|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:If you have a solid enough business partnership to buy a $300,000 asset together, you have a solid enough business partnership to get married. So instead of 30%(or whatever) stake she brought to the table, he should get married and give her 50% if a split happens?
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
oriface posted:So instead of 30%(or whatever) stake she brought to the table, he should get married and give her 50% if a split happens? Gosh it's really too bad there's no kind of contract to dictate equitable dissolution of mutual assets in case of divorce! Someone should really come up with some kind of document in the unlikely event that such a relationship ends! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Talked it over with the girlfriend and she is cool with putting in my name. That was her original plan anyway, I was the one looking into a joint. I've asked a friend of the family who is a local lawyer for a recommendation of a real estate lawyer. I know it seems like putting the cart before the house, but we talked about it and don't really have any desire to get married at the moment. Maybe in a few more years...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:Gosh it's really too bad there's no kind of contract to dictate equitable dissolution of mutual assets in case of divorce! On the flip side, most co-ownership agreements are more or less similar to prenups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:I know it seems like putting the cart before the house, but we talked about it and don't really have any desire to get married at the moment. Maybe in a few more years... This is tangential, but: my wife and I got married 11 years into our relationship. Do what is right for the two of you and don't let any fucker tell you different. They don't have the right and it's presumptuous of people to think they do. You can do anything financially needed using contracts. We even had a domestic partnership (in CA) which allowed me to put her on my employer-provided health insurance. That said, be aware that you are very likely paying more income tax than you would if you were married. When my wife and I got married, we immediately started saving over $5k a year in income tax. You also need to establish via legal documentation things like a medical directive (so you can tell each others' doctors what to do in the event of an incapacitating injury or illness) and, if you desire, inheritance (which needs to be in a will if you don't want your family taking all your stuff in the event of your death). Our society is still set up legally and socially with the assumption that until you're married you're just not really serious and you have to fight through those blocks at every turn in order to be treated fairly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
You could also always get married in the eyes of the law (quickie courthouse thing) not tell anyone in your social circles, keep your names the same and everything, and reap the tax benefits. It'd be your little secret between you, your GF, and the IRS. You could always do a bigger wedding later "for realsies" if you want to give your family warm fuzzies or have a big party or whatever. The only thing you'd be out is a hundred bucks or so for the name change forms (if you even care about that). Marriage, in the eyes of the law, is just another contract. It has loads of great perks that comes with it, like tax advantages, government assistance advantages, and medical access rights. If things go south, you could also get divorced on the DL too. It's your life! For real, go to an accountant and have them run your taxes joint vs. as two single returns. You'll see how much cash you are leaving on the table.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
I'm an engineer that does taxes for my whole family and she is a CPA (not a taxy one though), so we have a pretty good handle on the tax implications of mirage and see no benefit. We are both solidly in the 25% bracket and would be together as well. There would actually be a small penalty as currently she itemizes because of the house and I do not. With the new house that would be reversed, but the since married couples must both either itemize or not we would be losing out there. We also don't quality for any credits or government assistance. I do have a state tax credit from work, but I use it completely up. Our house contract would stipulate that my equity would pass to her. She is also the benefactor of my retirement accounts. My family doesn't need it and RMDs are less brutal for a 20 something than a 60 something. The medical rights question is something we haven't addressed...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
The 2.5x income rule of thumb...is that gross or net? I am in the super super early stages of looking at homes and am doing some cursory window shopping and want to have a ballpark number to kick around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
cr0y posted:The 2.5x income rule of thumb...is that gross or net? I am in the super super early stages of looking at homes and am doing some cursory window shopping and want to have a ballpark number to kick around. Usually people are talking gross, but any sort of discussion of "spend X % of your income" should at best be setting a limit of what you will spend no more than. If you're not both married and custodian of one or more small humans, you will probably do well spending less than 2.5X your income just getting into the housing game. The costs of owning and maintaining real property are a significant responsibility beyond what you may be accustomed to renting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
I'll go one step further: the 2.5x your income rule of thumb is total bullshit. There is no rule of thumb. You must account for your particular financial circumstances and the costs of living, standard of living, costs of housing, quality of housing, longevity of housing, etc. applicable to your area. "Your particular financial circumstances" include not only your income, but your savings, debt, career prospects, dependents/prospects of dependents, and - especially - the social and financial safety net you have access to. That last one is often ignored but it's big; if your parents would help you out if you lost your job and couldn't make 3 straight mortgage payments, you are in far better position to afford a higher mortgage than someone who definitely gets foreclosed on in that circumstance. Similarly, how much you need to budget to maintain your house is a massively variable number dependent on construction type, house age, severity of local weather, ability to do DIY, and local labor costs, among other things. Some people need to budget just a few hundred a year to maintain their new-construction house in a mild climate, while others should assume many thousands per year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
The Lemondrop Dandy posted:You could also always get married in the eyes of the law (quickie courthouse thing) not tell anyone in your social circles, keep your names the same and everything, and reap the tax benefits. For childless homeowners making decent wages as professionals it's probably a marriage penalty in the vicinity of 1% of income
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Correct me if i'm wrong, but if you can put the entire thing in your name if you guys decide to move can't she use her first home buyers credit and put the 2nd place in her name? If so that is actually a bit of an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Photex posted:Correct me if i'm wrong, but if you can put the entire thing in your name if you guys decide to move can't she use her first home buyers credit and put the 2nd place in her name? If so that is actually a bit of an advantage. The federal first time homebuyer credit was only 2008-2010.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
I've got another question about the Mortgage Interest Credit The OK state housing page https://www.ok.gov/ohfa/Homebuyers/Buying_a_Home/ lists the maximum purchase price to qualify for the credit is 215k. Does anyone know how the "Maximum Purchase Price" is defined? Is it the amount of the loan, or the appraised value of the house, or something else? edit: I can't find the income limit of Oklahoma, but based on Ohio's which I did find we probably make way to much to qualify anyway. Xenoborg fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jul 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:I've got another question about the Mortgage Interest Credit Purchase price is almost certainly the contract price. As in, you buy a $100k home with $20k down and a $80k mortgage, the purchase price is $100k.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:I've got another question about the Mortgage Interest Credit Purchase price means total sale price otherwise well-off folks would put half down on a 430k house, get an extremely low rate (easy to do with that much equity) and take advantage of the credit too. Or otherwise take advantage of mismatched appraisal values, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:I've got another question about the Mortgage Interest Credit You might be in a little over your head with buying a house if asking a question like this. To try and help you get your head above water: Alice buys a house from Bob. Bob owns a house, and Alice has money. Alice pays Bob $250,000 for his house. Alice has a house. Bob has $250,000. The purchase price is $250,000. Alice buys a house from Bob. Bob knows that selling his house can be tricky, he wants to make sure all the legal whackadoo is accounted for and also wants someone to advertise the house on his behalf. Bob contracts Charlie to be his real estate agent for 6% of the purchase price. Alice pays Bob $250,000 for his house. Alice has a house. Bob gives Charlie his commission of $15,000. Bob has $235,000. Charlie has $15,000. The purchase price is $250,000. Alice buys a house from Bob. Alice knows that buying a house can be tricky and contracts Dan to be her real estate agent for (probably) 3% of the purchase price. Dan has a slug fest with Charlie over how they split the commission and it comes out to 3% each like it usually does. Alice pays Bob $250,000 for his house. Alice has a house. Bob gives Charlie his commission of $7,500, and also give Dan his commission of $7,500. (Yes, this is usually how it works, or, Bob gives Charlie $15,000 and Charlie gives Dan $7,500). Bob has $235,000. Charlie has $7,500. Dan has $7,500. The purchase price is $250,000. Alice wants to buy a house from Bob. Alice doesn't have a quarter mil in cash readily available. She has $30,000. Alice contacts Erin to request a loan. Erin digs through Alice's personal life and determines that over 30 years Alice can probably pay Erin back with interest. Erin knows that if Alice doesn't pay her back, Erin can foreclose on Alice's house and immediately pocket $30,000 between what was paid for the house and what she loaned Alice. Erin decides to loan Alice $220,000 in a mortgage against Bob's house. Alice pays Bob $250,000 (her own $30,000, plus Erin's $220,000). Bob pays Charlie $7,500 and Dan also $7,500. Alice has a house, and owes on a mortgage. Bob has $235,000. Charlie has $7,500. Dan has $7,500. Erin is owed a mortgage for $220,000, which Alice will start paying monthly. The purchase price is $250,000.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Francis, Mohinder, Etsuko, and Tariq have decided to buy a triplex together as a tenancy-in-common for $250,000. Etsuko and Francis are gay-married Canadian citizens; Etsuko has a green card and can work legally in the US, but Francis works for a Canadian company that will let her work remotely. Mohinder is going to use his part of the triplex to house his elderly parents, who are retired and receiving Medicare; his father is a US combat veteran of the Korean war, and qualifies for a VA loan. Mohinder will make a down payment by borrowing against his 401(k), and then fund a VA loan through his dad. Francis is paying all cash for her part of the loan, but all of her money is in a UK bank account; she will have to move her money into the US, but since it is more than $10,000, she must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act $10K rule by reporting the transfer to the IRS. Tariq lives in Saudi Arabia and will not be moving to the US: he is buying his portion of the triplex purely as an investment, planning to rent one unit out. He hires a US-based lawyer, Robert, to represent his interests and will fund the transaction using his holdings of US savings bonds, which are in a safety deposit box in the US. Anna and David, the sellers of the property, are up to their eyeballs in debt: the property is encumbered by several liens, mostly due to outstanding unpaid bills to local contractors for repairs that were needed in order to get the property ready for sale. They are also in arrears on their property taxes. They have reluctantly accepted the $250,000 bid from Francis, Mohinder, Etsuko, and Tariq, because they need to sell immediately to avoid landing in court over their debts. Although Tariq is ready to just buy the property sight-unseen, Francis meets with Mohinder and they agree to submit their bid with inspection contingencies, which Anna and David accept while pushing for a quick close anyway. The inspector, Sandra, discovers that the "new" roof on the triplex (which Anna and David haven't paid for yet) was done improperly and will need to be entirely replaced; fortunately, the general contractor who arranged the roofing work had given a warranty, but insists on being paid before he will have the roof re-done, so the buyers agree to complete the transaction in order to allow Anna and David to pay the contractor from part of the proceeds from the sale. Mohinder's lawyer friend adds a rider to the sale contract that part of the funds for the sale will go directly to the contractor, avoiding the possibility that the sellers abscond with the cash and leave the buyers stuck with the contractor's lien plus a bad roof. Etsuko and Francis pay $90k (they're getting the largest unit in the triplex) while Tariq and Mohinder each pay $80k. Of that $250,000, $15k goes to the agents involved in the sale, and another $10k goes to the contractor to cover the liens he had open on the house. Mohinder pays his lawyer $2500 out of pocket, and a grateful Etsuko and Francis kick in $500 out of pocket to help pay him, while Tariq transfers $1,800 to Robert in Bitcoin to pay his own legal fees. The four buyers split Sandra's inspection fee three ways, there are $2400 in closing costs, and Mohinder's parents get a deal from the VA, owing no additional closing costs and just a minor $50 documentation fee. Anna and David pay the county $3,586.92 in back taxes, pay off their primary and secondary mortgages, and walk away with $825.76 and a newfound sense of unburdening and relief to finally be done with the deal. Within three years, Etsuko and Francis are no longer on speaking terms with Mohinder over disputes relating to how nosy Mohinder's parents are and/or how noisy Etsuko and Francis' late-night parties are; Tariq has disappeared, leaving his unit empty and progressively derelict; the housing market in the area has crashed, so all of the tenants-in-common are effectively stuck with their underwater house; and the purchase price of the triplex was $250,000. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jul 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Stop quoting questions from the Multistate Bar Exam
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
I am Tariq's dead hamster he left behind. My heirs have a legal claim against him. Soon the triplex will be ours!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
As epic as that was the real answer is Tariq, that motherfucker, turned his third into an AirBNB, then a guest took advantage of tenant laws to overstay without paying, converted it to a meth lab, and burned the entire triplex to the ground. At least, were this a TV show, that is how I would write it. Maybe toss in a murder (pets and/or people) for the penultimate episode. Also it goes without saying at least two of the people would be loving three of the others in this scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Francis, Mohinder, Etsuko, and Tariq have decided to buy a triplex together as a tenancy-in-common for $250,000. Etsuko and Francis are gay-married Canadian citizens; Etsuko has a green card and can work legally in the US, but Francis works for a Canadian company that will let her work remotely. Mohinder is going to use his part of the triplex to house his elderly parents, who are retired and receiving Medicare; his father is a US combat veteran of the Korean war, and qualifies for a VA loan. Mohinder will make a down payment by borrowing against his 401(k), and then fund a VA loan through his dad. Francis is paying all cash for her part of the loan, but all of her money is in a UK bank account; she will have to move her money into the US, but since it is more than $10,000, she must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act $10K rule by reporting the transfer to the IRS. Tariq lives in Saudi Arabia and will not be moving to the US: he is buying his portion of the triplex purely as an investment, planning to rent one unit out. He hires a US-based lawyer, Robert, to represent his interests and will fund the transaction using his holdings of US savings bonds, which are in a safety deposit box in the US. Anna and David, the sellers of the property, are up to their eyeballs in debt: the property is encumbered by several liens, mostly due to outstanding unpaid bills to local contractors for repairs that were needed in order to get the property ready for sale. They are also in arrears on their property taxes. They have reluctantly accepted the $250,000 bid from Francis, Mohinder, Etsuko, and Tariq, because they need to sell immediately to avoid landing in court over their debts. Although Tariq is ready to just buy the property sight-unseen, Francis meets with Mohinder and they agree to submit their bid with inspection contingencies, which Anna and David accept while pushing for a quick close anyway. The inspector, Sandra, discovers that the "new" roof on the triplex (which Anna and David haven't paid for yet) was done improperly and will need to be entirely replaced; fortunately, the general contractor who arranged the roofing work had given a warranty, but insists on being paid before he will have the roof re-done, so the buyers agree to complete the transaction in order to allow Anna and David to pay the contractor from part of the proceeds from the sale. Mohinder's lawyer friend adds a rider to the sale contract that part of the funds for the sale will go directly to the contractor, avoiding the possibility that the sellers abscond with the cash and leave the buyers stuck with the contractor's lien plus a bad roof. This is the loving greatest post in the history of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Francis, Mohinder, Etsuko, and Tariq have decided to buy a triplex together as a tenancy-in-common for $250,000. Etsuko and Francis are gay-married Canadian citizens; Etsuko has a green card and can work legally in the US, but Francis works for a Canadian company that will let her work remotely. Mohinder is going to use his part of the triplex to house his elderly parents, who are retired and receiving Medicare; his father is a US combat veteran of the Korean war, and qualifies for a VA loan. Mohinder will make a down payment by borrowing against his 401(k), and then fund a VA loan through his dad. Francis is paying all cash for her part of the loan, but all of her money is in a UK bank account; she will have to move her money into the US, but since it is more than $10,000, she must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act $10K rule by reporting the transfer to the IRS. Tariq lives in Saudi Arabia and will not be moving to the US: he is buying his portion of the triplex purely as an investment, planning to rent one unit out. He hires a US-based lawyer, Robert, to represent his interests and will fund the transaction using his holdings of US savings bonds, which are in a safety deposit box in the US. Anna and David, the sellers of the property, are up to their eyeballs in debt: the property is encumbered by several liens, mostly due to outstanding unpaid bills to local contractors for repairs that were needed in order to get the property ready for sale. They are also in arrears on their property taxes. They have reluctantly accepted the $250,000 bid from Francis, Mohinder, Etsuko, and Tariq, because they need to sell immediately to avoid landing in court over their debts. Although Tariq is ready to just buy the property sight-unseen, Francis meets with Mohinder and they agree to submit their bid with inspection contingencies, which Anna and David accept while pushing for a quick close anyway. The inspector, Sandra, discovers that the "new" roof on the triplex (which Anna and David haven't paid for yet) was done improperly and will need to be entirely replaced; fortunately, the general contractor who arranged the roofing work had given a warranty, but insists on being paid before he will have the roof re-done, so the buyers agree to complete the transaction in order to allow Anna and David to pay the contractor from part of the proceeds from the sale. Mohinder's lawyer friend adds a rider to the sale contract that part of the funds for the sale will go directly to the contractor, avoiding the possibility that the sellers abscond with the cash and leave the buyers stuck with the contractor's lien plus a bad roof.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Francis, Mohinder, Etsuko, and Tariq have decided to buy a triplex together as a tenancy-in-common for $250,000 This was a pleasant surprise and the world is better for this post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Francis, Mohinder, Etsuko, and Tariq have decided to buy a triplex together as a tenancy-in-common for $250,000. Etsuko and Francis are gay-married Canadian citizens; Etsuko has a green card and can work legally in the US, but Francis works for a Canadian company that will let her work remotely. Mohinder is going to use his part of the triplex to house his elderly parents, who are retired and receiving Medicare; his father is a US combat veteran of the Korean war, and qualifies for a VA loan. Mohinder will make a down payment by borrowing against his 401(k), and then fund a VA loan through his dad. Francis is paying all cash for her part of the loan, but all of her money is in a UK bank account; she will have to move her money into the US, but since it is more than $10,000, she must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act $10K rule by reporting the transfer to the IRS. Tariq lives in Saudi Arabia and will not be moving to the US: he is buying his portion of the triplex purely as an investment, planning to rent one unit out. He hires a US-based lawyer, Robert, to represent his interests and will fund the transaction using his holdings of US savings bonds, which are in a safety deposit box in the US. Anna and David, the sellers of the property, are up to their eyeballs in debt: the property is encumbered by several liens, mostly due to outstanding unpaid bills to local contractors for repairs that were needed in order to get the property ready for sale. They are also in arrears on their property taxes. They have reluctantly accepted the $250,000 bid from Francis, Mohinder, Etsuko, and Tariq, because they need to sell immediately to avoid landing in court over their debts. Although Tariq is ready to just buy the property sight-unseen, Francis meets with Mohinder and they agree to submit their bid with inspection contingencies, which Anna and David accept while pushing for a quick close anyway. The inspector, Sandra, discovers that the "new" roof on the triplex (which Anna and David haven't paid for yet) was done improperly and will need to be entirely replaced; fortunately, the general contractor who arranged the roofing work had given a warranty, but insists on being paid before he will have the roof re-done, so the buyers agree to complete the transaction in order to allow Anna and David to pay the contractor from part of the proceeds from the sale. Mohinder's lawyer friend adds a rider to the sale contract that part of the funds for the sale will go directly to the contractor, avoiding the possibility that the sellers abscond with the cash and leave the buyers stuck with the contractor's lien plus a bad roof. as an agent I'm triggered by this post
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Tariq is probably dead in a ditch somewhere, and y'all don't even care.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Tailored Sauce posted:Tariq is probably dead in a ditch somewhere inshallah
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Who wants to talk me out of putting in an offer on a house that was built in 1925 and has been maintained but not updated since then? It's right at the limit of what we were planning on spending, but it seems to be perfectly inhabitable and has a newish roof.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Who wants to talk me out of putting in an offer on a house that was built in 1925 and has been maintained but not updated since then? It's right at the limit of what we were planning on spending, but it seems to be perfectly inhabitable and has a newish roof. You are far braver than I for sure. I'd think you'd want 25% of cost for the unexpected updates. "Oh it can't take 10 amps of a gaming computer and we have to redo all electrical." "Yep that's 15 layers of lead paint 30 layers down there all right..." How's Asbestos report looking? If you're fully leveraged on just the purchase price I'd be really skittish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Who wants to talk me out of putting in an offer on a house that was built in 1925 and has been maintained but not updated since then? It's right at the limit of what we were planning on spending, but it seems to be perfectly inhabitable and has a newish roof. Surely some aspects of the house have been updated... I have a pre-1900 house that was well maintained but was only updated aesthetically maybe 30 years ago. It's perfectly fine but I'm looking at many large projects over the years. But I went in expecting that and got my house for $100k or more less than many surrounding properties. Get a handle on the state of the electrical, plumbing, and heating systems. If those really haven't been updated in over 50 years...that's a lot of work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
No updates means you're basically guaranteed to have to remove lead paint and asbestos right? How liquid is your net worth?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:You are far braver than I for sure. I'd think you'd want 25% of cost for the unexpected updates. "Oh it can't take 10 amps of a gaming computer and we have to redo all electrical." "Yep that's 15 layers of lead paint 30 layers down there all right..." How's Asbestos report looking? If you're fully leveraged on just the purchase price I'd be really skittish. We'd have some cash available for immediate updates without dipping into safety reserves, more like 10% than 25% though. Haven't put in an offer so no inspection or asbestos/lead report yet, though if anything big came up we'd hope to be knocking that cost off the purchase price. Definitely needs a new breaker box, current one is only 100 amps. The place is big enough (and has enough bathrooms) that we could remodel bit by bit, and we don't care about living in the un-updated portions for a while. It would just be a huge an ongoing project and I'm not sure that's what I want to be doing with all my spare time and money for the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:No updates means you're basically guaranteed to have to remove lead paint and asbestos right? How liquid is your net worth? Yeah, I'd probably be fine with it if you can expect to have the liquid to start doing expensive renovation projects in a year or so and you do not have young kids. Also check to see what programs are offered in your state for home improvements. For example, in massachusetts I got an interest free loan to replace the 55 year old boiler and getting my attic properly insulated was nearly free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Surely some aspects of the house have been updated... The roof is newish, and the boiler and water heater are also relatively new. The kitchen looks like it might be from the 40s or 50s, profoundly hideous. Other than that it really hasn't been updated aesthetically at all. Our reasoning is basically the same as yours, a fully updated house this size in this neighborhood would be way beyond us. But if the report comes back saying it'd have to replace knob and tube wiring in the whole house for 50k just to get it insured or something then I will flee as if the devil himself was behind me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Am I correct in the understanding that you can get a pre-approval letter for ~$ and then just look around for a property that fits the amount you can finance?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Woof Blitzer posted:Am I correct in the understanding that you can get a pre-approval letter for ~$ and then just look around for a property that fits the amount you can finance? You can (and likely should) also look at properties that are below the amount of financing you are approved for, in most cases the approval amount is more than the borrower should realistically spend even if the payments are technically manageable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You can (and likely should) also look at properties that are below the amount of financing you are approved for, in most cases the approval amount is more than the borrower should realistically spend even if the payments are technically manageable. When we did it rather than have the bank see how much they'd lend us and give us a pre-approval letter for that amount, we just got a letter for the upper end of what we were willing to borrow (which was less than half of what they would have been willing to pre-approve us for).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Woof Blitzer posted:Am I correct in the understanding that you can get a pre-approval letter for ~$ and then just look around for a property that fits the amount you can finance? The letter and how much you can afford are two different numbers. They are totally 100% willing to loan you out to poverty. Friends of ours put in a $600k fast track nearly-no contingency 3.5% down FHA offer on a house, I am really worried their RealtorŪ is taking them for a ride. I have an idea what they make and they are going to be scraping.  You can only talk them down so much without being a dick to your friends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
You can also start with how much you are willing to spend a month and use a mortgage calculator and work backwards to see what you could realistically afford. Be sure you use one that also has tax and insurance included. Trying to decided between hundreds of thousands over 30 years is a lot harder to visualize than 1000 a month vs 1500 a month.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
H110Hawk posted:The letter and how much you can afford are two different numbers. They are totally 100% willing to loan you out to poverty. Well at least the stricter FHA standards might help make up for that no contingency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 03:35
|
|
