Money put down on home
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is, when you buy a house with someone you are not married to, to make a legal agreement on how the money should be divided when you sell. I know it's too late for you, but I write this for anyone else reading this answer. From a legal point of view, if you made no agreement otherwise, you each own 50% of the house. If you want to divide it any other way, you will have to agree what an appropriate division is. Dividing according to the amount each of you paid towards it is a good way. Decide for yourselves if that means just mortgage payments, or also taxes, repairs, utilities etc. You should also be aware that if you have been living together a long time, like more than a year, some jurisdictions will allow one party to sue the other as if they were getting divorced. Then the courts would be involved in the division of property. You should have drafted a contract of purchase that stipulated out equity stake in the home based of his down payment and yours, along with future monthly payments.  But morally, if the house sells, yielding 100,000 profit (after fees/taxes/etc), you should get ( To Calculate Your Cut: (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) / (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = Your Cut His would be: (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) / (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = His Cut You'd then take mortgage payment totals for each; and calculate the payments made towards interest; and claim the correct amount each of you paid on payments for the mortgage interest deduction when you file your taxes. Although, depending on how the loan is written, the banks may issue 1099s which dont reflect actual payments made... Talk to an accountant. "To quote Judge Judy:  ""Our courts are not in the business of settling assets of couples who decide to play house"". This is one of the reasons we put off buying houses with a partner until we are married.  The courts have rules for couples who marry, then split,  but none for those who don't. In the scenerio you spelled out, you are at the mercy of your ex-boyfriend as far as getting your downpayment back.  Legally, you are entitled to 50% of the funds remaining after the sale and expenses."
There is a fundamental flaw in this statement:  For example, a home bought cash $100,000 would have to be sold $242,726.247 30 years later just to make up with inflation, and that would be a 0% return. You forgot to deduct rent from your monthly carrying costs.  That changes the calculations significantly.   Your calculations are valid ONLY if you were to buy a house, and let it sit empty, which is unlikely.  Either you are going to live in it, and save yourself $1000 a month in rent, or, you are going to rent it out to someone, and earn an income of $1000 a month. Either way, you're up $1000 a month and this needs to be included. It seems very risky have all of your net worth in this one home. If I were to buy the house, I'm not sure I would put that much down, consider 20% and keep cash on hand, in retirement assets, etc. I would look at how much a mortgage, plus interest, taxes, insurance, etc. would cost with 50% down and with 20% down and see how that impacts your cash flow. Renting may make more sense, it's hard to tell without more specifics (NYTimes Rent/Buy calculator is a nice tool), but regardless, I would not want to have so much net worth tied into one asset and so would opt for less money down if I were to buy. Focus on rebuilding some retirement assets. "We’re buying the home right over $200,000 so that means he will only need to put down (as a ‘gift’) roughly $7000. I'm with the others, don't call this a gift unless it is a gift.   I'd have him check with the bank that previously refused him a mortgage if putting both of you on a mortgage would allay their concerns.  Your cash flow would be paying the mortgage payment and if you failed to do so, then they could fall back on his.  That may make more sense to them, even if they would deny each of you a loan on your own.  This works for them because either of you is responsible for the whole loan.  It works for him because he was already willing to be responsible for the whole loan.  And your alternative plan makes you responsible for the whole loan, so this is just as good for you.   At what percentage would you suggest splitting ownership and future expenses? Typically a cash/financing partnership would be 50/50, but since it’s only a 3.5% down-payment instead of 20% is that still fair? Surprisingly enough, a 3.5% down-payment that accumulates is about half the equity of a 20% down-payment.  So your suggestion of a 25%-75% split makes sense if 20% would give a 50%-50% split.   I expected it to be considerably lower.  The way that I calculated it was to have his share increase by his equity share of the ""rent"" which I set to the principal plus interest payment for a thirty year loan.  With a 20% down-payment, this would give him 84% equity.  With 3.5%, about 40% equity.  I'm not sure why 84% equity should be the equivalent of a 50% share, but it may be a side effect of other expenses.  Perhaps taking property taxes out would reduce the equity share.   Note that if you increase the down-payment to 20%, your mortgage payment will drop substantially.  The difference in interest between 3.5% and 20% equity is a couple hundred dollars.  Also, you'll be able to eliminate any PMI payment at 20%.   It could be argued that if he pays a third of the monthly mortgage payment, that that would give him the same 50% equity stake on a 3.5% down-payment as he would get with a 20% down-payment.  The problem there is that then he is effectively subsidizing your monthly payment.  If he were to stop doing that for some reason, you'd have what is effectively a 50% increase in your rent.  It would be safer for you to handle the monthly payment while he handles the down-payment.   If you couldn't pay the mortgage, it sounds like he is in a position to buy out your equity, rent the property, and take over the mortgage payment.  If he stopped being able to pay his third of the mortgage, it's not evident that you'd be able to pick up the slack from him much less buy him out.  And it's unlikely that you'd find someone else willing to replace him under those terms.  But your brother could construct things such that in the face of tragedy, you'd inherit his equity in the house.  If you're making the entire mortgage payment, that's a stable situation.   He's not at risk because he could take over the mortgage if necessary.  You're not at risk because you inherit his equity share and can afford the monthly payment.  So even in the face of tragedy, things can go on.  And that's important, as otherwise you could lose your equity in the house." Some part of the payment is probably also going for tax escrow, insurance payments, probably PMI if you aren't  putting at least 20% down. Get a complete breakdown of the costs. Remember to budget for upkeep. And please see past discussion of why buying a home at this point in your career/life may be very, very premature. A bigger down payment is good, because it insulates you from the swings in the real estate market.  If you get FHA loan with 3% down and end up being forced to move during a down market, you'll be in a real bind, as you'll need to scrape up some cash or borrow funds to get out of your mortgage. The more you put down now, the less money you are borrowing.  30yrs of interest adds up. Even paying a small amount at the beginning of the mortgage can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan. That's why you'll find advice to make extra mortgage payments in the beginning.  The question is: Do you have a better use for that money?   In particular, do you have any higher-interest debt (higher APR than your mortgage) that needs to be paid off?  You generally want to take care of those first.   Beyond that can you invest the extra down payment money elsewhere (eg stock market) and get a better return than your mortgage rate?  (don't forget about taxes on investment profits). If so, that money will do more good there. Good answer, I'm painfully aware of how much money that is for how long, but I think we're getting the runaround here. We're going to find a way to reduce that rate and increase our down payment. It's the only way I see of getting myself into a house A $250K earner might have $4M in retirement savings and $500K in available funds, but doesn't wish to spend all his liquidity on the house. In general, a house might cost 2-3 times one's annual income. It would take many years to get that saved up. They might want to have the house sooner.  It all goes back to choice, priorities, personal preference. I'm surprised to even hear this question with the current state of devaluation of real estate.  One thing I'll add to the other answers is to make sure you are doing a true apples/apples comparison to other investments when considering real estate. You can't just take subtract the purchase price from the sales price to get your ROI.  Real estate has very heavy carry costs that you need to factor into any ROI calculation including: One more point: A house that you live in shouldn't be considered an investment, but rather an expense. You have to be able to liquidate an investment and collect your return. Unless you plan to move back in with your parents, you are always going to need a place to live so you can never really cash out on that investment, except perhaps by downgrading your lifestyle or a reverse mortgage. "No one has addressed the fact that your loan interest and property taxes are ""deductible"" on  your taxes? So, for the first 2/3 years of your loan, you will should be able to deduct each year's mortgage payment off your gross income. This in turn reduces the income bracket for your tax calculation.... I have saved 1000's a year this way, while seeing my home value climb, and have never lost a down payment.  I would consider trying to use 1/2 your savings to buy a property that is desirable to live in and being able to take the yearly deduction off your taxes. As far as home insurance, most people I know have renter's insurance, and homeowner's insurance is not that steep.  Chances are a year from now if you change your mind and wish to sell, unless you're in a severely deflated area, you will reclaim at minimum your down payment." "From what I've read, paying down your mortgage -- above and beyond what you'd normally pay -- is indeed an investment but a very poor form of investment. In other words, you could take that extra money you'd apply towards your mortgage and put it in something that has a much higher rate of return than a house. As an extreme example, consider: if I took $6k extra I would have paid toward my mortgage in a single year, and bought a nice performing stock, I could see returns of 2x or 3x. Now, that implies I know which stock to pick, etcetera.. I found a ""mortgage or investment"" calculator which could be of use as well: http://www.planningtips.com/cgi-bin/prepay_v_invest.pl (scroll to bottom to see the summary and whether or not prepay or invest wins for the numbers you plugged in)" Save up a bigger downpayment.  The lender's requirement is going to be based on how much you finance, not the price of the house. "I second DJClayworth's suggestion to wait and save a larger down-payment.  I'll also add: It looks like you neglected to consider CMHC insurance in your calculation.  When you buy your first home with less than 20% down, the bank will require you to insure the mortgage. CMHC insurance protects the bank if you default – it does not protect you.  But such insurance does make a bank feel better about lending money to people it otherwise wouldn't take a chance on. The kicker is you would be responsible for paying the CMHC insurance that's protecting the bank.  The premium is usually added on to the amount borrowed, since a buyer requiring CMHC insurance doesn't, by definition, have enough money up front.  The standard CMHC premium for a mortgage with 5% down, or as they would say a ""95% Loan-to-Value ratio"" is 2.75%.  Refer to CMHC's table of premiums here. So, if you had a down-payment of $17,000 to borrow a remaining $323,000 from the bank to buy a $340,000 property, the money you owe the bank would be $331,883 due to the added 2.75% CMHC insurance premium. This added $8883, plus interest, obviously makes the case for buying less compelling.  Then, are there other closing costs that haven't been fully considered? One more thing I ought to mention: Have you considered saving a larger down-payment by using an RRSP?  There's a significant advantage doing it that way: You can save pre-tax dollars for your down-payment. When it comes time to buy, you'd take advantage of the Home Buyer's Plan (HBP) and get a tax-free loan of your own money from your RRSP. You'd have 15 years to put the money back into your RRSP. Last, after saving a larger downpayment, if you're lucky you may find houses not as expensive when you're ready to buy.  I acknowledge this is a speculative statement, and there's a chance houses may actually be more expensive, but there is mounting evidence and opinion that real estate is currently over-valued in Canada.  Read here, here, and here." "If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is ""pay cash now.""  A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too.  At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy.  Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage.  I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises).  That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it.  A very simple strategy to calculate and/or minimize this risk would be to invest the funds in another investment. If your rate of return exceeds the interest rate minus any tax preference (e.g. 4% minus say a 25% deduction = 3%), your money is better off there, obviously. And, indeed, when interest rates are only 4%, it may may be possible to find that. That said, in most instances, a CD or an inflation protected bond or so won't give you that rate of return. There, you'd need to look at stocks- slightly more risky. When interest rates are back to normal- say 5 or 6%, it gets even harder.  If you could, however, find a better return than the effective interest rate, it makes the most sense to do that investment, hold it as a hedge to pay off the mortgage (see, you get your security back if you decide not to work!), and pocket the difference. If you can't do that, your only real reason to hold the cash should be the cash flow situation." "Well, I suppose it depends on your idea of a ""lost cause"". Are you planning to lose the house to foreclosure?  If so, then yes, it's a lost cause.  Don't waste your money paying down the principal. In any other scenario* you should absolutely pay down the principal to the extent that you'd pay down any loan with nearly 9% interest (in other words, moderately aggressively). The fact is, you owe someone $265,000 unless you plan on losing the home to foreclosure.  You can manage the amount of interest you pay while you hold that debt by paying it down. * Short sale and bankruptcy would be special conditions as well, but not exactly the same effect as foreclosure."