.

dan_d

Ehhh, can I throw a spanner in the works?

I know a couple, he bought the house, and she moved in with him and paid rent. It was obvious fairly early on that things were going sour, but when they did eventually - she obviously wasn't entitled to anything out of the mortgage, but she brought him to court and sued him for all the money she felt she had invested in decorating and furnishing the house. (about 15k)

Needless to say, they don't talk/see each other anymore.....

Careful of that one OP. And to be fair, your solicitor should have asked you that question, rather than it being you bringing it up...I know we were asked it, even found the paperwork the other day.

Putta

Ok, so being talking this out and she wont be able to buy the house herself.
what she wants to do is share the house while not paying for anything :rolleyes:

So, here's the grown up question. In these uncertain times would it be un wise of me to buy her out?

Pros: It would be an investment
Its in m home village where I am hoping to get back to asap.
I would not loose the money I have invested.
If I can rent it it would pay for itself until I do get home.

Cons:I m left with a house I cant live in.:mad:
I would have to go through the mortgage application process again.
The way this country is going and mortgages rates the mortgage rate could go way up.

The only other option I can see is for both of us to move out of it and try to rent it while we try to sell it.

So what would u do?

liger

Been there and done that mate. Its not a nice situation but if you can get it sorted while still on good terms with her i'd say get rid of it now.

Lets say you keep it as it now, rent it for a couple of years. Suddenly she changes her mind, decides she wants to keep it even though she cant afford, you'll have to go thru the courts to get an order of sale, pay the solicitors 10 - 20k for the trouble and if as widely predicted house prices continue to drop you'll be in neg equity and be at the mercy of the banks as to wheter they'll give her and you the money to clear it.

These things can turn nasty in a heartbeat, if your making an agreement with her, do it with solicitors involved and always put it in writing.

I learned the hard way, the expensive way and the long way. 4years+ of my life wasted on it, 20k in legal fees and 15k to clear the neg equity.

Sell sell sell sell you mad fool!!!!!

D3PO

if the house is in neg equity she should pay you half of the neg equity to get out.

If the house has equity in it you should pay her half of the equity to get hout.

That should be what your looking at, in terms of a negotiation point.

Ash's first post is ludacris that you have to pay her half of the houses worth. That would only apply if there was no mortgage. She owns half the house but she also owns half the debt. Ash seems to have forgotten the second component of that equation !!

D3PO

ash23 wrote: »

If the house was bought for 300k and the mortgage is 200k and you want to buy her out, you have to pay her 150k.

She is entitled to half the value of the house, regardless of the mortgage or the deposit. If the house is worth 150k you can buy her out for 75k, again regardless of the mortgage though she might not agree to that.
.

Thats rediculous. (Not saying its wrong but why int he hell would anybody agree to this if it is the case.)

In point one. She should be entitled to half the equity but also half the debt.

So 150k (equity) minus 100k (debt) = 50k payoff

In point 2 assuming same mortgage amount of 200k

Shes entitled to 75k (equity) minus 100k (debt) = she should pay 25k to be released from the mortgage.

Again not saying thats legally the case but logically anything else is a joke. Otherwise everybody would want to be the party being bought out !!!

Putta

D3PO wrote: »

if the house is in neg equity she should pay you half of the neg equity to get out.

If the house has equity in it you should pay her half of the equity to get hout.

That should be what your looking at, in terms of a negotiation point.

Ash's first post is ludacris that you have to pay her half of the houses worth. That would only apply if there was no mortgage. She owns half the house but she also owns half the debt. Ash seems to have forgotten the second component of that equation !!

Ah this was all worked out further down the thread.

Yeah cut the **** outta me that I would have to give the leech more money.

I'm down to 3 options now.
Buy her out hope to rent it until someone can buy it.
Buy her out hope to rent it until I get to move down there.:(
Leave in both our names until it can be sold. Rent it if possible in the mean time.:(

Or find doc brown go back in time and bitch slap past me for being so gulable! :mad: I think I could take him!

D3PO

Putta wrote: »

Ah this was all worked out further down the thread.

Yeah cut the **** outta me that I would have to give the leech more money.
!

sorry got to lazy to read the full thread

ash23

D3PO wrote: »

Thats rediculous. (Not saying its wrong but why int he hell would anybody agree to this if it is the case.)

In point one. She should be entitled to half the equity but also half the debt.

So 150k (equity) minus 100k (debt) = 50k payoff

In point 2 assuming same mortgage amount of 200k

Shes entitled to 75k (equity) minus 100k (debt) = she should pay 25k to be released from the mortgage.

Again not saying thats legally the case but logically anything else is a joke. Otherwise everybody would want to be the party being bought out !!!

She owns half the house and half the debt.

If he wishes to buy her out then he has to pay her half the value of the house. In turn she has to pay off the mortgage.

I did state in my OP that unless the bank allow him to take her name off the mortgage he will have to get the full amount together on his own.

I would have thought it was obvious that the old mortgage would be paid off out of that and didn't need to be specified.

In the next post I said

If you sold it, you'd have to pay off the mortgage and split the proceeds

to clarify exactly what I meant.

Before calling posts ludicrous you should read them in context.

D3PO

ash23 wrote: »

Before calling posts ludicrous you should read them in context.

Firstly I caled it rediculous not ludacris

secondly you will see I didnt indicate your statement was wrong but rather that if it was correct there would be no logical reason for somebody to go through that process becasue of how financially punitive it would be to them

D3PO wrote:

(Not saying its wrong but why in the hell would anybody agree to this if it is the case.)

ash23

D3PO wrote: »

if the house is in neg equity she should pay you half of the neg equity to get out.

If the house has equity in it you should pay her half of the equity to get hout.

That should be what your looking at, in terms of a negotiation point.

Ash's first post is ludacris that you have to pay her half of the houses worth. That would only apply if there was no mortgage. She owns half the house but she also owns half the debt. Ash seems to have forgotten the second component of that equation !!

Ahem.

Point is that he DOES have to pay her half of what the house is worth. For the OP, it boils down to the same thing. Lets say the mortgage is 300k. He currently has a mortgage for 150k and she has a mortgage for 150k.
If he buys her out he needs a mortgage of 300k.
For him, he is paying over half the value of the house to her, whatever that may be.

Obviously if she has no interest in the house anymore, she will have to repay the bank her half of the original mortgage.

I was discussing it from the OPS perspective. Not the exs.

D3PO

look I wasnt call you ludacris I was calling the situation ludacris.

Now if you think ive been attacking you your way off the mark. Chill

seamus

ash23 wrote: »

Ahem.

Point is that he DOES have to pay her half of what the house is worth. For the OP, it boils down to the same thing. Lets say the mortgage is 300k. He currently has a mortgage for 150k and she has a mortgage for 150k.
If he buys her out he needs a mortgage of 300k.

Just highlighting that very specific wording above. If the house is worth 200k and they have a mortgage of 300k, he only has to pay her half of what the house is worth - i.e. 100k and extend his mortgage to €250k. She will have come up with the other €50k to be released from her mortgage.

ash23

D3PO wrote:

look I wasnt call you ludacris I was calling the situation ludacris

I never said you were calling me ludicrous.

ash wrote:

Before calling posts ludicrous you should read them in context.

Thats all I said.
I'll leave it at that.

iguana

Putta wrote: »

I'm down to 3 options now.
Buy her out hope to rent it until someone can buy it.
Buy her out hope to rent it until I get to move down there.:(
Leave in both our names until it can be sold. Rent it if possible in the mean time.:(

First off you need to re-think how you are phrasing this. House prices have fallen since last year. Unless you bought at a substantial discount the property is worth less than you paid for it. As you bought with a small deposit and you will have made very little capital repayment in one year you are most likely in negative equity.

In this scenario under no circumstances do you "buy her out." If you are to take sole ownership of the property she will have to pay you to take on the full mortgage. She has to buy her way off the debt. Start thinking of it that way, it's important.

This will only be possible if you can get a sole mortgage for the property. If you can't find a bank/building society willing to cover you for the full amount you can't take sole ownership. (Bear in mind you may be charged a higher interest rate in order to be given a loan based only on your income.) Then your options are to stay as joint owners and hope the rent covers the mortgage repayments. Or sell up and find a way that you pay for any shortfall between you.

So to sum up your options are;

1. She buys her way out of the debt and you take sole ownership.
2. You continue to own the property together until some future date when you can change this. (Try your best not to get stuck in this scenario).
3. You put the house on the market, sell it and pay off the shortfall between you.

I recommend the last option. It might cost you a few thousand but you will be free and clear. If you can economise it will only take a few years to clear away the outstanding debt and save up a new deposit. You can start afresh.

iguana

seamus wrote: »

If the house is worth 200k and they have a mortgage of 300k, he only has to pay her half of what the house is worth - i.e. 100k and extend his mortgage to €250k. She will have come up with the other €50k to be released from her mortgage.

In that scenario she wouldn't get €100k but she would have to pay €50k. That's assuming the bank would allow him to take on the mortgage alone. Realistically unless he is on a secure €60kpa (absolute minimum) he won't be getting €250k on a single salary for a 125% mortgage. And he would get such a penal interest rate on that he would be a mug to do it unless she was willing to compensate him further.

Putta

iguana wrote: »

I recommend the last option. It might cost you a few thousand but you will be free and clear. If you can economise it will only take a few years to clear away the outstanding debt and save up a new deposit. You can start afresh.

Thanks, Iguana, this is very likely the option I will go for.

I just want to put things in as much perspective as possible so here are all the numbers!

Origianl mortgage amount 151,256.01
Now 148,719.01 (all paid by me )

Current monthly payment 639.75
Minus TRS 103 = €539

looks like the house is now worth around 142,000.

I can easily afford the mortgage by myself as I have up until now but as I cant live there the only option I would have if I was to buy it would be to rent it. The question is should I take on the neg equity now to save from losing what I have invested already or be shot of the lot at a loss.

It looks like I will be selling asap and very likely for a loss, if at all possible!

The whinge ****er is going on about the furniture now, which she insisted on taking out (in her name alone) a 10,000 euro loan to buy even though anybody who buys a new how scrimps and scraps furniture together. She can **** roight off!:cool:

seamus

In your situation Putta, I would suggest selling the house, you walk away with your €6k negative equity and she can walk away with her furniture & associated loan. Seems like the fairest compromise overall.

Ultimately she did live in the house that you were paying a mortgage on, but you also used the furniture that she borrowed to buy, so IMO it's easier to just walk away with each of your own debts. You can get a personal loan €6k and easily have it paid off in a year or two *and* build up a new savings account while you're at it.

If you decide to stay in the house, then you can offset the cost of the furniture against the negative equity - i.e. Let her walk away from the house if she leaves the furniture in place. Possible messy one that though, it might be easiest to sell up altogether and start again.

Putta

seamus wrote: »

In your situation Putta, I would suggest selling the house, you walk away with your €6k negative equity and she can walk away with her furniture & associated loan. Seems like the fairest compromise overall.

The problem is getting someone to buy the place.

There have been houses for sale in our estae that have been there since we bought last year. Its a small village in Laois!! So I cant see masses turn up to get at it.

I can only hope there is somone out that that wants its.

seamus

Quick sale = cheap price unfortunately. If you pitch it low enough, you should get the interest.

Putta

seamus wrote: »

Quick sale = cheap price unfortunately. If you pitch it low enough, you should get the interest.

This is a long long shot but is there anywhere to see what houses were sold for what in your area.

Even it was to show the house sold but not the price would do. Just to know there selling.

And would having the house furnished encourage or drive away perspective buyers? I was thinking when times were good and first time buyers were getting houses like this. Might help with the sale.

seamus

The daft.ie advanced search allows you to view homes that have recently gone sale agreed.

IIRC the myhome.ie advanced search will also show homes that have been sold. Though EA's tend not to leave them up very long because it costs money (afaik).

People tend to have their own furnishings, but FTBs obviously like to have something there. Perhaps not the whole shooting match, but your kitchen's white goods and maybe a sofa or two in the sitting room. Anything which is already bolted to the wall, such as a flat screen, is usually appreciated because it means you don't have to patch & paint the marks on the wall. Cabinets and desks and the like, not so much.