vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
They made their money one of two ways.  Either they got a commission from the original owner (similar to how a buyer's agent in a real estate transaction gets a commission from the original owner of the house and/or a share of the seller's agent's commission), or they actually participated in the transaction directly (buying from the original owner, selling to you at a higher price). Storing it in the vault free of charge of course has an expectation that a certain percentage of those who do so will use that broker to complete the eventual sale.
If she is a legitimate owner, you can't force her to sell her interest in the house. You can communicate indirectly with her, perhaps through a lawyer, and see if she is willing to sign something authorizing you to sell. Unless she is mentally incompetent, you will likely have a very difficult time of proceeding with a legal challenge. At minimum she should be paying you rent, if she is the sole occupant, and if she is unwilling to let you live in the house or pay you rent as co-owners, you could possibly proceed with a suit along those lines. This is a good example of why it's not ideal to co-own a home with someone you aren't legally married to, including a relative or someone you are dating, because there is no (relatively) simple process similar to divorce which determines the allocation of property in the case of a serious dispute. If living together, it may be preferable to have one party own the home and rent it to another. If inherited, it may be preferable for one party to buy out the others and rent it back to them or arrange for a portion of any money made through the sale or rental of the home. Best of luck - I hope you are able to reach an agreeable outcome.
My wife has to pay tax on that? No. This will be treated as gift to your wife.  As a son he can gift unlimited amount to his mother without any tax implication to his mother.  If the amounts are large more than few lacs, best talk to CA and get a gift deed executed. Keep the paper work intact, i.e. details of the transfer, debit to your son's account with corresponding credit to your wife's account.
You can't just shuffle the underwaterness from your old house to your new house because the new lender has no interest in giving a loan for more than the value of the new home. The only options you have to play with is renting the old house, which many underwater families did, or bankrupcy. If the area you were in is depressed, you may not be able to rent the house for enough to cover your mortgage. This is the fear of being underwater. You have a piece of paper which claims some lender can take money from you that you may or may not have, and that the US government will allow them to take your assets, if need be, to settle the score. If you're underwater by a few thousand, it's typically not a big deal. If you're underwater by 80 or 90 thousand dollars, which some people were, that's a lot of money to be endebted for without the assets to recover them. If you subscribe to the realtor story that the market will recover, all you have to do is scrape by, holding on, until the market rises again. However, those who are underwater recognize that the reason much of this occurred is that we entered a bubble because realtors kept saying the market could only go up. Fool me once....
"Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant.
Your son is completely free to pay off your mortgage if he wants. However in most jurisdictions it counts as a gift to you, and will be subject to gift tax, or its equivalent. This is why the bank doesn't want to receive payments directly from your son, so that they are not caught up in the reporting of this. If you are in the US, this is a good page about Gift Tax.
However tax rules in the US say if you have owned the home more than two years and make less than $250,000 in the transaction ($500,000 if married) you will not owe any tax. State taxes can be different. Additionally, if the mortgage lender forgives the debt and doesn't create a deficiency, that income is taxable as well. This is more an more common these days. There are exceptions if the home is your primary residence. This whole process an take several months to occur, but depends on where you live. If you continue to live in the home after the auction, the new owner must evict you from the property which is another set of legal proceedings. Your credit and ability to buy are home will be damaged for the next several years. I am not so sure on how PMI works for the banks, but I know they are getting some money back.
The problem comes when the borrower cannot afford his home.  If a borrower buys more home than they can afford, as long as he can sell the house for more than he owes, he's not in a disastrous situation. He can sell the house, pay off the mortgage, and choose more affordable housing instead.  If he is upside-down on his home, he doesn't have that option. He's stuck in his home. If he sells it, he will have to come up with extra money to pay off the mortgage (which he doesn't have, because he is in a home he can't afford). It used to be commonplace for banks to issue mortgages for 100% of the value of the home. As long as the home keeps appreciating, everybody is happy. But if the house drops in value and the homeowner finds himself unable to make house payments, both the homeowner and the bank are at risk. Recent regulations in the U.S. have made no-down-payment mortgages less common.
"The real answer why the government is ""allowed"" to do something is because they are the government and they make the rules. There are lots of laws that I think make no sense. I ran into a similar situation to yours. I bought a house during a time when the market in my area was way down. The previous owner had paid $140,000 but I got it for only $80,000. The government appraised it for, I forget the exact number, but over $100,000. I appealed, and the argument I made to the appeal board was that the law says it is supposed to be appraised for ""fair market value"". The definition of ""fair market value"" is the amount that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, absent special conditions like a sweetheart sale to a relative. The house had been advertised for a higher price and the seller had to drop the price several times before getting an offer, and finally accepting mine. This is pretty much the definition of ""fair market value"". The appeals board replied that it was not FMV because the market was bad at this particular time and so I got a good deal. I said that that's the definition of market value: it goes up and down as market conditions change. If the market happened to be up when someone bought a house and they had to pay a high price, would the government assess the house at a lower value because that was an unusually high price? I doubt it. They ended up reducing the assessed value, but not to what I actually paid. All that said, arguably a foreclosure sale might be considered special conditions. Prices at a foreclosure sale tend to be lower than ""ordinary"" sales. In a foreclosure, the bank is usually trying to get rid of the property quickly because they don't want to be in the property-management business, they want to be in the money lending and management business. Of course you could say that sort of thing about conditions surrounding many sales. Maybe the price is low because the seller needed cash now to start a business. Maybe the price is high because the buyer was too lazy to shop around.
I lucked out and bought a beat little 640 sq. ft. bungalow in S.E. Mass for short money in 2008 hoping that I'd be able to build up some equity and upsell into a nicer house (i.e. one with more than three rooms and a roof that doesn't leak).   The good news (I guess) is that I'll be paid off in just a few years, but the bad news is that this little bungalow will have to do for a long time. House prices in the places that I'd like to live are through the roof, and if you're not a cash buyer you're pretty well fucked. I can't afford to sell without the hope that I'd be able to actually buy another house.
"I have a friend who had went on a seminar with FortuneBuilders (the company that has Than Merrill as CEO). He told me that one of the things taught in that seminar was how to find funding for the property that you want to flip. One of the things he mentioned was that there are so-called ""hard money"" lenders who are willing to lend you the money for the property in exchange for getting their name on the property title. Last time I checked it looked like here in Florida we had at least Bridgewell Capital and Fairview Commercial Lending that were in that business. These hard money lenders get their investment back when the house is sold. So there is some underlying expectation that the house can be sold with some profit (to reimburse both the lender and you for your work). That friend of mine did tell me that he had flipped a house once but that he did not receive the funding to that from a lender but from an in-law, however it was through a similar arrangement."
"Directors can be held responsible for the liabilities of the corporation - see this Wikipedia article - and especially if it was clear that was the reason for the arrangement, you might well find this happening. That said, I know a Canadian who sold his house to a corporation he already owned (he was doing consulting work through it) at the (in his opinion ridiculously high) amount it had been assessed for property tax purposes. The company paid and claimed any and all expenses including paying for the lawn to be mowed and the house to be painted. He lived in it at a reduced rent (this rent was then income to the company) in exchange for looking after it. He was very happy with the arrangement. He was losing the ""no income tax when you sell your primary residence"" benefit we have here, but since he expected to never be able to sell it for more than the amount the company had paid, he wasn't worried. If the company exists for no reason other than to shelter income, hide you from liability, and reduce your taxes, then I would expect it would get you some unwanted attention and possibly some rulings you didn't like. If the company exists for a real purpose, and has income and expenses that outweigh whatever games you're playing with cars and homes, you might be able to achieve this. You need to work out what the benefits (other than ducking liabilities) would be and whether they are worth the hassle."
Obviously you're missing that there is no house on the land so the cost comparison between a house and land isn't terribly valid.   The land might not have connections to the municipal sewage/power/electrical and may need zoning changes and permits for those connections.   You're missing that you don't know how to design and build a house so you'll need to hire people for those tasks; then live through the process, headaches, and probable budget overruns. Edit: You're also missing that lending for speculative land development is significantly different from lending for a single family home.
Your house is not an asset, it is a liability. Assets feed you. Liabilites eat you. Robert Kiyosaki From a cash flow perspective your primary residence (ie your house) is an investment but it is not an asset. If you add up all the income your primary residence generates and subtract all the expenses it incurs, you will see why investment gurus claim this. Perform the same calculations for a rental property and you're more likely to find it has a positive cash flow. If it has a negative cash flow, it's not an asset either; it's a liability. A rental property with a negative cash flow is still an investment, but cash flow gurus will tell you it's a bad investment. While it is possible that your house may increase in value and you may be able to sell it for more than you paid, will you be able to sell it for more than all of the expenses incurred while living there? If so, you have an asset.  Some people will purchase a home in need of repair, live in it and upgrade it, sell it for profit exceeding all expenses, and repeat. These people are flipping houses and generating capital gains based on their own hard work. In this instance a person's primary residence can be an asset. How much of an asset is calculated when the renovated house is sold.
Lenders may sell your mortgage to other lenders for a fee.  For example,  your lender might sell your mortgage to the highest bidder who may want to purchase your mortgage by making a one time payment.  For your lender that's a quick profit, for the new owner of your mortgage, that's long term returns for a one time fee.  For your lender, that is forgoing long term returns for short term gains (and transfer of risk in case you default).   (Very similar to how bonds work in a stock exchange!) What does this mean to you? Nothing.  You will still keep making payments to your original lender.   What does 'transfer of ownership has not been publicly recorded mean'? It means, when you are asked about ownership details regarding your mortgage, and this could be in tax forms or refinancing etc., you would enter your original lender's information and not Freddit Mac's! Pro-tip There are lots of scams based on this.  You might receive an official looking letter in mail claiming your loan has been sold and you should start making payments to the new owner. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS! Call your original lender (use the phone number from your loan papers, not mail you received) and verify this information.   And if this were to happen, your original lender would always inform you first.   And hey, congrats on your new home! :)
There might be some US tax implications depending on the amount of gift. See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_tax_in_the_United_States
Home owners are much aware about their assets and their protector. We are talking about home which is the reliable shelter for everyone. If the home get worst constructed, it won’t able to meet your anticipation. This is the place where a private certifier is needed to ensure, how much your home is secure and capable to withstand various threats.
Keep in mind, there are times that house is in such bad shape that it's going to need 6 months of renovations, in which case you might ask the town if they are willing to reappraise a lower value until the work is completed. Keep in mind, you'll get a new appraisal when permitted (I mean pulling a permit from the town) work is done. I finished my basement and the town was eager to send the appraiser over even before work was fully complete.
Am I eligible for the tax exemption if yes then under which section.  Generally Personal loans are not eligible for tax exemption. Only housing loans from qualified institutions are eligible for tax deduction. As per the income tax act; The house should be in your name. The home loans taken from recognised institutions are fully qualified under section 24B and 80C. This means you can claim Interest exemption under 24B and Principal repayment under 80C. The Act also specifies that loan can be taken from friends/relatives for construction of property and will be eligible for Interest exemption under 24B only. The principal will not be eligible for exemption under 80C. Read the FAQ from Income Tax India. There has to be certificate showing how much interest was paid on the said loan. Further there should be records/receipts on how the money was spent. There is difference of opinion amongst CA. It is best you take a professional advise.
"If I have a house that its market value went from $100k to $140k can I get HELOC $40K? Maybe - the amount that you can borrow depends on the market value of the house, so if you already have $100k borrowed against it, it will be tough to borrow another $40k without paying a higher interest rate, since there is a real risk that the value will decrease and you will be underwater.   Can I again ask for HELOC after I finish the renovation in order to do more renovation and maybe try to end up renovating the house so its value raises up to $500k? I doubt you can just ""renovate"" a house and increase its market value from $140k to $500K.  Much of a house's value is determined by its location, and you can quickly outgrow a neighborhood.  If you put $360k in improvements in a neighborhood where other homes are selling for $140k you will not realize nearly that amount in actual market value.  People that buy $500k houses generally want to be in an area where other homes are worth around the same amount.   If you want to to a major renovation (such as an addition) I would instead shop around for a Home Improvement Loan.  The main difference is that you can use the expected value of the house after improvements to determine the loan balance, instead of using the current value. Once the renovations are complete, you roll it and the existing mortgage into a new mortgage, which will likely be cheaper than a mortgage + HELOC. The problem is that the cost of the improvements is generally more than the increase in market value.  It also helps you make a wise decision, versus taking out a $40k HELOC and spending it all on renovations, only to find out that the increase in market value is only $10k and you're now underwater. So in your case, talk to a contractor to plan out what you want to do, which will tell you how much it will cost.  Then talk to a realtor to determine what the market value with those improvements will be, which will tell you how much you can borrow.  It's highly likely that you will need to pay some out-of-pocket to make up the difference, but it depends on what the improvements are and what comparable homes sell for."
Imagine a married couple without a mortgage, but live in a house fully paid for. They pay state income taxes, and property tax, and make charitable deductions  that together total $12,599. That is $1 below the standard deduction for 2015, therefore they don't itemize.  Now they decide to get a mortgage: $100,000 for 30 years at 4%. That first year they pay about $4,000 in interest. Now it makes sense to itemize. That $4,000 in interest plus their other deductions means that if they are in the 25% bracket they cut their tax bill by $1,000. These numbers will decrease each year.  If they have a use for that pile of cash: such as a new roof, or a 100% sure investment that is guaranteed make more money for them then they are losing in interest it makes sense. But spending $4,000 to save $1,000 doesn't. Using the pile of cash to pay off the new mortgage means that the bank is collecting $4,000 a year so you can send $1,000 less to Uncle Sam.
People like honesty in the social sharing economy. And here's the important part: Don't booze away the new income, invest it back into the property to make it a better money-maker - better at AirBnB, better at housemate shares, better as a month-to-month renter. So it's too big - Is there a way to subdivide the unit to make it a better renter or AirBnB? Can he carve out an ""in-law unit"" that would be a good size for him alone? If he can keep turning the money back into the property like that, he could do alright. This is what the new sharing economy is all about. Of course, sister might show up with her hand out, wanting half the revenue since it's half her house. Tell her hell no, this pays the mortgage and you don't! She deserves nothing, yet is getting half the equity from those mortgage payments, and that's enough, doggone it! And if she wants to go to court, get a judge to tell her that. Not that he's going to sell it, but it's a huge deal. He needs to know how much of his payments on the house are turning into real equity that belongs to him. ""Owning it on paper"" doesn't mean you own it. There's a mortgage on it, which means you don't own all of it. The amount you own is the value of the house minus the mortgage owed. This is called your equity. Of course a sale also MINUS the costs of bringing the house up to mandatory code requirements, MINUS the cost of cosmetically making the house presentable. But when you actually sell, there's also the 6% Realtors' commission and other closing costs. This is where the mortgage is more than the house is worth. This is a dangerous situation. If you keep the house and keep paying the mortgage all right, that is stable, and can be cheaper than the intense disruption and credit-rating shock of a foreclosure or short sale. If sister is half owner, she'll get a credit burn also. That may be why she doesn't want to sell.
"Joe has explained how most mortgages work A mortgage is simply a loan backed by a property (and, because it's   both very large and very common, covered by some specific laws). As   such, the bank isn't an ""investor"" in your house; it simply is lending   you money with the property as collateral. So, it doesn't get any   share of the profit. However there are some mortgages when the bank takes part of the increase in the property value, e.g. Castletrust’s “But to Let Equity Loan” in the UK.  Other products allows a old person to take money out of their property in exchange for say 60% of what the property sells for on their death. Islamic mortgages also work in a different way as interest is not allowed to be charged.  For example Unlike a conventional mortgage where the purchaser borrows money from   a lender which is then repaid with interest, Al Rayan Bank's Sharia   compliant Islamic mortgage alternatives (Home Purchase Plans or HPP)   are based upon the Islamic finance principles of a Co-Ownership   Agreement (Diminishing Musharaka) with Leasing (Ijara)."
My dad, an attorney, does this all the time. He makes offers for properties with the proviso that all real estate commissions are negotiated, and paid by, the seller. In California, agents must present all offers to the seller. It never seems to be an issue, at least for him. Of course, he presents himself as a substantial and competent buyer.