Purchasing a home using collateral
Since you only own half of the house, you would most likely need the cooperation of whoever owns the other half in order to use it as collateral for a loan, but if you can do that, there's no reason you couldn't do what you're talking about.  The complication is that if you default on the loan, the bank isn't going to seize half of the house.  They'll repossess the entire house, sell it, and take what they're owed out of the proceeds, leaving you and whoever owns the other 50% to fight over the remnants. Even if the owner of the other half is family, they may be hesitant to risk losing the house if you don't pay your mortgage, so this could be a dicey conversation. What do you see as the advantage of doing this? When you buy a house with a mortgage, the bank gets a lien on the house you are buying, i.e. the house you are buying is the collateral. Why would you need additional or different collateral? As to using the house for your down payment, that would require giving the house to the seller, or selling the house and giving the money to the seller. If the house was 100% yours and you don't have any use for it once you buy the second house, that would be a sensible plan. Indeed that's what most people do when they buy a new house: sell the old one and use the money as down payment on the new one. But in this case, what would happen to the co-owner? Are they going to move to the new house with you? The only viable scenario I see here is that you could get a home equity loan on the first house, and then use that money as the down payment on the second house, and thus perhaps avoid having to pay for mortgage insurance. As DanielAnderson says, the bank would probably require the signature of the co-owner in such a case. If you defaulted on the loan, the bank could then seize the house, sell it, and give the co-owner some share of the money. I sincerely doubt the bank would be interested in an arrangement where if you default, they get half interest in the house but are not allowed to sell it without the co-owner's consent. What would a bank do with half a house? Maybe, possibly they could rent it out, but most banks are not in the rental business. So if you defaulted, the co-owner would get kicked out of the house. I don't know who this co-owner is. Sounds like you'd be putting them in a very awkward position.
Short answer: yes, you can put up collateral for someone else's loan. The bank will be happy to take your money, give it to the other person, and return it to you on completion of the loan (keeping the interest the security makes on the money market and the interest they're charging the other person for themselves). If the above doesn't sound very appealing (you don't see any benefit from your investment, and can be left holding the bag if your friend defaults on their loan), it really isn't a great way to spend your money. However, as assistance to someone else, it provides several advantages over directly transferring the money: The home owner will knock 20% off the price of the house. If the house is worth $297K, then 20% is just a discount your landlord is offering.  So your actual purchase price is $237K, and therefore a bank would have to lend you $237K. Since the house is worth more than the loan, you have equity.  20% to be more accurate.  Another way to say is, the bank only wants to loan you 80% of the value of the item securing the loan. If you default on day one, they can sell the house to somebody else for $296K and get a 20% return on their loan. So this 20% you are worried about isn't actually money that anybody gives anybody else, it is just a concept. 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. 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. "There are two ways that mortgages are sold: The loan is collateralized and sold to investors. This allows the bank to free up money for more loans. Of course sometime the loan may be treated like in the game of hot potato nobody want s to be holding a shaky loan when it goes into default. The second way that a loan is sold is through the servicing of the loan. This is the company or bank that collects your monthly payments, and handles the disbursement of escrow funds. Some banks lenders never sell servicing, others never do the servicing themselves. Once the servicing is sold the first time there is no telling how many times it will be sold.  The servicing of the loan is separate from the collateralization of the loan. When you applied for the loan you should have been given a Servicing Disclosure Statement Servicing Disclosure Statement. RESPA requires the lender or mortgage   broker to tell you in writing, when you apply for a loan or within the   next three business days, whether it expects that someone else will be   servicing your loan (collecting your payments). The language is set by the US government: [We may assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your loan while the   loan is outstanding.] [or] [We do not service mortgage loans of the   type for which you applied. We intend to assign, sell, or transfer the   servicing of your mortgage loan before the first payment is due.] [or]   [The loan for which you have applied will be serviced at this   financial institution and we do not intend to sell, transfer, or   assign the servicing of the loan.] [INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARER: Insert   the date and select the appropriate language under ""Servicing Transfer   Information."" The model format may be annotated with further   information that clarifies or enhances the model language.]" "@Alex B already answered the first question. I want to respond to the second and third: I have heard the term ""The equity on your home is like a bank"". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? Yes, you can borrow against the equity in your home. What you should keep in mind is that you can only borrow against the amount that you've paid on your house. For example, if you've paid $100,000 against your house, you can then borrow $100,000 (assuming the value hasn't changed). The argument that this is a good deal misses the obvious alternative: If you didn't spend that $100,000 on a house, then you'd still have it and wouldn't need to take out a loan at all. Of course, equity still has value, and you should consider it when doing the cost/benefit analysis, but make sure to compare your equity to savings you could have from renting. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? Economically: As you'll notice from my parenthetical remarks, this is extremely situational. It might be good to come up with a spreadsheet for your situation, taking all of the costs into account, and see if you end up better or worse. Also, there's nothing wrong with buying a house for non-economic reasons if that's what you want. Just make sure you're aware of the real cost before you do it." To give the seller cash at the closing, you will need to borrow the money ahead of time, which means a mortgage is out. A bank will only make a mortgage if they get the deed. Therefore, you will have to borrow a different way, such as through a more-expensive home equity loan. 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. "As a legal contract, a mortgage is a form of secured debt. In the case of a mortgage, the debt is secured using the property asset as collateral. So ""no"", there is no such thing as a mortgage contract without a property to act as collateral. Is it a good idea?  In the current low interest rate environment, people with good income and credit can obtain a creditline from their bank at a rate comparable to current mortgage rates.  However, if you wish to setup a credit line for an amount comparable to a mortgage, then you will need to secure it with some form of collateral." @OP:  It's all about risk.  With a cash buyer the decision is left up to one person.  With a financed buyer it adds another approval process (the lender).  It's another opportunity for the deal to fall through.  If the bank is the lender then there's even more risk.  They've already taken back the property once and incurred cost and they're setting themselves up to do it all over again.  The discount price can depend on a lot of factors.  Maybe it's a bad area and they need to get rid of it.  Maybe the appraisals for the area are low because of foreclosures and they know it will be hard for a Buyer to get a loan.  Lots of reasons as to what price they'd take. @Shawn:  Every deal has contingencies unless it's a foreclosure bought at auction.  Even if you are getting a steal from the bank in terms of price you're always going to have an inspection period.  If a Buyer doesn't need an inspection then he will just go to an auction and buy a property for an even cheaper price. "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." As per my comments, I think this is up to you and how much work you want to put forth.  I do not feel it is trivial to provide documentation even with 90% of it will be the same among lenders. See this question: First answer, third and fourth paragraphs. You need to go as far as understanding the total cost of the loan, you probably need a good faith estimate.  I would also compare a minimum of three lenders. If a bank is evaluating a persons qualifications to qualify for a loan they have to follow the FDIC and HUD guidelines for equal opportunity credit. If they offer mortgages they will use the phrase equal housing. from the lending club website (fine print area): 2 This depiction is a summary of the processes for obtaining a loan or   making an investment. Loans are issued by WebBank, an FDIC insured   Utah-chartered industrial bank located in Salt Lake City, Utah, Equal   Housing Lender. Investors do not invest directly in loans. Investors   purchase Member Dependent Notes from Lending Club. Loans are not   issued to borrowers in IA and ID. Individual borrowers must be a US   citizen or permanent resident and at least 18 years old. Valid bank   account and social security number/FEIN are required. All loans are   subject to credit review and approval. Your actual rate depends upon   credit score, loan amount, loan term, credit usage and history.   LendingClub notes are issued pursuant to a Prospectus on file with the   SEC. You should review the risks and uncertainties described in the   Prospectus related to your possible investment in the notes. Currently   only residents of the following states may invest in Lending Club   notes: AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA,   MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, NV, NY, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT,   VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, or WY. Our mailing address is: Lending Club, 71   Stevenson, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105. In a prior blog post titled “Learn Why You Would Wholesale Property Using Double Escrows“, we introduced using transactional funding when you plan on wholesaling property using a double escrow.  There are a variety of different sources that offer transactional funding for wholesalers.  You can find them by simply typing into a search engine such as Google, Bing, or Yahoo the keywords “transactional funding companies”.  You will find hundreds of companies offering this service.  You will find that some are more relaible than others.  You will find that some are going to charge an upfront processing fee, some will charge a flat rate, some will charge a points.  It is a matter of doing some research and ask for referrals from other real estate investors at real estate investment clubs. "Any sensible lender will require a lean lien against your formerly-free-and-clear property, and will likely require an appraisal of the property. The lender is free to reject the deal if the house is in any way not fitting their underwriting requirements; examples of such situations would be if the house is in a flood/emergency zone, in a declining area, an unusual property (and therefore hard to compare to other properties), not in salable condition (so even if they foreclose on it they'd have a questionable ability to get their money back), and so forth. Some lenders won't accept mobile homes (manufactured housing) as collateral, for instance, and also if the lender agrees they may also require insurance on the property to be maintained so they can ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall both properties at one time (as happens occasionally). On the downside, in my experience (in the US) lenders will often require a lower loan percentage than a comparable cash down deal. An example I encountered was that the lender would happily provide 90% loan-to-value if a cash down payment was provided, but would not go above 75% LTV if real estate was provided instead. These sort of deals are especially common in cases of new construction, where people often own the land outright and want to use it as collateral for the building of a home on that same land, but it's not uncommon in any case (just less common than cash down deals). Depending on where you live and where you want to buy vs where the property you already own is located, I'd suggest just directly talking to where you want to first consider getting a quote for financing. This is not an especially exotic transaction, so the loan officer should be able to direct you if they accept such deals and what their conditions are for such arrangements. On the upside, many lenders still treat the LTV% to calculate their rate quote the same no matter where the ""down payment"" is coming from, with the lower the LTV the lower the interest rate they'll be willing to quote. Some lenders might not, and some might require extra closing fees - you may need to shop around. You might also want to get a comparative quote on getting a direct mortgage on the old property and putting the cash as down payment on the new property, thus keeping the two properties legally separate and giving you some ""walk away"" options that aren't possible otherwise.  I'd advise you to talk with your lenders directly and shop around a few places and see how the two alternatives compare. They might be similar, or one might be a hugely better deal! Underwriting requirements can change quickly and can vary even within individual regions, so it's not really possible to say once-and-for-all which is the better way to go."