Buying a home with down payment from family as a “loan”
"Say you're buying a 400K house. Your relative finances 120K (30%). Say I'm optimistic, but the real-estate market recovers, and your house is worth 600K in 5-6 years (can happen, with the inflation and all). The gain is 200K. Your relative gets 100K. You repay him 220K on 120K loan for 5 years. Roughly, 16% APR. Quite an expensive loan. I'm of course optimistic, it seems to me that so is your relative. The question is: if the house loses value in that term, does your relative take 50% of the losses? Make calculations based on several expected returns (optimistic, ""realistic"", loss case, etc), and for each calculate how much in fact will that loan cost. It will help you to decide if you want it. Otherwise your relationships with your relative might go very bad in a few years. BTW: Suggestion: it's a bad idea to mix business and friend/family you don't want to lose." I would recommend against loans from family members. But if you decide to go down that path take care of the basics: This is a business decision so treat it like one. I would add that the situation you describe sounds extremely generous to your family member. I'd look at standard loan agreements (ie. in the marketplace) and model your situation more on them - if you do this, even with you paying a premium, you'd never come up with something as generous as what you have described. Keep in mind that lenders will consider the terms of any loans you have when determining your ability to pay back the mortgage. They'll want to see paperwork, or if you claim it is a gift they will require a letter to that effect from your relative. Obviously, this could effect your ability to qualify for a loan. In effect, you are paying for 70% of the house but he gets half the gain. On the flip side, you're living there, so that probably makes up this difference.  It will be toughest if the house jumps in value, to the point you might be forced to sell.  You might want to think about that a bit. Lenders pay attention to where your down payment money comes from. If they see a large transfer of money into your bank account within about a year before your purchase, this WILL cause an issue for you. Down payments are not just there to make the principal smaller; they are primarily used as an underwriting data-point to assess your quality as a borrower. If you take the money as loan, it will count against your credit worthiness. If you take the money as a gift, it will raise some other red flags. All of this is done for a reason: if you can't get a down payment, you are a higher credit risk (poor discipline, lack of consistent income), even if you can (currently) pay the monthly cost of a mortgage.  (PS - The cost of home ownership is much higher than the monthly mortgage payment.) Will all this mean you WON'T get a loan? Of course not. You can almost always get SOME loan. But it will likely be at a higher rate than you otherwise would qualify for if you just waited a little bit and saved money for a down payment.  (Another option: cheaper house.) EDIT: The below comments provide examples where gifts were/are NOT a problem. My experience from buying a house just a few years ago (and my several friends who bought house in the same period, some with family gifts and some without) is that it IS an issue. Your best bet is to TALK, IN PERSON with an actual mortgage broker in your area who can go through the options with you, and the downsides to various approaches. I'll compare it to a situation that is different, but will involve the same cash flow.  Imagine the buyer agrees that you buy only 70% of the house right now, and the remaining 30% in 7 years time.  It would be obviously fair to pay 70% of today's value today, pay 30% of a reasonable rent for 7 years (because 30% of the house isn't owned by you), then pay 30% of the value that the house has in 7 years time. 30% of the value in 7 years is the same as 30% of the value today, plus 30% of whatever the house gained in value.  Instead you pay 70% of today's value, you pay no rent for the 30% that you don't own, then in 7 years time you pay 30% of today's value, plus 50% of whatever the house gained in value. So you are basically exchanging 30% of seven years rent, plus interest, for 20% of the gain in value over 7 years. Which might be zero. Or might be very little. Or a lot, in which case you are still better off.   Obviously you need to set up a bullet proof contract. A lawyer will also tell you what to put into the contract in case the house burns down and can't be rebuilt, or you add an extension to the home which increases the value.  And keep in mind that this is a good deal if the house doesn't increase in value, but if the house increases in value a lot, you benefit anyway. A paradoxical situation, where the worse the deal turns out to be after 7 years, the better the result for you. In addition, the relative carries the risk of non-payment, which the bank obviously is not willing to do.
"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. It's true that you aren't building equity with this arrangement, and if you thought you were, you are mistaken or misled.  But let's compare it with other options. If you would qualify for a traditional 30-year fixed mortgage at 3%, your monthly payment would be slightly lower ($484), and you would be building some equity because your payments would reduce the principal as well as paying the interest.  But a 30-year loan builds equity very slowly at first - after 7 years you'd have only about $20,000 in principal paid down. If we assume that 5.2% represents the interest rate you'd otherwise pay based on your creditworthiness, then your monthly payment would be $631.  So compared to that, you have an extra $130 per month that you can save or invest in whatever you want - you're not forced to invest it in your house. Note that in either case you'd still be paying the condo fees, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance yourself.  So we might as well eliminate those from consideration.   It might be a good idea to find out what other options you would have - perhaps try to get an interest rate quote on a traditional mortgage from a bank, based on your income and credit history.  Then you can decide what to do, taking into account: your financial situation; how much of a monthly payment could you afford? your relationship with your parents; are they likely to be reasonable about renegotiating?  Do they in general tend to respect your wishes?  Would it harm your relationship if you tried to get out of the deal, and how important is that to you? To what extent do you actually want to pay for equity in this property? Do you really believe it's a good investment, and have evidence to support that?   Your options include: Try to renegotiate the terms of the loan from your parents Try to ""refinance"" the loan, by getting a loan from a bank and paying off some agreed-upon amount of principal to your parents Try to force the sale of the condo and move to another house, financing it some other way Consult a lawyer as to whether your agreement with your parents is legally enforceable.  For instance, do they have a lien on the property?" Second mortgages were also a popular way for home buyers without a down payment to borrow 100% of the money, but avoid certain extra fees if they borrowed all the money from a single lender. For example, to borrow $100,000 on a house would incur something called PMI (private mortgage insurance).  So to borrow $100,000 to buy my house, my payment might be $800/month, but I would have an additional $100/month of PMI to pay.  (These numbers are totally made up and not based in math in any way) So instead of that, borrows might get a first mortgage for $80,000 so they don't have to pay the PMI and get a second mortgage for the difference.  This can be beneficial if the second mortgage payment is less than the PMI for borrowing 100%. As far as I know they aren't as easy to get these days, like any loan you need to be qualified and I think 100% financing is probably harder to come by.  The negative connotation is no worse than any other loan.  I am personally against borrowing money, but if you had big medical expenses, major home repairs or some other emergency I could see it justified.  Probably not for a big vacation or for new car though. "Assuming United States; rules may be wildly different elsewhere... The ""family loan"" trick essentially lets you amortize a gift over multiple years of gift allowance and hopefully dodge gift tax, at the cost of having to pay income tax on the interest you must charge on the loan. The main advantage is that it lets you transfer all the money up front, rather than in $17,000-a-year-per-person-per-person chunks. Let's take the normal case first. Any one person can give any one person up to a specified amount (currently $17k, I believe,) without incurring gift tax. Note that this is counted per person, not per household; you and your spouse could each give $17k per year to each of your son and his spouse under this rule, adding up to $68k per year total.  The family loan dodge consists of making them a loan of the money at the mandated minimum interest rate to make it a legal loan (something like 0.3% APR last time I looked), setting the repayment schedule so their payments each year including interest come out to less than you can gift them with tax-free, and then making that gift by paying (yourself) those payments on their behalf. You do need to pay income tax on the portion of those payments that represents interest income, but at that low rate this is a minor cost for the convenience. You'd also want to set up your will to cover what happens if you die with them still owing money on the loan. And this, I believe, is where you will really need expert advice if you go this route, to minimize the government's cut at that time. There may be better answers. If you are talking about this much money, you owe it to yourself to purchase expert advice from someone who has training and experience n this area, rather than taking free advice from the Internet that is likely to cost you much more in the long run. This is a situation where you can't afford not to hire a pro. (For example, I have no idea how trusts might or might not fit your needs.)" I think you need to go to a local bank and ask. The key thing is paper trail. For any mortgage I've gotten on a new purchase, the bank needs to see where the down payment came from and how it got to the seller. In this case, it can go either way. If the value is truly 100% to the 80% you are looking to finance, and the paper trail is legit, this may work just fine.  The issue others seem to have is that simply buying at a 20% discount is not a legit way to finance the 80%. Here, it appears to me that the 20% came from you in installments, via the rent. While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group.  (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.)  That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage.  IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan.  (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.)  That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine.  If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me.   I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements.  The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan.  That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan.  And vice-versa.  Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property. No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that. "I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the ""Great Recession"" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need.  I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching ""family loan""  will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)" Two years ago, I wrote an article titled Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question posed by a fellow blogger.  The bottom line is that the loan payment doesn't lower your borrowing power as it fits in the slice between 28% (total housing cost) and 38% (total monthly debt burden) when applying for a loan.  But, the $20K is 20% down on $100K worth of house. With median home prices in the US in the mid-high $100Ks, you're halfway there.  In the end, it's not about finance, it's a question of how badly you want to buy a house. If I got along with the parents, I'd stay as long as I was welcome, and save every dollar I could. Save for retirement, save for as large a downpayment as you can, and after you buy the house, pay the student loan aggressively. I moved out the week after I graduated. "First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a ""friend"" or ""roommate"". ""Spouses"", ""business partners"", ""domestic partners"" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not ""roommates"". Going ""halvsies"" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two ""friends"" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs. Even if it's for sale by owner, the owner may be in trouble on their own mortgage, and if they agree to a short sale and the bank gets wind (it's trivial to match a list of distressed mortgaged properties with the MLS listings), the bank can swoop in, foreclose the mortgage, take the property and kill the deal (they're the primary lienholder; you don't ""own"" your house until it's paid for), and then everybody loses. Third, housing prices in this economy, depending on market, are pretty depressed and have been for years; if you're selling right now, you are almost certainly losing thousands of dollars in cash and/or equity. Despite that, sellers, in listing their home, must offer an attractive price for the market, and so they are in the unenviable position of pricing based on what they can afford to lose. That again often means that even a seller who isn't a bank and isn't in mortgage trouble may still be losing thousands on the deal and is firm on the asking price to staunch the bleeding. 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. 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." "A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage.  The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI.  Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for ""pay off student loan? Pro / Con""  Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled.  Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach." It is possible for him to get a loan against the house as long as the deeding all takes place at the same time as the loan is closing. Basically you and your brother will both have paperwork to sign, and the title company will not send out checks until the loan funds from the mortgage company. For that deeding to take place, the estate will generally have to be fully settled. That can take time, but you might wish to retain a lawyer to be certain your interests are completely protected. Many people feel like getting legal representation will strain family relationships, but I find the opposite to be true. They often grease the wheels and get the process finished quickly and fairly which ultimately reduces such strain. I would view it as a good sign if he is paying off large debts, because that means he will be in a better position to take a mortgage to pay you your share, but that assumes he is acting in good faith. "It would have to be made as a ""gift"", and then the return would be a ""gift"" back to you, because you're not allowed to use a loan for a down payment. This is not to evade taxes.  This is to evade a credit check.  The problem is that banks don't like people to have too much debt.  The bank could void the loan and go after your friends for damages under certain circumstances, as this is a fraud on the bank.  Perhaps you might be guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud or similar.   I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that there is zero chance of your friend not paying you back intentionally.  But even so, there are still potential problems.  What if your friends end up without the money to pay?  Worse, what if something happens to them?  This is an off-books transaction.  You couldn't make a claim against the estate, as there can't be a paper trail.  You'd be left out the money in those circumstances.   You'd both be safer if your friends saved up for the next opportunity rather than trying to grab this one.   An alternative would be to buy a share of their current rental house.  That would give them the necessary money and would give you paper showing your money.  It's not a gift, it's a purchase.  You'd have to pay capital gains tax on the 15% profit that they're promising you.  But you'd both be above board and honest." "We’re buying the home right over $200,000 so that means he will only need to put down (as a ‘gift’) roughly $7000. I'm with the others, don't call this a gift unless it is a gift.   I'd have him check with the bank that previously refused him a mortgage if putting both of you on a mortgage would allay their concerns.  Your cash flow would be paying the mortgage payment and if you failed to do so, then they could fall back on his.  That may make more sense to them, even if they would deny each of you a loan on your own.  This works for them because either of you is responsible for the whole loan.  It works for him because he was already willing to be responsible for the whole loan.  And your alternative plan makes you responsible for the whole loan, so this is just as good for you.   At what percentage would you suggest splitting ownership and future expenses? Typically a cash/financing partnership would be 50/50, but since it’s only a 3.5% down-payment instead of 20% is that still fair? Surprisingly enough, a 3.5% down-payment that accumulates is about half the equity of a 20% down-payment.  So your suggestion of a 25%-75% split makes sense if 20% would give a 50%-50% split.   I expected it to be considerably lower.  The way that I calculated it was to have his share increase by his equity share of the ""rent"" which I set to the principal plus interest payment for a thirty year loan.  With a 20% down-payment, this would give him 84% equity.  With 3.5%, about 40% equity.  I'm not sure why 84% equity should be the equivalent of a 50% share, but it may be a side effect of other expenses.  Perhaps taking property taxes out would reduce the equity share.   Note that if you increase the down-payment to 20%, your mortgage payment will drop substantially.  The difference in interest between 3.5% and 20% equity is a couple hundred dollars.  Also, you'll be able to eliminate any PMI payment at 20%.   It could be argued that if he pays a third of the monthly mortgage payment, that that would give him the same 50% equity stake on a 3.5% down-payment as he would get with a 20% down-payment.  The problem there is that then he is effectively subsidizing your monthly payment.  If he were to stop doing that for some reason, you'd have what is effectively a 50% increase in your rent.  It would be safer for you to handle the monthly payment while he handles the down-payment.   If you couldn't pay the mortgage, it sounds like he is in a position to buy out your equity, rent the property, and take over the mortgage payment.  If he stopped being able to pay his third of the mortgage, it's not evident that you'd be able to pick up the slack from him much less buy him out.  And it's unlikely that you'd find someone else willing to replace him under those terms.  But your brother could construct things such that in the face of tragedy, you'd inherit his equity in the house.  If you're making the entire mortgage payment, that's a stable situation.   He's not at risk because he could take over the mortgage if necessary.  You're not at risk because you inherit his equity share and can afford the monthly payment.  So even in the face of tragedy, things can go on.  And that's important, as otherwise you could lose your equity in the house." Owing money to family members can create serious problems. Taking out a purchase-money mortgage to pay your sister for her share is the best way to avoid future friction and, possibly, outright alienation. Close-end funds just means there's a fixed number of shares available, so if you want to buy some you must purchase from other existing owners, typically through an exchange. Open-end funds mean the company providing the shares is still selling them, so you can buy them directly from the company.  Some can also be traded on exchanges as well.