vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
There is no issue whatsoever, getting a mortgage this way as an unmarried couple. This is very similar to what I did while my wife and I were engaged. We we're on the title as joint tenants. I would expect them to have her as a signee to the mortgage.  She won't be able to claim 50% ownership and make things hard on the lender. The title will be contingent on the mortgage being paid. What will be harder is if you guys decide to split. It's not at all uncommon for unmarried couples to buy a house together. Find a broker and get their advice.
I'm assuming this is the US. Is this illegal? Are we likely to be caught? What could happen if   caught? If you sign an occupancy affidavit at closing that says you intend to move in within 60-days, with no intention of doing so, then you'll be committing fraud, specifically mortgage/occupancy fraud, a federal crime with potential for imprisonment and hefty fines. In general, moving in late is not something that's likely to be noticed, if the lender is getting their money then they probably don't care. Renting it out prior to moving in seems much riskier, especially if you live in a city/state that requires rental licensing, or are depending on rental income to carry the mortgage. No idea how frequently people are caught/punished for this type of fraud, but it hardly seems worth finding out.
If the homeowner knows the situation is hopeless, and the end result will be the loss of the home, jumping to the end result can be helpful. It is quicker, they don't spend as much time fighting a losing battle. Deed in Lieu of foreclosure is not so great for the borrower if the bank goes after them for the rest of the money owed. There can also be tax implications if the debt is forgiven. Though these issues also exist when the drawn out foreclosure option is done. For the bank. The longer the process the more the house deteriorates. The borrower may stop maintenance and may even vandalize the house. Getting their lock on the door quickly is important to them. They protect it, clean it, and prep it for sale right away. They also save on lawyer fees. They know that the moment they start the foreclosure process all money from the borrower stops, this can save thousands in carrying costs.  One issue will be how the accounting losses will be divided among the servicing company, and the investors. If the servicing company will make more money from the longer process they may not push for the quick settlement. If the opposite is true, they will be quickly on board.  For the new buyer, the issue with either foreclosure is that the longer process can result in greater hidden and visible damage. The heat pump may work, but the disgruntled homeowner stopped changing the filters the last six months. They may have also removed and damaged things on the way out. Other than that I don't see a big difference. Because the bank had lower costs involved in the foreclosure they might settle for a lower purchase price, but that might be hard to know.
I did that.  What is allowed changes over time, though — leading up to the crisis, lenders would approve at the flimsiest evidence. In particular, my SO had only been in the country a couple years and was at a sweet spot where lack of history was no longer counting against her. Running the numbers, the mortgage was a fraction of a percent cheaper in her name than in mine.  Even though she used a “stated income” (self reported, not backed by job history) of the household, not just herself. The title was in her name, and would have cost money to have mine added later so we didn’t.  This was in Texas, which is a “community property” state so after marriage for sure everything is “ours”.
"The first question I have to ask is, why would your ""friend"" even be considering something so ridiculous?  There are so many variations of the banking scam running around, and yet people can't seem to see them for what they are -- scams.   The old saying ""there's no such thing as a free lunch"" really comes into play here.  Why would anyone send you/your friend $3,000.00 just because they ""like you""?  If you can't come up with a rational answer to that question then you know what you (or your friend) should do -- walk away from any further contact with this person and never look back! Why?  Well, the simple answer is, let's assume they DO send you $3,000.00 by some means.  If you think there aren't strings attached then all hope is lost.  This is a confidence scam, where the scammer wins your trust by doing something nobody would ever do if they were trying to defraud you.  As a result, you feel like you can trust them, and that's when the games really begin.   Ask yourself this -- How long do you think it will be (even assuming the money is sent) before they'll talk you into revealing little clues about yourself that allow them to develop a good picture of you?  Could they be setting you up for some kind of identity theft scheme, or some other financial scam?  Whatever it is, you'd better believe the returns for them far outweigh the $3,000.00 they're allegedly going to send, so in a sense, it's an investment for them in whatever they have planned for you down the road. PLEASE don't take the warnings you get about this lightly!!!  Scams like this work because they always find a sucker.  The fact that you're asking the question in the first place means you/your ""friend"" are giving serious thought to what was proposed, and that's nothing short of disaster if you do it.   Leave it be, take the lesson for what it's worth before it costs you one red cent, and move on. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
"What if there were no mortgage, and you gave the friend the house? They are getting the house' value. In your case the discount from market value is their instant profit. We often think of our house in terms of the equity we have, plus the mortgage. Equity therefore is what's left after the mortgage is paid off, if you sell the house. In your question, you are, in effect, ""giving all equity to your friend.  Where else would you imagine it goes?"
The seller has a legitimate desire to know of your preapproval. I have two current anecdotes on this issue. As a realtor helping a client buy a home, I worked closely with buyer's bank, and got a pre-approval for the amount we were offering. When there was a counteroffer, and we were going to raise the price, the bank upped the numbers on the pre-approval letter.  I have a property of my own I am trying to sell. I had a negotiated price, P&S, but no pre-approval from the buyer. The buyer of his home couldn't get a mortgage, and so far, the deal has fallen through.  I agree with you, you don't want to signal you can afford more, nor show any emotion about how great that house is. That's just giving the seller a bargaining chip.
Given that you have your emergency fund, and no other high interest rate debts (credit cards, etc.) you will want to put down at least enough to not have to pay Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI).  PMI is solely to protect the lender if you default.  It has no benefit to you.  It generally means that you will need at least 20% down.  After that, its a personal decision, depending on what else you are going to do with the money.  If you are the type to spend money frivolously if you have it, it might make sense to put as much down as you can.  If you think that you can invest the money and over the long-term make more than the historically low mortgage interest rates, it might make sense to invest.   One thing to keep in mind is that money that you put into the down-payment is relatively illiquid, meaning that it is hard to turn back into cash.  If you have large expenses in the future, like health problems or college for the kids, it might be better to have the money in something easier to turn into cash.
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. If your agent says to forego the option, fire him. If the seller wants you to strike the option clause, refuse, and that should be a HUGE red flag that you should rescind the offer entirely; the seller is likely trying to get rid of a house with serious issues and doesn't want a competent inspector telling you to lace up your running shoes. Another tip: depending on the pricepoint, the seller may be expecting to pay closing costs. Those are traditionally the buyer's responsibility along with the buyer's agent commission, but in the current economy, in the pricepoint for your market that attracts ""first-time homebuyers"", sellers are virtually expected to pay both of those buyer costs, because they're attracting buyers who can just barely scrape the down payment together. $375k in my home region (DFW) is a bit high to expect such a concession for that reason (usually those types of offers come in for homes at around the $100-$150k range here), but in the overall market conditions, you have a good chance of getting the seller to accept that concession if you pay list. But, that is usually an offer made up front, not a weapon kept in reserve, so I would have expected your agent to recommend that combined offer up front; list price and seller pays closing. If you offer at list you don't expect a counter, so you wouldn't keep closing costs as a card to play in that situation."
"I agree about not wanting to get into your friend's personal business, and it's a scummy bill collector that repeatedly calls friends or family to track down a debtor. On the other hand, at least he's made it obvious he's calling about a debt as opposed to pretending to be tracking down your friend with some other pretext. Nevertheless, you want the calls to stop.  Here are two suggestions: Perhaps, a small fib: ""The creep owes me money too! Grrr! Let me know when you find him!""  The bill collector probably won't call you again :-) Or, if you're like me and uncomfortable fibbing – even to a scummy bill collector! – then here's a more truthful yet direct approach: ""I told you already it's not my debt, it's none of my business, and that I want you to stop calling me.  You have no right to harass me and if you call again I will involve the police.  There will be no other warning."" Then have the phone company block the bill collector's phone number from calling you."
Your Purchase and Sale agreement should have a financing contingency. If it doesn't, your money may be at risk, and the agent did you no favor. Edit - I answered when away from computer. This is a snapshot of the standard clause from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board. Each state has its own standard documents.   The normal process is to have some level of prequalification, showing a high probability of final approval, make offer, then after it's accepted, this form is part of the purchase and sale process.
"When you buy a house, the real estate agent or title company normally draws up a big sheet with all the costs and payments involved. There are typically two columns: one for amounts paid to or paid by the seller, and another for amounts paid to or paid by the buyer. Who is responsible for what is a legal question: this is pretty fixed. But it's very common for the seller to agree to pay some portion of the buyer's closing costs. In any house sale I've ever been involved in, whether as buyer or seller, nobody bothers to say which costs the seller is agreeing to pay. Rather, the seller just agrees to a number. Then somewhere on the sheet of costs there will be a line that says ""closing costs paid by seller"" or some such wording, and then it shows a minus to the seller and a plus to the buyer. (Or something equivalent, depending on how the sheet is organized.) The amount is negotiated. When you make an offer, you'll say whatever numbers you are prepared to offer, like ""I offer to pay $100,000 for the house, seller to pay $3,000 of closing costs"". And whatever other conditions, seller to repair the leak in the roof, whatever. It makes sense for the seller to pick up some share of the closing costs, because the seller normally walks away with cash in hand while the buyer is struggling to come up with enough cash to make a down payment and pay all the closing costs, i.e. the seller probably can afford to give up some cash while the buyer may be struggling to come up with cash. The only costs I can think of that I've had before closing day are, (a) Earnest money. (b) Inspection. (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.
It's doable, but there's a fair amount of risk involved. The biggest issue is that your roommates could move out. It's possible that they could have a falling out, get a job in a different city, or just move on. How difficult would it be to find another roommate? How many roommates can you lose and still afford to pay the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and all the rest of your living expenses? Even if you you retain all of your roommates until the mortgage is paid off, there's still some risk involved. If you were to lose your job, could you continue to make mortgage payments? Worst case scenario is that you could become unemployed for a time while home values in your State/City/neighborhood are crashing. Last, the position on landlord has the potential to be lucrative, but also comes with a fair amount of responsibility. It will be a drain on your time to maintain the house and to make sure you always have tenants. I know you said that your roommates are good about paying on time, but are you willing to evict a friend because they won't/can't pay rent? It's easier to ask the landlord for an extension on rent when you're friends. All that being said, I think that this idea is worth considering. My recommendation is that you consider every aspect of it, and proceed cautiously if you choose to do so.
If I understand correctly you describe putting a hold on an appartment as such: A sum of money that you give to the owner of the appartment to let them hold it for you because you are probably going to rent. In case you back out of the deal, this money can mitigate the expected loss from turning down other candidates. After asking them to hold the appartment for you, you decided not to rent. Also, you used the bank to get back the hold sum. Regardless of the legal details, it seems very clear to me that after putting down a hold and walking away, you should not get the money back.  There may have been some things that distracted/confused you (call about the key), but if you actually look at the things that happened it seems both right and practical to pay them their reclaimed hold as soon as possible.
"It's a little unusual, but I don't think the financial terms are completely unreasonable on their face. What you describe is similar to an interest-only loan, where you make payments that only cover the interest due each month, and the entire principal is due as a single ""balloon payment"" on a specified date (in this case, the date on which the condo is sold). Your monthly payment of $500 on a principal of $115K is equivalent to an annual interest rate of 5.22%, which at least is not completely usurious. With a traditional mortgage you might pay a rate as low as 3%, if you had sufficient income and excellent credit - but I don't know, from what you've said, whether that's the case. Did you make the current arrangement because you were unable to get a loan from a bank? The main difference here is that instead of the balloon payment being a fixed $115K, it's ""75% of the gross proceeds of the sale"". If the condo eventually sells for $155K, that would be $116,250, so that's slightly advantageous to them (assuming that ""gross proceeds"" means ""before deducting commissions for either the buyers' or sellers' realtors or any other costs of the sale""), and thus slightly disadvantageous to you. If the condo appreciates in value, that's more of a win for them and more of a relative loss for you. But it's also possible that the value of the condo goes down, in which case this arrangement is better for you than a fixed balloon payment. So this deal does prevent you from getting a larger share of any gains in the value of the property, but it also helps insulate you from any losses. That's important to keep in mind. There's also the issue of needing their consent to sell. That's potentially problematic - usually in a joint ownership scheme, either owner has the right to demand to be bought out or to force a sale. I guess it depends on whether you think your parents would be likely to consent under reasonable circumstances, or to insist on holding the property against your best interests.
I don't know Greene County to know what the local code may be like, but odds are high that the shingle manufacture would not honor any warranty with this installation. Another potential gotcha that may be lurking out there is your ex may still have a lingering claim to the home if you go to sell it. I don't know the rules in Missouri off hand, but where I grew up (with family in the real estate and title insurance businesses) there was a law regarding homestead rights. If a spouse spent even one night in a property, they had an interest in it and an explicit waiver had to be signed to release said interest. Review your divorce settlement and/or contact your attorney to confirm your status in this regard. Also consider the potential of refinancing your mortgage to either reduce the payment, or get funds for the improvements/repairs. Final note, I understand wanting to help out a friend (I have done similar things more times than I can count), but seriously look at the situation and see if you can't get the rent or other compensation up to the level of the mortgage at least. You mentioned that you have belongings still on the property, what would a storage unit for said items cost? In terms of juggling the numbers you could potentially use that value as justification to adjust the friends rent as a caretaker fee without any issue. (Verify with your CPA) Talk to the friend and see if there are other parts of the job they would be willing and able to take on as consideration for the reduced rent (make sure you have at least a simple contract on any such agreement). Or if none of the above are sufficient to balance the numbers, see if they would be willing to take on an actual room mate to help make up the difference."
"The answer depend nearly 100% on how the offer and contingency read. When I have a client make an offer, the contingency includes an inspection, but the buyer would have no obligation to accept a counter offer. i.e. the offer can be withdrawn due to ""I didn't like the inspection report, and do not wish to negotiate any repairs."" In fact, the buyer need not disclose which fault was the cause. The buyer pays for the inspection and the report is his property.  On the other hand, I agree, if it's only radon, the venting fix is common, and you may be paying for many inspections only to find one house after another with this issue."
Ripped off may be too strong as it implies intent - I'm hopeful it's just bad logic or terminology.   I would say better agreements would be: Borrowing money from family/friends is always risky.  If you and your parents are comfortable with the situation and can reliably keep records of how much is owed at any given time (and how much of the $500/mo is interest) then the loan might be a good option.  If not, and your parents don't need the income stream from the loan, then I would recommend the second option since it's much cleaner. In any case, make sure everything is in writing and the proper legal procedures are followed (just as if you had borrowed the money from a bank). That means either filing a mortgage with the county for option 1 or having both parties on the deed, and having the ownership percentages in writing.
The cleanest way to accomplish this is to make the purchase of your new house contingent on the sale of your old one.  Your offer should include that contingency and a date by which your house needs to sell to settle the contract.   There will also likely be a clause that lets the seller cancel the contract within a period of time (like 24-48 hours) if another offer is received.  This gives you (the buyer) at least an opportunity to either sell the house or come up with financing to complete the deal. For example, suppose you make an offer to buy a house for $300,000 contingent on the sale of your house, which the seller accepts.  In the meantime, the seller gets an offer of $275,000 in cash (no contingency).  The seller has to notify you of the offer and give you some time to make good on your offer, either by selling your house or obtaining $300,000 in financing.  If you cannot, the seller can accept the cash offer. This is just a hypothetical example; the offer can have whatever clauses you agree to, but since sale contingencies benefit the buyer, the seller will generally want some compensation for that benefit, e.g. a larger offer or some other clause that benefits them. Or do I find a house to buy first, set a closing date far out and then use that time to sell my current one? Most sellers will not want to set a closing date very far out.  Contingency clauses are far more common. In short, yes it's possible, and any competent realtor should be able to handle it.  It also may mean that you have to either make a higher offer to compensate for the contingency and to dissuade the seller from entertaining other offers, or sell your home for less than you'd like to get the cash sooner.  You can weigh those costs against the cost of financing the new house until yours sells.
EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale.