Dad paid cash for house and we want to put it in my name
"If your parents are not on the deed then I am not sure how it could be their house. It seems like the sale was done unofficially. If your parents or aunt pass away this could be a real mess. Make this official ASAP. It might be possible for your aunt to gift you the house. This may have tax implication but the article below suggests that it may not be an issue. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/aunt-be-taxed-for-bargain-price-on-house.aspx As you're probably aware, owning a house is expensive. Make sure you can afford taxes, bills, and maintenance. Things add up fast.  I should have address the ""rent to own"" plan. If you plan on transferring the house from your aunt to you by renting with $0 monthly payment and then claiming it is all paid off, then I think this would be considered a gifting of the house from your aunt to you. It sounds like fraud to claim you paid something that you didn't. In the end, it is either a gift from your parents or from your aunt. The sooner you get the house in your name the better"
He doesn't have to follow through on this, but he could tell this sister that he will stop making mortgage payments, which will result in foreclosure and sale at lower price than might be realized by a voluntary sale. Translation: the house will sold, sis. Do you want to maximize your share of the proceeds?  And, as I said in a comment above: I hope that he is keeping careful records of mortgage an utility payments, as he might (should) be entitled to a refund from the proceeds of an eventual sale (possibly adjusted by the fair rent value of the time which he spent living there) "Seems pretty shady. From what I could guess, your dad ""hid"" or ""lost"" the money, so as to not pay capital gains on it. Even though he'd use the money to build houses or whatever, he'd have to pay taxes on it (as income). To get out of paying said taxes, the money would essentially have to disappear. This isn't super common, but it sort of is possible to move funds to other places around the world, or to keep cash that no one knows about (watch the Swiss bank part of Wolf of Wall Street or just read up about illegal money laundering, like gangs and such do). So possibly, your dad could launder the money over the next several years. If I were you, I'd just stay quiet and mind my own business." Presumably this house is a great deal for you for some reason if you are willing to go to great lengths such as these to acquire it. I suggest you have your father purchase the house with cash, then you purchase the house from him. You might want to discuss this with the title company, it's possible that there are some fees that they will waive if you close both sales through them in a short period of time. If the home will appraise for a higher amount than purchase, then you may be able to get a mortgage without a significant down-payment. If not, then you will need to owe your father at least the amount of the down-payment at closing time. tldr; Is the purpose of doing this to ultimately avoid any sort of capital gains paid by someone in your family? Your plan accomplishes this if your dad is single and you are married, but if your dad is married this is probably unnecessary. One side effect of this plan is both you and your dad are unnecessarily giving up a portion of your lifetime gift tax exclusion. Your dad is giving up somewhere between 97-56= $41K of his exclusion (if both you and he are married) and 97-14= $85K (if neither you or your dad is married) and when you give the $430K back you are giving up to that amount minus somewhere between 14-56K. If your dad is married and you were to simply purchase the home from your dad for $430K you would both avoid dipping into your lifetime max, and your dad wouldn't realize any capital gains. If he isn't married, but you are, then your plan works in avoiding any capital gains paid by anyone in your family, unless you end up selling the home in the future for more than $597K. The plan also hinges on: Why would you even accept 75K in cash? If anything is going to trigger an audit, this will be it. 75K in cash deposited will look like money laundring, so you better have a paper trail ready to prove this is legal or this won't end well. Banks worry that the large gift might be a loan that is ultimately expected to be repaid. If so, that affects the cash flow of the recipient, and makes it more difficult to make the mortgage payments to the bank.  In some cases, of course, it is an informal loan: Dad advances a large $X to son to use as a downpayent, but does not charge interest and the expectation is that the money will be returned in smaller chunks as and when the son can afford to repay Dad.   In some cases, Dad truly means it as a gift, but son feels an obligation to repay the money, if not explicitly, then by paying for the first few months of Dad's nursing home stay, etc.  So, banks like to have an explicit document such as a copy of a letter from Dad saying that this money is a gift, and some assurance that this is on the up and up.   If the amount is larger than the maximum gift that can be given each year without having to file a gift tax return, then some assurance that a gift tax return will be filed is helpful. Mentioning this in the letter is good: it indicates that there are no secret handshakes or secret agreements to the effect that this is in fact a loan, with or without regular repayments. You can be a co-borrower on the property that your father owns. Some Banks require that you also be part owner of the property, some banks do not require this. You can take a home loan for a new property, normally Banks will ask you of all your current loans [auto/other home/personal/ etc] to determine the amount they will be ready to lend. Edit: The first loan I believe your father already has a property in his name ... your father can apply for Loan against property ... if he does not have sufficient income, then you can guarantee the loan [ie co-sign on the loan, some banks allow this ... however there is no tax benefit on this loan]  .   The second is the Home Loan for the balance amount that you would get it … Both the loans can be taken from the same Bank, there would be a overall cap as to the amount of loan a Bank would give depending on your income, further the finance for this house will only be to the extent of 80% of the value. "Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house.  It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless.  You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it.   The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will.  You'd need to hire a lawyer for that.  It may not be possible.   Abandon the house.  It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate.  Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house.  You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either.  Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford.  You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem.   Explore a reverse mortgage.  They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout.  Or maybe not.  It doesn't hurt to ask.   Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you.  Google gave some results on ""find property management company Philadelphia"" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff.  Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling.  A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period).  Pay the mortgage out of the rent.  If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it.   Note that the rent may not support the mortgage.  If not, then option four is not practical.  However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway.  Let the bank have it (option two).   If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income.  She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure.  A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation.   It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer.  Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive.  You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania.   It's currently winter.  Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing.  If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes.  Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first).  Note that the kind of heat matters.  You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity." "This is more of a long comment but may answer user's situation too. I have dealt with joint mortgages before in 3 states in the US.  Basically in all three states if one party wants to sell, the home goes up for sale.  This can be voluntary or it can go up via auction (not a great choice). In 2 of the 3 states the first person to respond to the court about the property, the other party pays all legal fees.  Yes you read this right.  In one case I had an ex who was on my mortgage, she had no money invested in the house ($0 down and still in college with no job).  [If she wasn't on the mortgage I wouldn't have gotten loan - old days of dumb rules] When we split her lawyer was using the house as a way to extort other money from me.  Knowing the state's laws I already filed a petition for the property but put it on hold with the clerk.  Meaning that no one else could file but if someone tried mine would no longer be on hold.  My ex literally spent thousands of dollars on this attorney and they wanted to sell the house and get half the money from the house.  So sale price minus loan amount divided between us.  This is the law in almost every state if there is no formal contract.  I was laughing because she wanted what would be maybe 50-75K for paying no rent, no money down, and me paying for her college. Finally I broke her attorney down (I didn't lawyer up but had many friends who were lawyers advising).  After I told her lawyer she wasn't getting anything - might have said it in not a nice way - her lawyer gave me her break down.  To paraphrase she said, ""We are going to file now.  My assistant is in the court clerk's office.  You can tell the court whatever you want.  Maybe they will give you a greater percentage since you put the money down and paid for everything but you are taking that chance.  But you will pay for your lawyer and you will need one.  And you will pay for me the entire time.  And this will be a lengthy process.  You would be better served to pay my client half now."" Her office was about 2 blocks from court.  I laughed at her and simply told her to have her assistant do whatever she wanted.  I then left to go to clerk's office to take the hold off.  She had beat me to the office (I moved my car out of her garage).  By the time I got there she was outside yelling at her assistant, throwing a hissy fit, and papers were flying everywhere.  We ""settled"" the next day.  She got nothing other than the things she had already stolen from me.  If I wouldn't have known about this loophole my ex would have gotten or cost me through attorney's fees around 40-50K for basically hiring a lawyer.  My ex didn't really have any money so I am pretty sure lawyer was getting a percent. Moral of the story: In any contract like this you always want to be the one bringing in the least amount of money.  There are no laws that I know of in any country where the person with the least amount on a contract will come out worse (%-wise).  Like I said in the US the best case scenario that I know of for joint property is that the court pays out the stakeholder all of their contributions then it splits things 50/50.  This is given no formal contract that the court upholds.  Don't even get me started with hiring attorneys because I have seen the courts throw out so many property contracts it isn't even funny.  One piece of advice on a contract if you do one.  Make it open and about percentages.  Party A contributes 50K, Party B 10K, Party A will pay this % of mortgage and maintenance and will get this % when home is sold.  I have found the more specific things are the more loopholes for getting out of them. There are goofy ass laws everywhere that make no sense.  Why would the person first filing get their lawyers paid for???  The court systems in almost all countries can have their comical corners.   You will never be able to write a contract that covers everything.  If the shower handle breaks, who pays for it?  There is just too many one-off things with a house. You are in essence getting in a relationship with this person.  I hear others say it is a business transaction.   NO.  You are living with this person.  There is no way to make it purely business.  For you to be happy with this outcome both of you must remain somewhat friends and at the very least civil with each other.   To add on to the previous point, the biggest risk is this other person's character and state of mind.  They are putting in the most money so you don't exactly have a huge money risk.  You do have a time and a time-cost risk.  Your time or the money you do have in this may be tied up in trying to get your money out or house sold.  A jerk could basically say that you get nothing, and make you traverse the court system for a couple years to get a few thousand back. And that isn't the worst case scenario.  Always know your worst case scenario.  Yours is this dude is in love with you.  When he figures out 2-3 years later after making you feel uncomfortable the entire time that you are not in love with him, he starts going nuts.  So he systematically destroys your house.  Your house worth plummets, you want out, you can't sell the house for price of loan, lenders foreclose or look to sue you, you pay ""double rent"" because you can't live with the guy, and you have to push a scooter to get to work. That is just the worst case scenario.  Would I do this if I were 25 and had no family?  Yea, why not if I trusted the other person and was friends with them?  If it were just a co-worker?  That is really iffy with me.    Edit: Author said he will not be living with the person.  So wording can be changed to say ""potentially"" in front of living with him in my examples." "I'm going to assume that by ""register the house in my name"" you mean that the house is legally yours. In that case there are a number of implications, tax and otherwise. You should also be very clear with your father about what happens when the house is sold. Do you give him back what he paid for it? Does he get all the value? What happens if the value has gone down? Some of this is down to Indian law, which I know nothing about. However all of these are red flags which you should consider before doing this. This is not legal advice in any jurisdiction." "To put a positive spin on the whole thing, maybe it's a small family shop, and having the check made out to ""cash"" means that your barber can hand it to someone else without the need to countersign. Or maybe his last name is ""Cash"" - there was a pretty famous singer who fit that description. Either way, it's not your place to nanny his finances." "That ain't nothing.  It's really easy to get ""whipped up"" into a sense of entitlement, and forget to be grateful for what you do have.  If this house doesn't exist, what would his costs of housing be elsewhere?  Realistically.  Would landlords rent to him? Would other bankers lend him money to buy a house? Would those costs really be any better?  What about the intangible benefits like not having any landlord hassles or having a good relationship with the neighbors?  It's entirely possible he has a sweet deal here, and just doesn't make enough money.  If your credit rating is poor, your housing options really suck.  Banks won't lend you money for a house unless you have a huge ton of upfront cash.  Most landlords won't rent to you at all, because they are going to automated scoring systems to avoid accusations of racism.  In this day and age, there are lots of ways to make money with a property you own.  In fact, I believe very firmly in Robert Allen's doctrine: Never sell.  That way you avoid the tens of thousands of dollars of overhead costs you bear with every sale. That's pure profit gone up in smoke.  Keep the property forever, keep it working for you.  If he doesn't know how, learn.  To ""get bootstrapped"" he can put it up on AirBnB or other services. Or do ""housemate shares"".  When your house is not show-condition, just be very honest and relatable about the condition.  Don't oversell it, tell them exactly what they're going to get.  People like honesty in the social sharing economy.  And here's the important part: Don't booze away the new income, invest it back into the property to make it a better money-maker - better at AirBnB, better at housemate shares, better as a month-to-month renter. So it's too big - Is there a way to subdivide the unit to make it a better renter or AirBnB?  Can he carve out an ""in-law unit"" that would be a good size for him alone? If he can keep turning the money back into the property like that, he could do alright.  This is what the new sharing economy is all about.  Of course, sister might show up with her hand out, wanting half the revenue since it's half her house.  Tell her hell no, this pays the mortgage and you don't!  She deserves nothing, yet is getting half the equity from those mortgage payments, and that's enough, doggone it!  And if she wants to go to court, get a judge to tell her that.  Not that he's going to sell it, but it's a huge deal. He needs to know how much of his payments on the house are turning into real equity that belongs to him.   ""Owning it on paper"" doesn't mean you own it.  There's a mortgage on it, which means you don't own all of it.  The amount you own is the value of the house minus the mortgage owed.   This is called your equity.   Of course a sale also MINUS the costs of bringing the house up to mandatory code requirements,  MINUS the cost of cosmetically making the house presentable.   But when you actually sell, there's also the 6% Realtors' commission and other closing costs.  This is where the mortgage is more than the house is worth.  This is a dangerous situation.  If you keep the house and keep paying the mortgage all right, that is stable, and can be cheaper than the intense disruption and credit-rating shock of a foreclosure or short sale.  If sister is half owner, she'll get a credit burn also. That may be why she doesn't want to sell.  And that is leverage he has over her.  I imagine a ""Winter's bone"" (great movie) situation where the family is hanging on by a thread and hasn't told the bank the parents died.  That could get very complex especially if the brother/sister are not creditworthy, because that means the bank would simply call the loan and force a sale.   The upside is this won't result in a credit-rating burn or bankruptcy for the children, because they are not owners of the house and children do not inherit parents' debt." And he has to pay for it every home repair and every month the property sets empty.  His loss each month is not $250, but probably closer to $500.  In generally you need to clear at least $200 ABOVE PTI (principle, taxes and interest) to cover repair and the like to property. From your post, it sounds like your dad was forced into the land-lord business by the recession.  Unless he plans to hold the property until its rental value has increased by $500 a month, he should consider selling it and writing-off the loss.  Losing money bit by bit on a house isn't a tax write-off event.  Selling a property for less than you bought it for generally is. FYI, I got the $500/month loss by assuming that repairs/emptiness/etc will cost you about $200 a month, and added $50 for your dad's time managing the property. "First, when a debt collector says, ""It's to your advantage to give me money now"", I'd take that with a grain of salt. My ex-wife declared bankruptcy and when debt collectors couldn't find her, they somehow tracked me down and told me that I should tell her that it would be to her advantage to pay off this debt before the bankruptcy went through. That was total nonsense of course. The whole point of bankruptcy is to not have to pay the debt. Why would you pay it just before it was wiped off the books? (Now that I think of it, I'm surprised that they didn't tell me that I should pay her debts.) As others have noted, this would be controlled by state law. But in general, when someone dies any debts are payed from the assets of the estate, and then whatever is left goes to the heirs. If nothing is left or the debts exceed the assets, then the heirs get nothing, but they don't have to pay somebody else's debts. I don't see how you could ""put the house under your name"". If he left the house to you in his will, then after any debts are settled in accordance with state law, the house would transfer to you. But you can't just decide to put the house in your name outside of the legal inheritance process. If you could, then people could undermine a will at any time by just deciding to take an asset left to someone else and ""put it in their name"". Or as in this case, people could undermine the rights of creditors by transferring all assets to themselves before debts were paid. Even if there's some provision in your state for changing the name on a deed prior to probate to facilitate getting mortgages and taxes paid or whatever, I would be quite surprised if this allowed you to shelter assets from legitimate creditors. It would be a gaping loophole in inheritance law. Frankly, if your father's debts are more than the value of his assets, including the value of the house, I suspect you will not be able to keep the house. It will be sold to pay off the creditors. I would certainly talk to a lawyer about this as there might be some provision in the law that you can take advantage of. I'll gladly yield on this point to anyone with specific knowledge of New Jersey inheritance law." Of course you can transfer it, and it will be legal. There's no taxes on transferring your own money. There's income tax on gains you realized by selling the property, but that is money you already owe, it doesn't matter where the proceeds are. It also doesn't matter how you acquired the property (except for figuring out your basis). What matters is that you had gains, and these gains are taxable in the US. You need to figure out the value of the property when your father bought it, and that is your basis. The difference between what you sold it for and that basis is your taxable gain, and you already owe taxes on that gain.