Take car loan out of mortgage to improve equity
"I guess I don't understand how you figure that taking out a car loan for $20k will result in adding $20k in equity.  A car loan is a liability, not an asset like your $100k in cash.  Besides, you don't get a dollar-for-dollar consideration when figuring a car's value against the loan it is encumbered by.  In other words, the car is only worth what someone's willing to pay for it, not what your loan amount on it is. Remember that taking on a loan will increase your debt-to-income ratio, which is always a factor when trying to obtain a mortgage.  At the same time, taking on new debt just prior to shopping for a mortgage could make it more difficult to find a lender.  Every time a credit report (hard inquiry) is run on you, it temporarily impacts your credit score.  The only exception to this rule is when it comes to mortgages.  In the U.S., the way it works is that once you start shopping for a mortgage with lenders, for the next 30 days, additional inquiries into your credit report for purposes of mortgage funding do not count against your credit score, so it's a ""freebie"" in a way.  You can't use this to shop for any other kind of credit, but the purpose is to allow you a chance to shop for the best mortgage rate you can get without adversely impacting your credit. In the end, my advice is to stop looking at how much house you can buy, and instead focus on a house with payments you can live with and afford.  Trying to buy the most house based on what someone's willing to lend you leaves no room in the near-term for being able to borrow if the property has some repair needs, you want to furnish/upgrade it, or for any other unanticipated need which may arise that requires credit.  Don't paint yourself into a corner.  Just because you can borrow big doesn't mean you should borrow big. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
Is she entitled to more of the equity because she made more? No.  Equity should be determined by how much each paid.  But she is entitled to more of the equity if she paid more.  And that may be what she is saying.  That she contributed more to the household's finances than you did.   If you always paid the mortgage out of the joint account, you could presumably go back and look at the account to find out how much each of you contributed to it.  That would give you a reasonable split for the remainder of the equity after your initial investment.  If you both put your entire paychecks into the joint account every time, then it will be the same as the ratio of what you each made.  That would also make sense for splitting up whatever remains in that account.   While you're doing that, you may want to ask for more for your original $65,000.  By my calculation, if your mortgage was 3.5%, that $65,000 saved the household more than $12,000 in interest that became equity instead.  So you could reasonably bump your return on the initial investment up to $77,000 while making the concession on the rest of the equity.   This is just a suggestion for a framework for splitting the equity.  If you can agree on a split, it will almost certainly be easier than going to a mediator or court. Because a paying down a liability and thus gaining asset equity is not technically an expense, GnuCash will not include it in any expense reports. However, you can abuse the system a bit to do what you want.  The mortgage payment should be divided into principle, interest, and escrow / tax / insurance accounts. For example: A mortgage payment will then be a split transaction that puts money into these accounts from your bank account: For completeness, the escrow account will periodically be used to pay actual expenses, which just moves the expense from escrow into insurance or tax. This is nice so that expenses for a month aren't inflated due to a tax payment being made: Now, this is all fairly typical and results in all but the principle part of the mortgage payment being included in expense reports. The trick then is to duplicate the principle portion in a way that it makes its way into your expenses. One way to do this is to create a principle expense account and also a fictional equity account that provides the funds to pay it: Every time you record a mortgage payment, add a transfer from this equity account into the Principle Payments expense account. This will mess things up at some level, since you're inventing an expense that does not truly exist, but if you're using GnuCash more to monitor monthly cash flow, it causes the Income/Expense report to finally make sense. Example transaction split: As for refinancing: Many institutions charge up-front fees when doing any type of vehicle loan. Typically this is in the neighborhood of 1% the value of the loan, with a floor of $100 (although this may vary by lender). However, for the loan the be secured by the vehicle, the principle value must be less than the collateral value. In your case, this means there is a collateral shortfall of $4,000. When working with a traditional bank, you would have two options: pay the difference up front (reducing the principle value of the loan), or obtaining a separate loan for the difference. This separate loan would often have a higher interest rate unless you have some other form of collateral to secure it with. I doubt CarMax would do a separate loan. All that being said, if you plan on selling the vehicle within the next twelves months, don't bother refinancing. It won't be worth the hassle. "Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your ""equity"" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it." Use the $11k to pay down either car loan (your choice). You should be able to clear one loan very quickly after that lump sum. After that, continue to aggressively pay down the other car loan until it is clear. Lastly, pay off the mortgage while making sure you are financially stable in other areas (cash-on-hand, retirement, etc) Reasoning: The car loans are very close in value, making it a wash as far as payoff speed. The 2.54% interest is not a large factor here. As a percentage of all these numbers, the few bucks a month isn't going to change your financial situation. This is assuming you will pay off both loans well ahead of schedule, making the interest rate negligible in the answer. Paying off the mortgage last is due to the risk associated with the car loans. The cars are guaranteed to lose value at an alarming rate. While a house certainly may lose value, it is far from an expectation. It is likely that your house will maintain and/or increase in value, unless you have specific circumstances not disclosed here. This makes the mortgage a lower risk loan in your financial world. You can probably sell the house to clear the loan balance if necessary. The cars are far more likely to depreciate beyond the loan balance. While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed.  Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible.  While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled.  These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation.   Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience.  But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider. "Numbers: Estimate you still owe around 37000 (48500 - 4750, 5% interest, 618 per month payment). Initial price, down payment, payments made - none of these mean anything.  Ask your lender, ""What is the payoff of the current loan?"" Next, sell or trade the current vehicle. Compare to the amount owed. Any shortfall has to be repaid, out of pocket, or in some cases added to the price of the new car and included in the principal of the new loan.  You cannot calculate how much you still owe the way you have, because it totally ignores interest. Advice on practicality:  Don't do this.  You will be upside down even worse on the new car from the instant you drive off the lot.  Sell the current vehicle, find a way to pay the difference - one that doesn't involve financing. Cut your losses on the upside down vehicle. Then purchase a new vehicle. I'm in the ""Pay cash for gently used"" school, YMMV. Another option is to go to your bank.  Refinance your car now to get a lower interest rate.  Pay as much of the principal as you can.  Keep that car until it is paid off.  Then you will not be upside down. If you're asking how to use the estimator on the webpage.  Put the payoff in the downpayment as a negative and the trade in value in the trade in spot.  Expect the payment to go up significantly.   Another opinion that might be practical advice.  Nothing we say here will convince your financially responsible spouse that this is a good idea." "If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time.  I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the ""return"" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an ""easy"" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like ""big spending"" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it." It depends on your tax rate. Multiply your marginal rate (including state, if applicable) by your 3.1% to figure out how much you are saving through the deduction, then subtract that from the 3.1% to get the effective rate on the mortgage. For example, if you are in the 28% bracket with no state tax impact from the mortgage, your effective rate on the mortgage is 2.232%. This also assumes you'd still itemize deductions without the mortgage, otherwise, the effective deduction is less. Others have pointed out more behavioral reasons for wanting to pay off the car first, but from a purely financial impact, this is the way to analyze it. This is also your risk-free rate to compare additional investing to (after taking into account taxes on investments). In short, your scenario could work in theory, but is not realistic... Generally speaking, you can borrow up to some percentage of the value of the property, usually 80-90% though it can vary based on many factors.  So if your property currently has a value of $100k, you could theoretically borrow a total of $80-90k against it.  So how much you can get at any given time depends on the current value as compared to how much you owe.  A simple way to ballpark it would be to use this formula: (CurrentValue * PercentageAllowed) - CurrentMortgageBalance = EquityAvailable.     If your available equity allowed you to borrow what you wanted, and you then applied it to additions/renovations, your base property value would (hopefully) increase.  However as other people mentioned, you very rarely get a value increase that is near what you put into the improvements, and it is not uncommon for improvements to have no significant impact on the overall value.  Just because you like something about your improvements doesn't mean the market will agree. Just for the sake of argument though, lets say you find the magic combination of improvements that increases the property value in line with their cost.  If such a feat were accomplished, your $40k improvement on a $100k property would mean it is now worth $140k.  Let us further stipulate that your $40k loan to fund the improvements put you at a 90% loan to value ratio.  So prior to starting the improvements you owed $90k on a $100k property.  After completing the work you would owe $90k on what is now a $140k property, putting you at a loan to value ratio of ~64%.  Meaning you theoretically have 26% equity available to borrow against to get back to the 90% level, or roughly $36k.  Note that this is 10% less than the increase in the property value.  Meaning that you are in the realm of diminishing returns and each iteration through this process would net you less working capital. The real picture is actually a fair amount worse than outlined in the above ideal scenario as we have yet to account for any of the costs involved in obtaining the financing or the decreases in your credit score which would likely accompany such a pattern.  Each time you go back to the bank asking for more money, they are going to charge you for new appraisals and all of the other fees that come out at closing.  Also each time you ask them for more money they are going to rerun your credit, and see the additional inquires and associated debt stacking up, which in turn drops your score, which prompts the banks to offer higher interest rates and/or charge higher fees... Also, when a bank loans against a property that is already securing another debt, they are generally putting themselves at the back of the line in terms of their claim on the property in case of default.  In my experience it is very rare to find a lender that is willing to put themselves third in line, much less any farther back.  Generally if you were to ask for such a loan, the bank would insist that the prior commitments be paid off before they would lend to you.  Meaning the bank that you ask for the $36k noted above would likely respond by saying they will loan you $70k provided that $40k of it goes directly to paying off the previous equity line. Here is another way to look at it. Does this debt enable you to buy more car than you can really afford, or more car than you need? If so, it's bad debt. Let's say you don't have the price of a new car, but you can buy a used car with the cash you have. You will have to repair the car occasionally, but this is generally a lot less than the payments on a new car. The value of your time may make sitting around waiting while your car is repaired very expensive (if, like me, you can earn money in fine grained amounts anywhere between 0 and 80 hours a week, and you don't get paid when you're at the mechanic's) in which case it's possible to argue that buying the new car saves you money overall. Debt incurred to save money overall can be good: compare your interest payments to the money you save. If you're ahead, great - and the fun or joy or showoff potential of your new car is simply gravy. Now let's say you can afford a $10,000 car cash - there are new cars out there at this price - but you want a $30,000 car and you can afford the payments on it. If there was no such thing as borrowing you wouldn't be able to get the larger/flashier car, and some people suggest that this is bad debt because it is helping you to waste your money. You may be getting some benefit (such as being able to get to a job that's not served by public transit, or being able to buy a cheaper house that is further from your job, or saving time every day) from the first $10,000 of expense, but the remaining $20,000 is purely for fun or for showing off and shouldn't be spent.  Certainly not by getting into debt. Well, that's a philosophical position, and it's one that may well lead to a secure retirement. Think about that and you may decide not to borrow and to buy the cheaper car. Finally, let's say the cash you have on hand is enough to pay for the car you want, and you're just trying to decide whether you should take their cheap loan or not. Generally, if you don't take the cheap loan you can push the price down. So before you decide that you can earn more interest elsewhere than you're paying here, make sure you're not paying $500 more for the car than you need to. Since your loan is from a bank rather than the car dealership, this may not apply. In addition to the money your cash could earn, consider also liquidity. If you need to repair something on your house, or deal with other emergency expenditures, and your money is all locked up in your car, you may have to borrow at a much higher rate (as much as 20% if you go to credit cards and can't get it paid off the same month) which will wipe out all this careful math about how you should just buy the car and not pay that 1.5% interest. More important than whether you borrow or not is not buying too much car. If the loan is letting you talk yourself into the more expensive car, I'd say it's a bad thing. Otherwise, it probably isn't. Actually if you look at a loan for $115,000 over 30 years at current interest rates you would have a payment of about $500 a month. I would argue your $500 monthly payments are building equity the same way a loan repayment schedule would. Is your agreement in writing? If it is, there's nothing you can do unless they agree. If it's not then write up a contract for a $115k loan that you will pay back over 30 years at $500 a month with the amortization table. That will show how much equity you're building over time. (It's not much the first 10 years!) Note that some states require real estate contract to be in writing or else they are voidable by either party. Whatever you do, get something in writing or you'll probably either end up in court or feeling bitter for the next few decades. You're driving a car worth about $6000 which has a $12,000 loan against it. You're driving around in a nett debt of $6000. The best thing your grandfather could do for you, if possible, is to take your name off both the title and the loan, refinancing the car in his name only. If possible while still letting you drive the car. When he dies, you will be out of a car, but also out of a $12,000 debt which I'm sure you could do without. Okay, the best thing your grandfather could do, from your wallet's point of view, is paying off the loan for you and then taking his name off the title. I work for a mortgage company but one that sells the loans we fund to banks. I've never heard of that risk mitigation incentive (lower rate for auto payments) but I know for a fact you will have a higher interest rate if you choose to pay your taxes and insurance out of your own pocket and not escrow them. I would contact the CFPB instead of an attorney and they will be able to tell you very quickly whether this is an acceptable practice or not. At the moment, you are paying about $1,300 interest each month (£431k @ 3.625% / 12) on your mortgage and repaying capital at about $1,500 per month. Paying $11,000 off your mortgage would save you about $9,000 as it is reduces your balance by about seven monthly capital repayments: but you will only see this benefit at the end of the mortgage because you will pay it off seven months earlier. There is only about $1,000 interest remaining on your car loans. Paying the $11,000 off your interest free loan then paying extra agianst the interest bearing loan brings that down to $500 and paying it off your interest bearing loan brings it down to $200. Either way, both car loans would be finished by early 2018. In summary, if you use the $11,000 against your car loans, you will save $8,500-$8,800 less than paying it off the mortage, but you will have no car loans in one year rather than three. Google spreadsheet for calculations here.