Mortgage loan plus home loan
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.
I am answering this in light of the OP mentioning the desire to buy a house.  A proper mortgage uses debt to income ratios. Typically 28/36 which means 28% of monthly gross can go toward PITI (principal, interest, tax, insurance) and the total debt can go as high as 36% including credit cards and car payment etc. So, if you earn $5000/mo (for easy math) the 8% gap (between 28 and 36) is $400. If you have zero debt, they don't let you use it for the mortgage, it's just ignored. So a low interest long term student loan should not be accelerated if you are planning to buy a house, better put that money to the down payment. But for credit cards, the $400/mo carries $8000 (banks treat it as though the payment is 5% of debt owed). So, I'd attack that debt with a vengeance.  No eating out, no movies, beer, etc. Pay it off as if your life depended on it, and you'll be happier in the long run. I struggle to see the value to this risk from the standpoint of your mother-in-law.  This is not a small amount of money for a single person to lend to a single person ignoring your personal relationship.   Right now, using a blended rate of about 8% and a 5 year payment period, your cost on that $50,000 is somewhere in the neighborhood of $11,000 with a monthly payment around $1,014. Using the same monthly payment but paying your MIL at 5% you'll complete the loan about 3.5 months sooner and save about $5,000, she will make about $6,000 in interest over 5 years against a $50,000 outlay. Alternatively, you can just prioritize payments to the more expensive loans.  It's difficult to work out a total cost comparison without your expected payoff timelines and amount(s) you're currently paying toward all the loans.  I'm sure a couple hours with a couple of spreadsheets could yield a plan that would net you a savings substantially close to the $5,000 you'd save by risking your mother in law's money. A lot of people think personal lending risk is about the relationship between the people involved, but there's more to it than that. It's not about you and your wife separating, it's not about the awkward dinner and conversations if you lose your job.  Something might physically happen to you, you could become disabled or die.  Right now, that's an extremely diversified and calculated risk taken by a gigantic lender. Unless your mother in law is very wealthy, this is not nearly enough reward to assume this sort of risk (in my opinion).  Her risk FAR outpaces your potential five year savings. IF you wanted to pursue this as a means of paying interest to a family member rather than the bank, I'd only borrow an amount I budgeted and intended to pay within this single year.  Say $10,000 against the highest interest loan. I went here: Consumer Loan Law. It seems that a consumer loan is anything other than a business loan or mortgage.  However, in California it seems to include a mortgage. It's a bit weird to see that a HEL can be considered a consumer loan even if it is the primary or the only loan on a property.  Getting a HEL can be a great low cost way to (re)finance a property as they tend to have low or no closing costs and lower interest rates. Sheegan has a great explanation of how the TBA market contributes to  mortgage rates. The 30 Year Mortgage rates are closely tied to the 10-Year Treasury.  One can track this rate at many stock quoting sites using symbol TNX. You're talking about porting your mortgage, which may be possible if your mortgage was portable to start with, or if your bank subsequently allows it. Note that although porting a mortgage involves keeping most of the original terms and conditions, the process is still much like applying for a new mortgage, including any lending requirements. Here's an article on the subject. EDIT: In response to OP's comment below: What will happen to the first property if I don't sell it? Because porting a mortgage is treated as if you were closing one mortgage and opening a new one, this means that you would need to pay off the first mortgage. Typically this would be done by selling the first property at the same time that you buy the second one. However, if you're not doing this, you'll need to raise funds another way, which could include opening a new mortgage on the first property (of course, if you're doing that, then there would have to be a good reason for porting the original mortgage; otherwise you might as well leave it where it is, and open a new mortgage on the second property instead). Does the article apply the to USA too? That article (and indeed this answer) are based on the situation in the UK. However, they appear to exist in the US too, though are rarer than in the UK. "The (interest bearing) mortgage of £300,000 would be SIX times your salary. That's a ratio that was found in Japan, and (I believe) was a main reason for their depressed economy of the past two decades. Even with an interest free loan of nearly £150,000, it would be a huge gamble for someone of your income. Essentially, you are gambling that 1) your income will ""grow"" into your mortgage, (and that's counting income from renting part of the property) or 2) the house will rise in value, thereby bailing you out. That was a gamble that many Americans took, and lost, in the past ten years. If you do this, you may be one of the ""lucky"" ones, you may not, but you are really taking your future in your hands.  The American rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5-3 times income, that is maybe up to £150,000. Perhaps £200,000 if £50,000 or so of that is interest free. But not to the numbers you're talking about." "It's legal. That's what a home equity loan is, for example. More generally, what you're talking about is a ""second mortgage"". It has no effect on the primary mortgage that you've already made to your bank; they're still secured, and if you get foreclosed, they get paid, and only if there's something left over does the second mortgage holder get anything. That's why second mortgages are more risky than first mortgages, and why you might have trouble finding someone willing to do it." First, many banks do not keep the loan. Even if they send you a payment notice and process the monthly payment, there's still a good chance the loan itself was packed up and sold to investors. Collateralizing mortgages, in and of itself, is not inherently dangerous. But the loan definitely needs a house behind it. If you found a bank that keeps its loans, it would be a tough sell. You'd be asking them to trust that you've chosen the right number to match up with the house you intend to buy. And then they'd need to have another round of processing to turn this into a loan with normal collateral (i.e. put a lien on the house and tie them together.) Are there any known laws explicitly allowing or preventing this   behavior? It's not the laws, it's what's in the note - the mortgage contract. I read my mortgage contracts very carefully to ensure that there's no prepayment penalty and that extra funds are applied to the principal. However, it doesn't have to be like that, and in older mortgages - many times it's not like that. Banks don't have to allow things that are not explicitly agreed upon in the contract. To the best of my knowledge there's no law requiring banks to allow what your friend wants. For a short term loan, the interest is closer to straight line, e.g. A $10K loan at 10% for 3 years will have approximately $1500 in interest. (The exact number is $1616, not too far off). You will save 2.41% on the rate, so you'll the extra payment you'll send to the mortgage will save you about 10000*35*(2.41/12)/2 or about $350 over the 3 year period. As observed, there is no answer that will fit all, but below are some considerations: Your monthly requirement is 5000, so you have 3000 left to pay the monthly instalments (EMI). However, if you do pay 3000, you will have no money left for any other activities (holidays etc.) till your EMI is finished Set off a sum, let us say 500-1000, per month (you shall have to decide), for other expenses The rest of the money, in this case 2000-2500, you can pay as monthly EMI If you indicate that your monthly EMI to the bank, they will be able to tell you how much of loan you are eligible for and for how long the EMI would last. This is your benchmark If this loan amount is 750,000 or more, you do not need to put in your own money. So the decision then becomes how fast you want to pay off your loan and as accordingly you shall utilize your 500,000 However, if the EMI will not cover a loan of 750,000 (more likely case), you have options between the following: a. Max out on your loan that 2000-2500 EMI/month (in terms of years as well as amount) can get you and put the rest from 500,000. b. Min your loan in terms of amount and time and put your entire 500,000 c. The middle ground is to balance between the loan and your own money, which is the best approach, there is no figure here that works for all, you have to take the decision based on your circumstances. However, in general, the shorter the loan term (in years) better it is as in aggregate you pay less money to the bank. If you are 1-2 months away from buying the house, one exercise you could do is to keep the EMI money in a separate bank account and see how you fare with the residual cash, this would give you a good reality check. Hope this helps, thanks "It sounds like you are describing ""seller-financed"" mortgages (also sometimes called ""self-financed"", where ""self"" is the seller).  In essence the buyer and seller enter into a legal contract (a promissory note) that specifies the payment schedule, interest rate, etc.  The nature of the agreement is similar to the kind of mortgage agreement you'd get from the bank, but no bank is involved; it's just an agreeement directly between the buyer and seller. If you search for ""seller-financed mortgage"" or ""self-financed mortgage"" you can find a good deal more info about this kind of arrangement.  Here is a useful article from Investopedia, here is one from Forbes, and here is one from Nolo. Broadly speaking, the advantages and disadvantages of seller financing are two sides of the same coin: by doing the agreement yourself without bank involvement, you can cut out procedural red tape, delays, and requirements that a bank might insist on --- but in so doing you may expose yourself to risks that those procedures are designed to shield you from.  Most obviously, as the seller, you receive only the down payment up front (not the entire purchase price, as you would if the buyer got a bank loan), and if the buyer doesn't follow through on the agreement, you're on your own as far as starting foreclosure, etc. You can read up on some of the linked pages for more details about the pros and cons.  In general, as those pages note, seller-financed mortgages are relatively rare.  A home is a big purchase, and if you don't know what you're doing it's easy to screw up in a way that could cost you a large amount of money if things go wrong." The £500 are an expense associated with the loan, just like interest. You should have an expense account where you can put such financing expenses (or should create a new one). Again, treat it the same way you'll treat interest charges in future statements. You did borrow money for the downpayment.  When you apply for a mortgage loan on your new home, you will be required to list all your assets and all your liabilities. You must disclose the first mortgage as well as the second mortgage on your current condo as well as the monthly payment on each of these loans.  If you took out the second mortgage five years ago, you can truthfully say that you have not taken out any loans within the past year to get cash for the down payment when you apply for a mortgage for purchasing your new house. But, what the lender will be looking at is: Can  the applicants' current income support monthly payments of   $1000 for the first mortgage on the condo plus $300 for the second   mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the   new house? You might argue that you will be selling that condo soon, or will be renting it out and that the rental income will cover the mortgage payments on the condo, but will the lender give much credence to this? The condo may not sell easily, you might not be able to find a tenant right away, or be able to rent the condo at a high enough rental to cover the costs etc. If you simply save money from your current extra cash flow and use that to make the down payment, the lender will be pondering the question Can  the applicants' current income support monthly payments of   $1000 for the mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? Which deal will the lender be happier with? If you are uncomfortable saving your extra cash flow in a savings account or CD or investing it in stocks and/or bonds until you need the money for the down-payment on your new house, put that money in a sock under your mattress (and don't smoke in bed!) One way to reduce the monthly payment due each month is to do everything to eliminate one of the loans. Make the minimum payment to the others, but put everything into eliminating one of the loans. Of course this assumes that you have separate loans for each year of school.  Make sure that in trying to get aggressive on the loan repayment that you don't neglect the saving for a down payment. Each dollar you can put down will save you money on the mortgage. It might also allow you to reduce the mortgage insurance payments. If you pay one student loan back aggressively but can't eliminate it you might be worse off because you spent your savings but it didn't help you qualify for the mortgage. One way to maximize the impact is to not make the extra payments until you are ready to apply for the mortgage. Ask the lender if you qualify with all the student loans, or if you need to eliminate one. If you don't need to eliminate a loan, then apply the extra funds to a larger down payment or pay points to reduce the interest rate.