vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If they really want cash, you notify your bank in advance of the amount and have it put in your account, then you both sign the paperwork at the bank and after everything is signed you have the bank hand them the money. Guarding it after that is entirely their problem. Personally, I would consider this a stupid request and tell them to have their lawyer discuss it with my lawyer in the hope they can be talked out of it.  As far as where to get the money: Same as for any purchase, find a bank willing to write a mortgage for you on this new house. What you choose to do about the other two houses is an independent question. You can sell one or both, but that may take money so you probably won't finish doing so before needing to pay for the new house. Of course when they do sell you can use the money toward paying down/paying off the new mortgage.
Is there a risk buying a used car via a proxy if I pay the actual owner?   Everything seems to be in order except one thing: the actual owner (X) is    out of the country, and the car is being sold by his relative (Y). Yes there is risk. The risk is that the money never makes it to the actual owner. You have a piece of paper that claims to give  permission to sell the car and the contact info for the real owner. The risk is that it was forged. Or that some other part of the chain of trust is forged.  Maybe the car is stolen. Maybe this is part of a more complex scam and you are only a small part of it. The risk is that you end up having to file a police report after the real owner reports it stolen and the car is taken from you; or even worse you end up under arrest because they think you are the thief. With tons of cars for sale why risk it? Of course if the deal is a bargain, that may be designed to make you ignore the flashing warning light.
Estate agents need the amount of deposit you will put down because they want to be able to assess the viability of your mortgage plans. If you have a high deposit (or are a cash buyer) that makes you an attractive buyer, and they can use it as leverage in your favour. It may also give them an idea of whether you could afford to pay more if you found a more expensive house you really liked.
"I will expand on Bacon's comment. When you are married, and you acquire any kind of property, you automatically get a legal agreement.  In most states that property is owned jointly and while there are exceptions that is the case most of the time.   When you are unmarried, there is no such assumption of joint acquisition.  While words might be said differently between the two parties, if there is nothing written down and signed then courts will almost always assume that only one party owns the property.  Now unmarried people go into business all the time, but they do so by creating legally binding agreements that cover contingencies.  If you two do proceed with this plan, it is necessary to create those documents with the help of a lawyer.  Although expensive paying for this protection is a small price in relation to what will probably be one of the largest purchases in your lives. However, I do not recommend this.  If Clayton can and wants to buy a home he should.  Emma can rent from Clayton.  That rent could any amount the two agree on, including zero.  If the two do get married, well then Emma will end up owning any equity after that date.  If they stay together until death, it is likely that she (or her heirs) will own half of it anyway.  Also if this house is sold, the equity pass into larger house they buy after marriage, then that will be owned jointly. If they do break up, the break up is clean and neat.  Presumably she would have paid rent anyway, so nothing is lost.  Many people run into trouble having to sell at a bad time in a relationship that coincides with a weak housing market.  In that case, both parties lose.   So much like Bacon's advice I would not buy jointly.  There is no upside, and you avoid a lot of downside. Don't play ""house"" by buying a home jointly when you are unmarried."
"I'd suggest changing the subject when your friends talk about real estate to save your sanity and friendship.  There's a difference between ""belief"" and ""knowledge"". Arguing with a believer isn't a very productive course of action, and will ultimately poison the friendship. Reality is a harsh mistress."
What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.
Mixing friendship and money, whether that's loans or landlording, is risky. Often things work out, but sometimes the unexpected happens, and it doesn't. If things go wrong, are you prepared to walk away from either the friendship or the money? After you've considered that, the next question is how your roommates feel about the deal. You're looking to charge your friends $2000 to rent part of a property that, from the sound of it, they could rent much cheaper from a stranger. Maybe the market is different in Cleveland, but in my area, I'd expect to pay $2000 in rent for a place worth closer to $300,000 than $100,000. Have your roommates expressed interest in the idea, and have you discussed dollar values with them? Are you still interested if they ended up paying $1600 in rent? $1000?
"Only you can decide whether it's wise or not given your own personal circumstances. Brexit is certainly a big risk, and noone can really know what will happen yet. The specific worries you mention are certainly valid. Additionally you might find it hard to keep your job or get a new one if the economy turns bad, and in an extreme ""no deal"" scenario you might find yourself forced to leave - though I think that's very unlikely. House prices could also collapse leaving you in ""negative equity"". If you're planning on staying in the same location in the UK for a long time, a house tends to be a worthwhile investment, particularly as you always need somewhere to live, so owning it is a ""hedge"" against prices rising. Even if prices do fall, you do still have somewhere to live. If you're planning on going back to your home country at some point, that reduces the value of owning a house. If you want to reduce your risk, consider getting a mortgage with a long-term fixed rate. There are some available for 10 years, which I'd hope would be enough to get us over most of the Brexit volatility."
Unlike others who have answered the question - I have done this.  Here is my experience - your mileage and friendship may vary: I bought a condo years ago with a longtime childhood friend.  We did it for all the reasons you mentioned - sick of renting and not building equity, were both young, single professionals who had the money.  The market crashed we have both since married and moved on to own other properties with our spouses.  Now we rent out the condo as selling in the current market is not doable..  It's not an ideal situation but that is because of the real estate market - not who I bought with. You need to discuss very openly all of the following scenarios, as well as others I can't think of right now I am sure: If you aren't both 100% in sync with these questions then do not do it. I never understand why some people would buy with a girlfriend/boyfriend but not a good personal friend.  You're more likely to have a falling out with your significant other then a long time close friend.  My advice, have honest, open conversations, about all possible scenarios.  If you feel necessary put somethings down into some sort of legal agreement - with us it was not, and still isn't necessary.
Your agent can see the signs of a seller backed against a wall, and again in order for your offer to be considered in such a situation it has to be damn close to list. As far as your agent trying to talk you into offering the asking price, there's honestly not much in it for him to tell you to bid higher vs lower. A $10,000 change in price (which can easily make or break a deal) is only worth $300 to him either way. There is, on the other hand, a huge incentive for him to close the deal at any price that's in the ballpark: whether it's $365k or $375k, he's taking home around $11k in commission, so he's going to recommend an offer that will be seriously considered (from the previous points, that's going to be the asking price right now). The agent's exact motivations for advising you to offer list depend on the exact circumstances, typically centering around the time the house has been on the market and the offer history, which he has access to via his fellow agents and the MLS. The house may have just had a price drop that brings it below comparables, meaning the asking price is a great deal and will attract other offers, meaning you need to move fast. The house may have been offered on at a lower price which the seller is considering (not accepted not rejected), meaning an offer at list price will get you the house, again if you move fast. Or, the house may have been on the market for a while without a price drop, meaning the seller can go no lower but is desperate, again meaning an offer at list will get you the house. Here's a tip: virtually all offers include a ""buyer's option"". For a negotiated price (typically very small, like $100), from the moment the offer is accepted until a particular time thereafter (one week, two weeks, etc) you can say no at any time, for any reason. During this time period, you get a home inspection, and have a guy you trust look at the bones of the house, check the basic systems, and look for things that are wrong that will be expensive to fix. Never make an offer without this option written in.
"Consider that there are some low-probability, high-impact risk factors involved with property management. For example, an old house has lead paint and may have illegal modifications, unknown to you, that pose some hazard. All of your ""pros"" are logical, and the cons are relatively minor. Just consult an attorney to look for potential landmines."
"Despite the unmarried status, you need to see a lawyer.  Essentially you have a business with this person owning a home as the asset, and a mortgage for which you are responsible for.  A lawyer needs to examine any paperwork you have and with knowledge of your particular jurisdiction's laws can advise you on the proper course of action. You paint a really ugly picture of this guy.  I bet you are correct that he is kind of a horrible person.  ""Tough love"" time:  You willingly entered into a long term contract with this person.  Why would you do such a thing?  Perhaps some self reflection and counseling is in order.  This is probably more important than worrying about your credit. All that being said, it is good of you to want to break ties with this person.  You can rebuild.  All will be good if you concentrate on the right things."
Obviously, I am very hesitant. Is there any possible way that this act of kindness could come back to bite the kind person who sends the money? Or does this sound perfectly safe to do? There is some amount of risk. If you know the person very well ... i.e. vouch for his/her integrity and there is a legitimate reason why they can't send it with their name, then yes. The red flags are;   So if someone is a casual acquaintance it is not a good idea. You may want to consider this only if you know the person extremely well and there is some genuine reason why he is asking you to do something like this.
"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used  car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of ""trust"". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry."
Thinking otherwise is a young person's mistake of inexperience. Don't take my word on it, contact Suze Orman and see what she says. Your lender is also not going to like those poorly defined lovers' promises, because they've seen it all before, and don't want to yet again foreclose on a house that fighting lovers trashed. (it's like, superhero battles are awesome unless you own the building they trashed.) This thing can still be done, but to remove this fraud of wishful thinking, you need to scrupulously plan for every possibility, agree to outcomes that are fair and achievable, put it in writing and share it with a neutral third party. You haven't done it, because it seems like it would be awkward as hell - and it will be! - Or it will test your relationship by forcing direct honesty about a bunch of things you haven't talked about or are afraid to - and it will! - And to be blunt, your relationship may not be able to survive that much honesty. But if it does, you'll be in much better shape. The other passive fraud is taxes. By not defining the characteristics of the payment, you fog up the question of how your contribution will be taxed (if it will be taxed). A proper contract with each other will settle that. (there's an argument to be made for involving a tax advisor in the design of that contract, so that you can work things to your advantage.) As an example, defining the payment as ""rent"" is about the worst you could do, as you will not be able to deduct any home expenses, she will need to pay income tax on the rent, but she can cannot take landlord's tax deductions on anything but the fraction of the house which is exclusively in your control; i.e. none."
If your friend thinks he can live there for free due to his unique interpretation of contract law, he is mistaken. He'll get evicted if he doesn't pay rent, and likely end up with a judgement against him for unpaid rent. At its core, a rental agreement ensures that in exchange for paying rent, he may occupy the property. You can argue up and down about payment methods, but the fact remains he must pay rent in order to live there. Your friend MAY have an argument that he could move out and not be subject to penalty for breaking the lease because the payment terms changed. He'd have to give notice and would still owe for the time he occupied the property. There's just no way he can live there for free. He may find this out the hard way.
"You said: ""should I make a side contract with the realtor to pay me the commission at closing?"" I would imagine that in most (if not all) states, that is illegal. This is because selling real estate is an activity that requires passing an exam on real estate laws and obtaining a state-issued license. You are not ""bringing a buyer"" because you are not an agent.  If you decide to go directly to the Realtor that has the listing, there is a possibility that the agent might agree to lowering their commission in order to make the sale. However, the agent is entitled to both sides of the commission because they bear all the administrative and marketing costs of the transaction.  The listing agent might choose to enter into a ""dual agency"" agreement where they would have to fairly represent both sides, but they cannot reveal information that would be helpful to you as a buyer (e.g., why the seller is choosing to sell, other material facts about the property that are not public knowledge, etc.). If there is no written ""dual agency"" agreement, then the listing agent ONLY represents the seller.  In either scenario, you lose the benefit of a full fiduciary relationship with an agent. So if you choose to deal directly with the listing agent, you are making one of the biggest purchases of your lifetime WITHOUT the benefit of professional representation. Do you really want that? Put another way: would you use your spouse's attorney in a divorce so that you could save money?"
I'm surprised by all these complicated answers. Yes @Victor, you can create a form that asks people to put down their financial information but you want to be careful and not put off potential tenants by asking for too many details. Depending on the OP's typical tenants, an extensive background and credit check may not be necessary. For example, if I have proof that someone is a graduate student at the local university, that's usually good enough for me because I am willing to bet that they will follow my contract.  Bidding war doesn't sound doable, you advertise a price correct? You can only be haggled down not up.  So my suggestion is to look at other rental advertisements in the area. Compare what you're offering (location, quality of house, cleanliness, amenities, etc) to the competition and price accordingly. If you're getting a flood of interest, then you're probably pricing below the average price in your area. Or you live in an area where demand is just much higher than supply, in which case you can also raise your rent.
(c) Credit check or application fee to bank. Earnest money is applied to the purchase price at closing, so it's pretty much a moot point. The application fee is a potential deal-breaker. I've never heard of a seller agreeing to pay this, but I guess they could. But if you can't get the loan, you probably won't buy the house, so the seller would be out money for nothing. Everything else is normally paid on closing day. They total up all the costs and all the money floating around and at the end the seller gets one check that is the net of everything and the buyer writes one check that is the net of everything, and the realtor or title company deals with getting the money to the right people. So there's normally no issue of paying things as they come up. You do it all at once."
The counsel of a friend doesn't come with a legal or professional liability. The key to doing this sort of thing successfully is to respect boundaries. You are providing advice and discussion, not taking over your friend's life.
So don't, and if someone suggest such a thing to you - run away from that person as fast as you can. Mortgages - it is very hard to get a mortgage when the property is under the LLC. If you already have a mortgage on that property (the property is the one securing the loan) - it may get called once you transfer it into LLC, since from bank's perspective that would be transferring ownership. Local taxes - transferring into LLC may trigger a new tax assessment. If you just bought the property - that will probably not matter much. If it appreciated - you may get hit with higher property taxes. There are also many little things - once you're a LLC and not individual you'll have to open a business bank account, will probably need a new insurance policy, etc etc. These don't add much to costs and are more of an occasional nuisance."
"The  earnest money deposit generally is not delivered with the offer. This generally isn't done because you may find out that your offer is going to be rejected immediately. You may have decided to make an offer under their stated selling price, you may have added a condition they are unwilling to meet. There is also the situation where other parties have already made an offer and their offering price has exceed yours; so your offer is rejected or at least slowed down while the continue negotiations with the other potential buyer. In these cases getting a cashiers check before making the offer delays the offer, complicates the movement of money within your accounts, and delays your ability to make an offer on a another house. If the offer on the first house is rejected on Friday, and the bank is closed on Saturday, and you have to wait until Monday to redeposit the check; then you have to delay an offer on the perfect house you see on Sunday. Of the three options you present the second one, ""I can put a rider on the P&S which warrants that the check will be delivered in a set amount of time like three days."" You may also find similar language in the local version of the standard real estate contract. This delay in writing the check makes sense for another reason, the manner of the deposit and how it is to be made, how it is to be held, and under what terms it can be released  should also be a part of the negotiation. You want to make sure it is being kept by a third party, you both have to trust that 3rd party, you need to know what are the exact conditions regarding that money. The purpose of the deposit is to convince the seller that you are serious, and that the knowledge that you will lose the deposit makes you likely to go through your required parts of the transaction.  Also more and more of these deposits are being done electronically, there is no check involved."
"To quote Judge Judy:  ""Our courts are not in the business of settling assets of couples who decide to play house"". This is one of the reasons we put off buying houses with a partner until we are married.  The courts have rules for couples who marry, then split,  but none for those who don't. In the scenerio you spelled out, you are at the mercy of your ex-boyfriend as far as getting your downpayment back.  Legally, you are entitled to 50% of the funds remaining after the sale and expenses."
"Time for a lawyer. Essentially, regardless of the situation ""it's not right"" for him to be paying the mortgage and only get half the value out of the equity in the house. All other things aside, no court I can think of would allow that. The ""could happens"" are many, but the most common include; Keep in mind that if he keeps paying the mortgage ling enough most courts will end up giving him ownership outright. Essentially, they will say he has already bought her out by paying her half of the debt.  Unfortunately, any way he goes he is going to need to take action. When there is a missed mortgage payment, a bad tax year, or some other legal issue (some one is injured on the property), the last thing he is going to want is for the courts to decide the issue for him. For example, John breaks an arm while climbing a tree on the property line. John takes the owners of the property to court. ""He"" says ""but my sister owns half"" and the courts decide then and there that because he's been paying the mortgage alone he owns the house alone. Seems like a win, except now he owns the liability alone, and owns John $1,000,000 for a silly lawsuit alone.  Point is this. Ownership of property comes with risks and responsibilities. ""He"" really needs to get those risks and responsibilities under control so he can mitigate them, or he could end up in a very nasty situation in the years to come."
Is this legal?  If the purpose of the sale at that price is to defraud somebody else, you could have a legal issue. For example if the purpose was to make yourself appear poorer to make you eligible for government aid; Or to increase your chances of getting a college grant; or to not have to pay money to your spouse as part of a divorce settlement; or if there is an unwritten part of the transaction for the sibling to sell the house back to in a few years when you no longer need to appear poor.  The answer by @littleadv covers the tax complications.  I do have one additional point. The sale can't be a short sale. The bank will never approve. The short sale can only be approved when the bank is convinced that there are no viable purchasers at a level to get all their money back. Your sibling is not an arms length transaction.
Considered a down payment on a house? Some illiquid assets?  Otherwise you are doing 'responsible' get rich slow (read: get rich old) type things. And this question only invites opinion based answer. You tried futures and don't want to take that kind of risk again with your $50,000, so thats that