Will having a secondary signee with bad credit on a mortgage raise or lower interest?
between two people purchasing a house together, one with good and one with bad credit, will having both persons on the loan raise the interest rates. If the house deed is on both names, generally the Bank would insist the loan should also be on both of your names. This to ensure that Bank has enough leverage to recover the house in case of default. If one of you has bad credit, bank would raise the interest rate, assumption that bad credit would drag the good credit and force him to some activities / actions that could stretch the finance of one with good credit. If timely payments are not made, it would make your good credit to bad. If the house deed is on only on your name and you can get the loan on your own, this would be a better position. If the house deed is on only on your name and you would like to loan to be on both names, then the positive side is credit score of the person with bad credit would start showing improvement over period, provided both of you make timely payments. As pointed out by keshlam, there are enough question where people have entered into agreement without deciding what would happen if they separate. There is no right / wrong answer. It would be best you decide how it would be with respect to the ownership in the house and with respect to payments and if in worst case you part ways, how the settlement should look like. Generally speaking the lower credit score trumps.  In the case you cite, the lower credit score will prevail.  However, you may need to do exactly that in order to qualify for the loan income wise.   There are two factors when obtaining a mortgage, really all loans, but more so with a mortgage:  the likeliness to repay (credit score),  and your ability to service the debt.  This last one is a combination of income and debt-to-income ratio. If you don't have enough income to qualify for the loan or fail to meet the debt to income ration, you may have to use your GF's income to qualify despite her poor credit. You might want to see past posts about buying property with non-spouses.  It could work, but generally it requires a lot of legal work before closing on the deal.  Avoiding this will lead to tales of woe.
"Usually not the total interest, but all interest accrued and unpaid to date. This is called the ""Loan Payoff Amount"", and repays the bank their principal plus the ""true"" cost of capital on that principal since your last amortized payment (which is probably never, since you just signed the loan papers). There may also be a ""prepayment penalty"". This is something that should have been disclosed to you if it exists, but it's fairly rare in U.S. mortgages anymore.  The theory is, the bank got the money they paid you at the start of the loan by selling a bond package backed by your mortgage and others of similar credit history and/or about the same time (a ""mortgage-backed security""). By turning around and paying early, you meet your obligation, but the bank is now stuck with at least 10 years of quarterly coupon payments on that bond, which they were expecting to pay using your mortgage interest. For their trouble, you would pay an additional amount that either covers their ""call price"" on the portion of the bonds used for your principal, or simply buys them the time to re-issue a new mortgage using your repaid principal to back the bond again. In the modern housing market, such a prepayment penalty is very rare, because so many lenders are willing to give you a mortgage without one, and so many buyers balk at the thought of having to pay more if they pay early; the whole point is to pay less by paying early. Just something to look up in your mortgage documentation." Banks in New Zealand tend to take a lien that is higher than the amount of the loan, so that your only option for a second mortgage is with them. ASB wanted 50% more than the value of the loan when I had my mortgage with them. Of course, with house price inflation the way it's been in NZ, the value of your house may have outstripped the lien anyway, and you can mortgage the rest of it with anyone you like. I suspect your lawyer will need to inform the other lienholder, but you don't need their permission. Only if (or to put it even more bluntly, when) they default. If your friend / brother / daughter / whoever needs a cosigner on a loan, it means that people whose job it is to figure out whether or not that loan is a good idea have decided that it isn't.  By co-signing, you're saying that you think you know better than the professionals. If / when the borrower defaults, the lender won't pursue them for the loan if you can pay it.  You're just as responsible for the loan payments as the original borrower, and given that you were a useful co-signer, probably much more likely to be able to come up with the money.  The lender has no reason to go after the original borrower, and won't.  If you can't pay, the lender comes after both of you. To put it another way:  Don't think of cosigning as helping them get a loan.  Think of it as taking out a loan and re-loaning it to them. It doesn't matter to the credit agencies if there is a co-signer or not. However, your family member will need to take into consideration if they are willing to be responsible for the loan in the event you are unable to make payments. Being a co-signer means they are agreeing to pay the loan amount. It will also impact their credit score/report, either improve it if all goes well, or destroy it if neither one of you are able to pay the loan. So to you, assuming you can pay all the payments and not default, it makes no difference. But to the co-signer, it could create a huge impact.  https://www.thebalance.com/does-co-signing-affect-credit-315368 "Based on your information...  The house is $130,000 all in (this might not be the case)  Your payment term is 30 years.  Your interest rate is about 7.35%.  Your payments are about $895.66  Your total payments will total $322,438.95  That's not a very good interest rate for a mortgage, but this might be due to poor credit or limited credit history, too low income, or too much home value being financed (or a combination of the above and other factors).  Northern Alabama may not specifically be higher interest rate: it might, honestly, just be you.  The reason that you're paying $320,000 is that you're taking $130,000 from a bank and promising to pay it back with interest. Keep in mind, that's over *thirty years.* That's a LONG time. And the bank needs to earn enough interest to combat inflation (roughly 2% annually, generally). During that time, the bank *can't* invest that money elsewhere, return it to depositors, etc.  A good rule to keep in mind is the ""rule of 72."" It's a simple trick to determine, based on an interest rate, how quickly the value of something will double (in this case, the value of your loan payments). If your interest rate was exactly 7.2%, this method would calculate 10 years until doubling.   In your case, 72 / 7.35 = 9.7959 years.   Now, you're paying off your loan simultaneously, which lowers your interest over time, so your payments total 2.48x of loan value at origination. That still sucks, but remember, it's over a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time." i would recommend that you establish a landlord/tenant relationship instead of joint ownership (ie 100% ownership stake for one of you vs 0% for the other). it is much cleaner and simpler.  basically, one of you can propose a monthly rent amount and the other one can chose to be either renter or landlord. alternatively, you can both write down a secret rental price offer assuming you are the landlord, then pick the landlord who wrote down the smaller rental price.  if neither of you can afford the down payment, then you can consider the renter's contribution an unsecured loan (at an agreed interest rate and payment schedule). if you must have both names on the financing, then i would recommend you sell the property (or refinance under a single name) as quickly as possible when the relationship ends (if not before), pay the renter back any remaining balance on the loan and leave the landlord with the resulting equity (or debt).  in any case, if you expect the unsecured loan to outlive your relationship, then you are either buying a house you can't afford, or partnering on it with someone you shouldn't. I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage!  that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis. "You owe $20,000 to a loanshark, 1% per week interest.  I'm happy to get 1% per month, and trust you to pay it back, so I lend you the $20,000.  The first lender got his money, and now you are paying less interest as you pay the loan back. This is how a refi works, only the first bank won't try to break the legs of the second bank for moving into their business.  This line ""reinvested the money into the mortgage to lower his monthly payments"" implies he also paid it down a bit, maybr the new mortgage is less principal than the one before." It appears that co-signing does impact your debt-to-income ratio, at least in the US.  An article on Kiplinger says: An article on Forbes agrees saying: There is a similar question here. "You say  Also I have been the only one with an income in our household for last 15 years, so for most of our marriage any debts have been in my name. She has a credit card (opened in 1999) that she has not used for years and she is also a secondary card holder on an American Express card and a MasterCard that are both in my name (she has not used the cards as we try to keep them only for emergencies). This would seem to indicate that the dealer is correct.  Your wife has no credit history.   You say that you paid off her student loans some years back.  If ""some years"" was more than seven, then they have dropped off her credit report.  If that's the most recent credit activity, then she effectively has none.   Even if you get past that, note that she also doesn't have any income, which makes her a lousy co-signer.  There's no real circumstance where you couldn't pay for the car but she could based on the historical data.  She would have to get a job first.  Since they had no information on her whatsoever, they probably didn't even get to that." "That ""something"" you are signing means you are liable for the mortgage payments - yes, all of them - if he can't or won't pay at any point.  The limit on what the bank will lend him based on his salary is there for a reason - they don't expect him to be able to keep up repayments if they lend him more (or more precisely, there's a big risk that he won't). Don't forget that even if he swears up and down to you that he can afford them, interest rates can rise; this is a 25 or 30 year commitment you would be making. Interest rates are at a historic low and the only way from here is up; in my living memory rates have been 12% or even 15%. As a very rough rule of thumb, for every £100k borrowed, every additional 1% on the interest rates costs an additional £100 on your monthly payment.  Also, the ""Transitional Arrangement"" is not without its own fees and the bank won't let him simply take you off the mortgage unless they are convinced he can keep up the repayments on his own, which they clearly aren't. Also thanks to @Kat for the additional good point that being on the hook for your friend's mortgage will prevent you from being able to get a mortgage yourself while the liability still exists, or at least severely limit your options. No matter how many times you protest ""but I'm not paying any money for that!"" - it won't help.  Another point: there are various schemes available to help first time buyers. By signing up for this, you would exclude yourself from any of those schemes in the future." A second mortgage is a loan taken out on your house while you still have another mortgage secured by your house. They are a secured loan as they use the borrower’s home as security. Some advantages of Second Mortgages: Some important points to consider when you take a second mortgage If you stop making payments, your lender will be able to take your home through foreclosure, which can cause serious problems for you and your family. Second mortgages can be expensive. You’ll need to pay numerous costs for things like credit checks, appraisals, origination fees, and more. The mortgage rates are typically lower than credit card interest rates, but they’re often slightly higher than your first loan’s rate. Yes, there are times when co-signing is the right choice. One is when you know more about the person than the loan issuer does. Consider a young person who has just started working in a volatile field, the kind of job where you can be told on Friday that you only get one shift next week but things might pick up the week after, and who makes maybe $12 an hour in that job. You've done the math and with 40 hour weeks they can easily afford the loan. Furthermore, you know this person well and you know that after a few weeks of not enough shifts, they've got the gumption to go out and find a second job or a different job that will give them 40 hours or more a week. And you know that they have some savings they could use to ensure that no payments will be missed even on low-wage weeks. You can cosign for this person, say for a car loan to get them a car they can drive to that job, knowing that they aren't going to walk away and just stop making the payments. The loan issuer doesn't know any of that.  Or consider a young person with poor credit but good income who has recently decided to get smart about money, has written out a budget and a plan to rehabilitate their credit, and who you know will work passionately to make every payment and get the credit score up to a place where they can buy a house or whatever their goal is. Again, you can cosign for this person to make that happen, because you know something the lender doesn't. Or consider a middle aged person who's had some very hard knocks: laid off in a plant closing perhaps, marriage failure, lost all their house equity when the market collapsed, that sort of thing. They have a chance to start over again somewhere else and you have a chance to help. Again you know this isn't someone who is going to mismanage their money and walk away from the payments and leave you holding the bag. If you would give the person the money anyway (say, a car for your newly graduated child) then cosigning instead gives them more of a sense of accomplishment, since they paid for it, and gives them a great credit rating too. If you would not give the person the entire loan amount, but would make their payments for many months or even a year (say, your brother's mortgage for the house where he lives with a sick wife and 3 small children), then cosigning is only making official what you would have done anyway.  Arrange with the borrower that if they can't make their payments any more, you will backstop them AND the item (car, house, whatever) is going up for sale to cover your losses. If you don't think you could enforce that just from the strength of the relationship, reconsider co-signing. Then sign what you need to sign and step away from it. It's their loan, not yours. You want them to pay it and to manage it and to leave you out of it until it's all paid off and they thank you for your help. If things go south, you will have to pay, and it may take a while for you to sell the item or otherwise stop the paying, so you do need to be very confident that the borrower is going to make every single payment on time. My point is just that you can have that confidence, based on personal knowledge of character, employment situation, savings and other resources, in a way that a lender really cannot. Well, it sounds like you have two options: 1) Continue to jointly own the house. 2) Compensate her for her equity and get the title transferred.  I hate to tell you this, but she is entitled to half of the equity regardless of how much she paid into it. That said, she is still on the hook equally for the loan amount, but it won't do you any good if she is not willing to pay. Also, option 2 probably isn't a good deal for your co-signer as she would still be liable for the entire loan loan (just as you are) regardless of the title. "You promised to pay the loan if he didn't.  That was a commitment, and I recommend ""owning"" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again.  TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson.  Why?  Because you keep your promises.  (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a ""defining moment"" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system.  I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an ""EX-friend"" who did this deliberately.  Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork.  And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here.  Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late.  But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill.  So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late.  You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later.   If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you.  A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you.  They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce.  So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue.  Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer.  I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts.  Nobody's perfect.  Financial issues are just another kind of wart.  And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok.  And because our obsession with it makes it a ""loaded"" issue and thus hard to talk about.  Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender.  Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity.  The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work.  Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly.  The first question I'd ask is ""where's the car?"" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car.  They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working.  If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative.   Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this.  Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash.  This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation.  They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering.   I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it.   Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round.  This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round.  I've been sued.  It sucked.  But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel).  And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills.  HA!  With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing.   You might as well get the best financial education.  You're paying the tuition!"