Would extending my mortgage cause the terms to be re-negotiated?
Run the numbers in advance. Understand what are the current rates for an additional 2nd mortgage, what are the rates for a brand new mortgage that will cover the additional funds. Understand what they are for another lender.  Estimate the amount of paperwork involved in each option (new first, new 2nd, and new lender). Ask the what are the options they can offer you. Because you have estimated the costs in money and time for the different options, you can evaluate the offer they make. What they offer you can range from everything you want to nothing you would accept. What they offer will depend on several factors: Do they care to keep you as a customer?; Do they expect you to walk away?; are they trying to get rid of mortgages like the one you have?; Can they make more money with the plan they are offering you? You will be interested in the upfront costs, the monthly costs, and the amount of time required for the process to be completed.
"Another option would be to not refinance but also not pay any extra each month but to continue as you are making the existing payments and just put the ""extra"" you would have paid aside in an investment of some type (something you are comfortable with)  This as the added benefit of not tying up this extra money in your house should you need it in the next few years for something else. You would then have the option in 2 or 3 years of continuing on this path or closing the investment and paying off the remaining principal in one lump sum.   If nothing else that big payment would be a really fun check to write." In the prior PMI discussions here, it's been stated that the bank is not obligated to remove PMI until the mortgage's natural amortization puts the debt at 78% LTV. So, paying in advance like this will not automatically remove the PMI.  Nor will a lump sum payment be certain to move the next payment ahead a year. If it's entered as a principal prepayment, the next month's payment is still due. In the world of coupon books, if you sent in a year's payments, you'd not benefit from the interest saved, in one year you'd owe what the amortization table tells you.  There's no free lunch when it comes to mortgages or finance in general. This is why we usually caution that one should not be cash poor the day after buying a house. Best to save 30%, put down 20%, and have a cushion after the closing. "This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do ""streamline"" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus ""renegotiating the rate"" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage." In a lot of cases, the bank has already made their money. Shortly after you get your mortgage is sold to investors though the bank is still servicing it for a fee. Therefore, if you refinance, they get to sell it again. IMO they were just being dicks.  I don't know if they are required to provide the payoff amount, but they should be able to at any point in time.  edit: I have mortgage experience.  I didn't see this too often, but borrowers sometimes payoff/include other debts on refis.  This requires a payoff statement from their creditors.  I've never heard of a closing getting pushed back to the next month due to a creditor not being able to provide the payoff. When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis.  Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries.   Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting.  But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices.  I think this could be down.  If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble.  Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit.  Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal. Interesting thing is not all of this analysis is typically done by the person you are speaking with re: your mortgage.  Likely there is an economic team (at some institution or another, as many many loans are sold/distributed in some fashion), finance team, and all of them are looking at various rates etc.  Typically what is offered is matching an offsetting liability somewhere else.  So there may be cases where the spread someone is looking to pick up might be tighter or looser within institutions or types of institutions vs others, even though the overall market is at one place.  (e.g. banks vs. insurance companies).    So you may have negotiating room at a certain term, but not another, or the reverse at another firm.  One firm might have lots of 10 year money, while another might be limited, so will be picky in what they choose.  Either more conservative loan terms/ltv, or a higher spread, for example.  So many things go into the ultimate rate someone can get, but in theory the blog did a decent job. It depends where you are going to live and how you are going to pay for your new accommodation. If you are moving within the UK and intend to buy another house you run into the problem that you will find it hard to get a second mortgage. If you rent out the house in Kent you will probably have to change the mortgage basis on it to a mortgage that allows for letting - normal residential mortgages exclude that entirely - which would allow you to take out a residential mortgage. It depends how much equity you have in the house. If most of the value of the house is mortgaged then you'll (1) find it hard to re mortgage on a commercial mortgage (2) may find it hard to cover the costs by letting and (3) are very sensitive to house prices falling. Also bear in mind that for the past three months in a row, house prices in the UK have mostly either stagnated or fallen... so you cannot guarantee any increase in value of the house in Kent. What I'm saying is ... there is no crystal ball that will tell you what's financially the best thing to do. Talk to estate agents, find out how much the house would sell for / how much it would rent for. Talk to your mortgage lender and find out if they will let you rent it out. Talk to other mortgage lenders and find out how much a commercial mortgage would cost. Do the sums, find out if renting the house would cover the costs, in which case you can gamble on the housing market continuing to rise. Don't rely on house prices continuing to rise as they have done before. Certainly where I live due to the number of new houses being built and other economic issues house prices have fallen appreciably over the past few months and may well continue to fall as more and more new houses come on the market. This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness.  It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%. "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?" It sounds cold, but the law has to hold people to their agreements. There are exceptions for unconscionable terms, but I don't think this gets close to that level. This is certainly audacious, but not quite shocking to the conscience. Maybe there's an argument to be made regarding whether a reasonably prudent person in the party's position would have known what they were agreeing to under the circumstances (depending upon how the provision was presented), but without a lot more information we can't say whether that angle has a snowball's chance in hell.  You should read the terms governing every important agreement you enter into. It sounds like a huge burden, but for any major undertaking you really do need to grit your teeth and trawl through the whole thing. If you don't like what you find, ask for a second look from a lawyer to confirm your suspicions, or just walk away.   Bank service agreements, loan/mortgage applications, major venue reservations, and employment contracts (ESPECIALLY employment contracts!) all deserve that much time. Typically the terms you might not like are address circumstances that, as a practical matter, don't really concern you, but you might be surprised at how often you find deal-breakers like this crawling around in the woodwork. It doesn't matter.  You will just renew your mortgage at the prevailing rates.  That's part of the mortgage contract.   The problem that happens is if you want to move your mortgage to another bank for a better rate, they may not accept you.  Your re-negotiating position is limited. Most mortgages have a portability option where you can even transfer the mortgage to another property, but you'd have to buy a cheaper house. Taking a slightly different approach, I would have the following priorities: I'm not sure it's worth the hassle to renogotiate either the HELOC or the mortgage if you think you are only going to have them for a year. If you can renegotiate the HELOC with the same lender that might be worth it. There is another factor to consider when refinancing is the remaining term left on your loan.  If you have 20 years left, and you re-fi into another 30 year loan that extends the length that you will be paying off the house for another 10 years.  You are probably better off going with 20, or even 15.  If this is a new loan, that is less of an issue, although if you moving and buying a house in a similar price range it is still something to consider.  My goal is to have my house paid off before I retire (hopefully early semi-retirement around 55). "The reason to put more money down or accept a shorter maximum term is because the bank sweetens the deal (or fails to sour it in some fashion).  For example, typically, if there is less than 20% down, you have to pay an premium called ""Private Mortgage Insurance"", which makes it bad deal. But I see banks offering the same rate for a 15%-year mortgage as for a 30-year one, and I think: fools and their money.  Take the 30-year and, if you feel like it pay more every month.  Although why you would feel like it, I don't know, since it's very difficult to get that money back if you need it."