Refinance a land loan into a mortgage loan
"The Answer is yes according to multiple online sources and my local bank. This approach is a common technique to building your own home. You finance the land, build the simplest possible dwelling (say a garage with 1 bathroom/bedroom), refi into a mortgage and get cash back and then build your ""real house"" or add on, etc. This eliminates the banks demands that come with a ""construction loan"" and saves you 10s of thousands in the process (fees, contractors, scheduling, design, etc)"
I could be wrong, but I doubt you're going to be able to roll the current mortgage into a new one. The problem is that the bank is going to require that the new loan is fully collateralized by the new house.  So the only way that you can ensure that is if you can construct the house cheaply enough that the difference between the construction cost and the end market value is enough to cover the current loan AND keep the loan-to-value (LTV) low enough that the bank is secured. So say you currently owe $40k on your mortgage, and you want to build a house that will be worth $200k. In order to avoid PMI, you're going to have to have an LTV of 80% or less, which means that you can spend no more than $160k to build the house.  If you want to roll the existing loan in, now you have to build for less than $120k, and there's no way that you can build a $200k house for $120k unless you live in an area with very high land value and hire the builders directly (and even then it may not be possible). Otherwise you're going to have to make up the difference in cash. When you tear down a house, you are essentially throwing away the value of the house - when you have a mortgage on the house, you throw away that value plus you still owe the money, which is a difficult hole to climb out of. A better solution might be to try and sell the house as-is, perhaps to someone else who can tear down the house and rebuild with cash. If that is not a viable option (or you don't want to move) then you might consider a home equity loan to renovate parts of the house, provided that they increase the market value enough to justify the cost (e.g. modernize the kitchen, add on a room, remodel bathrooms, etc. So it all depends on what the house is worth today as-is, how much it will cost you to rebuild, and what the value of the new house will be. In my county one can pay your taxes up front, or pay a fee and then pay in 2 installments.  I caught countrywide mortgages paying the fee (from my escrow account) then paying the 2 installments so that they could keep the interest over the 6 months.  After that I've always insisted on not having an escrow account. You are talking about adjusting the basis of your property which has its own IRS publication Publication 551: Basis of Assets Assuming you've not taken depreciation on your land in any way, pages 4-5 cover the various ways you can increase the basis of your property. Improvements like paving and wiring such as your second case would increase the basis of the property and reduce your gains when you sell. Note that regular real estate taxes do NOT alter your basis. Again the IRS publication is where you should look on what activity would have altered your basis during your period of ownership.  Consult appropriate accounting and legal practitioners when in doubt. What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval. "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." First, many banks do not keep the loan. Even if they send you a payment notice and process the monthly payment, there's still a good chance the loan itself was packed up and sold to investors. Collateralizing mortgages, in and of itself, is not inherently dangerous. But the loan definitely needs a house behind it. If you found a bank that keeps its loans, it would be a tough sell. You'd be asking them to trust that you've chosen the right number to match up with the house you intend to buy. And then they'd need to have another round of processing to turn this into a loan with normal collateral (i.e. put a lien on the house and tie them together.) The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself.  Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you.  Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings. Some types of loans allow for reamortization (recasting) - which does exactly what you're talking about (making a big payment and then refiguring the monthly amount rather than the overall lifespan), without requiring any kind of a fee that refinancing does. Not every, or even most, mortgages, allow for recasting. And most that do offer recasting, may limit the recasting to a once-a-loan type of thing. So check beforehand, and make those big payments before you do any recasting. (Most banks and mortgage servicing companies may not advertise or even speak about recasting options unless you specifically ask your loan officer.) Yes, you may do this at any time before signing - but to make a change like this after the official loan documents have been drawn up will cost you extra fees.  The typical redraw fee is around $200 in CA.   Does it make sense to do so?  No, it does not.  If you have an extra 1%, it would probably be better to use that money to purchase a lower interest rate.  Here's an example: Let's say you're buying a $200,000 house and your offered interest rate is 4.75% (just an example).   With 10% down you'd have a loan amount of $180,000 and a p&i payment of $938.97 per month.   With 11% down you'd have a loan amount of $178,000 and a p&i payment of $928.53 per month. Now let's pretend you buy your interest rate down to 4.375%.  With 10% down you'd still have a loan amount of $180,000 but your p&i payment would be $898.71 per month.   Even though the last option gives you the best payment, if I were in your shoes I'd stick with the 10% down and save that extra cash in the bank for a rainy day.  Buying a home comes with a lot of new expenses and many are unexpected. Good luck! "There is no guarantee improvements will raise the appraised value.  You also don't want your property tax appraisal to go up if you can avoid it. Since you are talking on the order of $10k I'll assume you're only a few thousand dollars more from getting to 20%. That said, any schemes you might come up with like refinancing or second line of credit will probably cost more in fees than they are worth, unless you can get a much nicer interest rate. Figure out how long you plan to stay there, Evaluate your options (do nothing, principal reduction, refinance for 30, 15, or even an ARM) and figure out your bottom line by comparing everything in a spreadsheet One more thing: if you do pay a substantial amount of extra principal, you can ask the lender to ""rebalance"" which will correct the minimum monthly payment to your remaining term. This will likely incur a fee, but could be helpful in an emergency" What are you missing? Volume. Bank of America is more than willing to refinance a loan from Wells Fargo as long as the loan is still profitable. There are some caveats with that, though. For one, many land have penalties if they are paid off within two or three years. Additionally, the fact that banks are offering to refinance at great rates doesn't mean that you'll be approved, or that you'll get those rates. If you could post some actual numbers, we could help you see if it's a good deal to refi, and explain exactly where the bank expects it's profit. "Please clarify your question. What do you mean by ""..loan in Greece""? If you are referring to taking a mortgage loan to purchase residential property in Greece, there are two factors to consider: If the loan originates from a Greek bank, then odds are likely that the bank will be nationalized by the government if Greece defaults. If the loan is external (i.e. from J.P. Morgan or some foreign bank), then the default will certainly affect any bank that trades/maintains Euros, but banks that are registered outside of Greece won't be nationalized. So what does nationalizing mean for your loan? You will still be expected to pay it according to the terms of the contract. I'd recommend against an adjustable rate contract since rates will certainly rise in a default situation. As for property, that's a different story. There have been reports of violence in Greece already, and if the country defaults, imposes austerity measures, etc, odds are there will be more violence that can harm your property. Furthermore, there is a remote possibility that the government can attempt to acquire your private property. Unlikely, but possible. You could sue in this scenario on property rights violations but things will be very messy from that point on. If Greece doesn't default but just exits the Euro Zone, the situation will be similar. The Drachma will be weak and confidence will be poor, and unrest is a likely outcome. These are not statements of facts but rather my opinion, because I cannot peek into the future. Nonetheless, I would advise against taking a mortgage for property in Greece at this point in time." 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 don't always have a choice. If you RTA, this is about loans that BoA bought from other lenders, or banks they acquired. If there is such a thing as a conventional mortgage contract that cannot be sold to another bank, I have never heard of it.   Any bank you borrow from is generally free to re-sell the loan to any other bank. You agree to the contract, not the name on the letterhead. "I am going to add just one more item to what are some very well thought out answers. The element of ""Cash Out"" If you are taking out 80% of the value of the home that you already own free and clear the bank considers this a ""Cash Out"" transaction - meaning you would effectively walk away from closing with a check for 80% of your home's value. So in a hypothetical situation you have a $200,000 home value - you would be handed a check for $160,000 with which you could do anything that you wanted. Granted, you are likely going to do something responsible with it and purchase another home - BUT (big BUT) the bank can't control what you do with it and that is the part they don't like - and therefore they treat these types of transactions with a higher degree of scrutiny. It is all about control - if the property you are downsizing to fits their rules for lending they may actually loan you a higher loan to value on that purchase than they would on your ""cash out"" refinance transaction on your current home.  With the purchase loan the money you get goes immediately to the purchase of a new home.  In the ""cash out"" transaction it goes to a check with which you could do anything you want . . .  and then not pay the loan back . . .  I know no one here would do that - but there are some folks that would . . . and this is one of the reasons ""Cash Out"" loans are not nearly as easy as they once were to get. http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/mortgagefraud.html"