Owner-Financed home sale or Land Contract — how to handle the transaction and the ongoing entity?
I've done this, but on the other side.  I purchased a commercial property from someone I had a previous relationship with.  A traditional bank wouldn't loan me the money, but the owner was willing to finance it.  All of the payments went through a professional escrow company.  In our case it was a company called Westar, but I'm sure there are plenty out here. They basically serve as the middle-man, for a fee (something like $5 a payment, plus something to set it up).  They have the terms of the loan, and keep track of balances, can handle extra principle payments and what that does to the term of the loan, etc.   You want to have a typical mortgage note that is recorded with the local clerk's office.  If you look around, you should be able to find a real estate lawyer who can set all this up for you.  It will cost you a bit up front, but it is worth it to do this right. As far as taxes, my understanding is that the property itself is taxed the same as any other property transfer.  You would owe taxes on the difference between the value of the property when you inherited it and when you sold it.  The interest you get from the loan would be taxed as regular income.  The escrow company should send you tax forms every year listing the amount of interest that you received.  There are also deductions you can take for expenses in the process. You need to talk to a local attorney specializing in real estate matters. The contract needs to ensure that your interests are protected. How you do that is too complex for an answer here and varies from state to state, or even jurisdictions within a state. There are all sorts of options. Sometimes deals like this are structured so that you can actually sell your remaining equity in the property to a third party later on. If the property has value, but the banks aren't interested in lending right now, you could potentially make money on it down the road. Great question, but I'm thinking you'll want to get a professional who can look at your specific situation and do it right.  I wouldn't go solely on advice here.  Having said that, though, my decidedly non-professional advice: The other alternative is to take a bit of a profit hit, and demand that the seller pay cash.  Then the transaction becomes much easier and quicker. But again, I urge you to have a pro look at this! If you do the financing, get a large down payment and make a short loan.  Do not expose yourself to risk with a 30 year note, and get some major money up front so the buyer has some skin in the game and will continue to make payments.
"Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax ""aggressive"" you are willing to be." The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that. Some of the items required as part of the home buying and mortgage process are traditionally paid prior to closing. These are usually the items that the buyer purchases as part of the process: home inspection, credit check. These expenses take place early in the process and if the deal falls through due to the inspection or credit history problems the seller doesn't want to get stuck paying for. The buyer will frequently have to write a check for these as they occur. Other items occur later in the process or even at the very end of the process. Determining which side pays for each item is a combination negotiation and local tradition. Even for the items that the buyer has to pay for, there can be a negotiation between the  buyer and the lender. Sometimes the lender allows the buyer to roll the closing costs into the loan, this does mean that they will be paying interest on the closing costs for years. But not rolling in the closing costs mean that you need more cash on hand. This is in addition to the down-payment and the costs of moving.   The closing costs covered by the seller reduce the size of the check they will receive at the end of the process. Their willingness to kick in this cash is a function of will they still make money on the deal, how many other bidders there were, and do they need the cash to buy their next house. At settlement the forms identify each item involved and who agreed to pay for it, then each side is credited for the items they paid for already. Then each side either writes a check for the balance due or receives a check for their reimbursement. Keep in mind there are also money exchanges that take place at the closing that are not covered by the buyer: real estate commissions. There are also items such as interest for the current month, and property tax credit that depend on the day of the month and month of the year.  Sit down with your agent or your lender to get an idea of what you need to pay before closing.  Though telling everybody that you will have zero cash to pay for these things may make the lender very nervous about approving a loan. "There are loans. Usually they're secured by the assets, and you also cosign them personally. Your own credit worthiness comes to play, your own assets are in jeopardy. As to what it is that you're buying - no, it is not necessary for the seller to sell you the building. You might buy the business, but not the actual space it occupies. In fact, the space may not even belong to the seller. You may find yourself taking over the lease, which is in fact a liability, not an asset. You should agree with the seller on what exactly it is that you're buying. You should ask for a full inventory list that would include all the assets and the liabilities that would be transferred to you. Lease, as mentioned, but you might also ""buy"" loans, debts, lawsuits, and god knows what else that is attached to the business." You will need to check the language of your sales contract. Most of the time, it will be written that the pro-rated property taxes will be part of closing costs. In general, If you've already paid taxes, then the buyer will pay you the pro-rated portion of that, from the closing date through the end of the year. If you haven't, then you would usually be charged the pro-rated amount to be held in the buyer's mortgage company escrow account, with the remainder being collected from the buyer at a later date. For your income tax purposes, you can deduct that tiny amount of the paid property taxes from your income (assuming itemized deductions). Doing some research on property tax for the state of Georgia brings up this interesting note: If you owned property on January 1, you are responsible for the ad valorem tax for the entire year even if you sell the property on January 2.  Georgia law does not allow a refund for partial year residents. This leads me to believe that your sales contract would have it written in that the buyer paid you almost the entire year's property taxes in anticipation that you would be responsible for the property taxes, as you owned the property on January 1st. Again, you should consult with the settlement attorney and review your contract. Interesting.  How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate?   It's hard to imagine they do that.   I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered? "Every situation is possible, it depends on what the contract states. According to Nolo:  Your ability to withdraw from a home purchase depends on two things: 1) the exact point at which you are ""in contract"" to buy the house,   and  2) after you're in contract, what the contract says about terminating   the transaction. Therefore, you need to be 100% ready for anything to happen. After you sign the contract, it is binding and you must adhere to what the contract states. Buying a home is a big purchase - arguably the biggest of your life - you need to be comfortable with every aspect of this experience." "I'll chime in here with the ""don't do it crowd."" I think it's fraught with ugly possibilities. However, you may, for various reasons, decide to say, ""to hell with it, we'll make it work."" If that is the case, treat it like a business transaction and not an emotional transaction. Work up a binding contract with your attorney for how the two of you will handle issues such as: Of absolutely critical importance is the bail-out clause: how will you handle it when one person says, ""Sayonara.""  None of this ensures a smooth road - god knows I wouldn't do it - but it could help protect your sanity and some of your investment down the road. Good luck." "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." "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." Whether you need to hire a lawyer depends on whether you are capable enough to understand the fine print and it's consequences in all the contracts you sign with the Builder or not.  Even though the REPC is a standard document, the Builder may add additional addendum voiding many of the rights Buyers normally have. If you are not sure or have doubts about specific verbiage, I recommend that you at least get your Realtor to spell it out for you or hire a lawyer as an alternative. Hire a lawyer familiar with transactional law and they will have a examples in house. Any debt that large will have nuances that Google or Reddit can't help you with.   A term sheet is a term sheet but you will want it to be substantial and air tight. "Your mortgage terms are locked in; the servicer/new owner cannot  change the terms without your consent, but the servicer can be more aggressive in taking action  (as specified in your mortgage contract) against you. For example, if the mortgage agreement calls for penalties for missing a payment or making it late, your friendly neighborhood banker might waive the penalty if the payment is received a day late once (but perhaps not the second or the third time), but the servicer doesn't know you personally and does not care; you are hit with the penalty right  away. If the payment was received a day late because of delays in the post office, too bad. If you used a bank bill payment service that ""guarantees"" on-time arrival, talk to the bank. All  perfectly legal, and what you agreed to when you signed the contract. If you can set up electronic payments of your mortgage payments, you can avoid many of these hassles. If you are sending in more money than what is due each month, you should make sure that the extra money reduces the principal amount owed; easy enough if you are sending a physical check with a coupon that has an entry line for ""Extra payment applied to principal"" on it. But, the best mortgage contracts (from the bank's point of view) are those that say that extra money sent in applies to future monthly installments. That is, if you send in more than the monthly payment one month, you can send in a reduced payment next month; the bank will gladly hold the extra amount sent in this month and apply it towards next month's payment. So, read your mortgage document (I know, I know, the fine print is incomprehensible) to see how extra money is applied. Finally, re-financing your mortgage because you don't like the servicer is a losing proposition unless you can, somehow,  ensure that your new bank will not sell your new mortgage to the same servicer or someone even worse." what I should think about. If you decide to do this - get everything in writing.  Get lease agreements to enforce the business side of the relationship.  If they are not comfortable with that much formality, it's probably best not to do it, I'm not saying that you should not do this - but that you need to think about these type of scenarios before committing to a house purchase. Another option, not yet discussed here, is to allow the loan to go into default and let the loaning agency repossess the property the loan was used for, after which they sell it and that sale should discharge some significant portion of the loan. Knowing where the friend and property is, you may be able to help them carry out the repossession by providing them information. Meanwhile, your credit will take a significant hit, but unless your name is on the deed/title of the property then you have little claim that the property is yours just because you're paying the loan. The contract you signed for the loan is not going to be easily bypassed with a lawsuit of any sort, so unless you can produce another contract between you and your friend it's unlikely that you can even sue them. In short, you have no claim to the property, but the loaning agency does - perhaps that's the only way to avoid paying most of the debt, but you do trade some of your credit for it. Hopefully you understand that what you loaned wasn't money, but your credit score and earning potential, and that you will be more careful who you choose to lend this to in the future.