What things should I consider when getting a joint-mortgage?
The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that. "Your lack of numbers makes the question a difficult read.  What I'm hearing is ""I want a house requiring a mortgage 8X my income.""  This alone is enough to suggest it's a bad deal. On a personal note, when my wife and I bought our house, it was 2.5X our income. 20% down, so the mortgage was exactly 2X income. And my wife was convinced we were in over our heads.  The use of a partner who will take a portion of the profit is interesting, but doesn't change the fact that you are proposing to live in a house that costs far too much for you. If you are determined to buy such a house, I'd suggest you do it with the plan to rent out a room or two to roommates. If you are living in an area where the cost of buying is so high, the demand for rentals is likely high as well.  Absent a plan to bring ion more income, I see no good coming from this. Heed the warnings posted in the other two answers as well." this seems like a bad idea.  Example: You want to sell. He doesn't.  But he doesn't have enough money to buy you out. What will you do? You might want to sell because you need money, you have to move, you want to get married, you want to start a new business, etc. You two are not equals (you need a place to live), so this is unlikely to work. It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer. I do not agree that there is a conflict of interest in the lawyer acting for both parties - his role should only be for advice and to document what the two of you agree to. If you end up in dispute, then you need two lawyers. "This is more of a long comment but may answer user's situation too. I have dealt with joint mortgages before in 3 states in the US.  Basically in all three states if one party wants to sell, the home goes up for sale.  This can be voluntary or it can go up via auction (not a great choice). In 2 of the 3 states the first person to respond to the court about the property, the other party pays all legal fees.  Yes you read this right.  In one case I had an ex who was on my mortgage, she had no money invested in the house ($0 down and still in college with no job).  [If she wasn't on the mortgage I wouldn't have gotten loan - old days of dumb rules] When we split her lawyer was using the house as a way to extort other money from me.  Knowing the state's laws I already filed a petition for the property but put it on hold with the clerk.  Meaning that no one else could file but if someone tried mine would no longer be on hold.  My ex literally spent thousands of dollars on this attorney and they wanted to sell the house and get half the money from the house.  So sale price minus loan amount divided between us.  This is the law in almost every state if there is no formal contract.  I was laughing because she wanted what would be maybe 50-75K for paying no rent, no money down, and me paying for her college. Finally I broke her attorney down (I didn't lawyer up but had many friends who were lawyers advising).  After I told her lawyer she wasn't getting anything - might have said it in not a nice way - her lawyer gave me her break down.  To paraphrase she said, ""We are going to file now.  My assistant is in the court clerk's office.  You can tell the court whatever you want.  Maybe they will give you a greater percentage since you put the money down and paid for everything but you are taking that chance.  But you will pay for your lawyer and you will need one.  And you will pay for me the entire time.  And this will be a lengthy process.  You would be better served to pay my client half now."" Her office was about 2 blocks from court.  I laughed at her and simply told her to have her assistant do whatever she wanted.  I then left to go to clerk's office to take the hold off.  She had beat me to the office (I moved my car out of her garage).  By the time I got there she was outside yelling at her assistant, throwing a hissy fit, and papers were flying everywhere.  We ""settled"" the next day.  She got nothing other than the things she had already stolen from me.  If I wouldn't have known about this loophole my ex would have gotten or cost me through attorney's fees around 40-50K for basically hiring a lawyer.  My ex didn't really have any money so I am pretty sure lawyer was getting a percent. Moral of the story: In any contract like this you always want to be the one bringing in the least amount of money.  There are no laws that I know of in any country where the person with the least amount on a contract will come out worse (%-wise).  Like I said in the US the best case scenario that I know of for joint property is that the court pays out the stakeholder all of their contributions then it splits things 50/50.  This is given no formal contract that the court upholds.  Don't even get me started with hiring attorneys because I have seen the courts throw out so many property contracts it isn't even funny.  One piece of advice on a contract if you do one.  Make it open and about percentages.  Party A contributes 50K, Party B 10K, Party A will pay this % of mortgage and maintenance and will get this % when home is sold.  I have found the more specific things are the more loopholes for getting out of them. There are goofy ass laws everywhere that make no sense.  Why would the person first filing get their lawyers paid for???  The court systems in almost all countries can have their comical corners.   You will never be able to write a contract that covers everything.  If the shower handle breaks, who pays for it?  There is just too many one-off things with a house. You are in essence getting in a relationship with this person.  I hear others say it is a business transaction.   NO.  You are living with this person.  There is no way to make it purely business.  For you to be happy with this outcome both of you must remain somewhat friends and at the very least civil with each other.   To add on to the previous point, the biggest risk is this other person's character and state of mind.  They are putting in the most money so you don't exactly have a huge money risk.  You do have a time and a time-cost risk.  Your time or the money you do have in this may be tied up in trying to get your money out or house sold.  A jerk could basically say that you get nothing, and make you traverse the court system for a couple years to get a few thousand back. And that isn't the worst case scenario.  Always know your worst case scenario.  Yours is this dude is in love with you.  When he figures out 2-3 years later after making you feel uncomfortable the entire time that you are not in love with him, he starts going nuts.  So he systematically destroys your house.  Your house worth plummets, you want out, you can't sell the house for price of loan, lenders foreclose or look to sue you, you pay ""double rent"" because you can't live with the guy, and you have to push a scooter to get to work. That is just the worst case scenario.  Would I do this if I were 25 and had no family?  Yea, why not if I trusted the other person and was friends with them?  If it were just a co-worker?  That is really iffy with me.    Edit: Author said he will not be living with the person.  So wording can be changed to say ""potentially"" in front of living with him in my examples."
"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?" "If I were you, I would rent.  Wait to buy a home.  Here is why: When you say that renting is equal in cost to a 30-year mortgage, you are failing to consider several aspects.  See this recent answer for a list of things that need to be considered when comparing buying and renting. You have no down payment.  Between the two of you, you have $14,000, but this money is needed for both your emergency fund and your fiancée's schooling. In your words: ""we can’t reeaallllly afford a home.""  A home is a big financial commitment.  If you buy a home before you are financially ready, it will be continuous trouble.   If you need a cosigner, you aren't ready to buy a home.  I would absolutely advise whoever you are thinking about cosigning for you not to do so.  It puts them legally on the hook for a house that you can't yet afford. You aren't married yet.  You should never buy something as big as a home with someone you aren't married to; there are just too many things that can go wrong.  (See comments for more explanation.)  Wait until you are married before you buy. Your income is low right now.  And that is okay for now; you've been able to avoid the credit card debt that so many people fall into. However, you do have student loans to pay, and taking on a huge new debt right now would be potentially disastrous for you.  Your family income will eventually increase when your fiancée gets her degree and gets a job, and at that time, you will be in a much better situation to consider buying a house. You need to move ""ASAP."" Buying a house when you are in a hurry is a generally a bad idea. When you look for a home, you need to take some time looking so you aren't rushed into a bad deal that you will regret. Even if you decide you want to buy, you should first find a place to rent; then you can take your time finding the right house.  To answer your question about escrow: When you own a house, two of the required expenses that you will have besides the mortgage payment are property taxes and homeowner's insurance.  These are large payments that are only due once a year.  The bank holding the mortgage wants to make sure that they get paid.  So to help you budget for these expenses and to ensure that these expenses are paid, the bank will add these to your monthly mortgage payment, and set them aside in a savings account (called an escrow account).  Then when these bills come due once a year, they are paid for out of the escrow account." You want to buy a house for $150,000.  It may be possible to do this with $10,000 and a 3.5% downpayment, but it would be a lot better to have $40,000 and make a 20% downpayment.  That would give you a cushion in case house prices fall, and there are often advantages to a 20% downpayment (lower rate; less mandatory insurance).   You have an income of $35,000 and expenses of $23,000 (if you are careful with the money--what if you aren't?).  You should have savings of either $17,500 or $11,500 in case of emergencies.  Perhaps you simply weren't mentioning that.  Note that you also need at least $137 * 26 = $3562 more to cover mortgage payments, so $15,062 by the expenses standard.  This is in addition to the $40,000 for downpayment and closing costs.   What do you plan to do if there is a problem with the new house, e.g. you need a new roof?  Or smaller expenses like a new furnace or appliance?  A plumbing problem?  Damages from a storm?  What if the tenants' teenage child has a party and trashes the place?  What if your tenants stop paying rent but refuse to move out, trashing the place while being evicted?  Your emergency savings need to be able to cover those situations.   You checked comps (comparable properties).  Great!  But notice that you are looking at a one bathroom property for $150,000 and comparing to $180,000 houses.  Consider that you may not get the $235 for that house, which is cheaper.  Perhaps the rent for that house will only be $195 or less, because one bathroom doesn't really support three bedrooms of people.   While real estate can be part of a portfolio, balance would suggest that much more of your portfolio be in things like stocks and bonds.  What are you doing for retirement?  Are you maxing out any tax-advantaged options that you have available?  It might be better to do that before entering the real estate market.   I am a 23 year old Australian man with a degree in computer science and a steady job from home working as a web developer. I'm a bit unclear on this.  What makes the job steady?  Is it employment with a large company?  Are you self-employed with what has been a steady flow of customers?  Regardless of which it is, consider the possibility of a recession.  The company can lay you off (presumably you are at the bottom of the seniority).  The new customers may be reluctant to start new projects while their cash flow is restrained.  And your tenants may move out.  At the same time.  What will you do then?   A mortgage is an obligation.  You have to pay it regardless.  While currently flush, are you the kind of flush that can weather a major setback?  I would feel a lot better about an investment like this if you had $600,000 in savings and were using this as a complementary investment to broaden your portfolio.  Even if you had $60,000 in savings and would still have substantial savings after the purchase.  This feels more like you are trying to maximize your purchase.  Money burning a hole in your pocket and trying to escape.   It would be a lot safer to stick to securities.  The worst that happens there is that you lose your investment (and it's more likely that the value will be reduced but recover).  With mortgages, you can lose your entire investment and then some.  Yes, the price may recover, but it may do so after the bank forecloses on the mortgage. While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group.  (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.)  That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage.  IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan.  (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.)  That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine.  If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me.   I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements.  The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan.  That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan.  And vice-versa.  Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property. "With regard to worries about ownership:  I'll point you towards this - The Cohabitants Rights Bill currently in First Reading at the House of Lords. Without a date for even the second reading yet. In short the Bill is attempting to redress is the lack of rights when a non-married relationship ends when compared to married relationships; that is that one of the ""cohabitants"" can end up with basically nothing that they don't have their name on. So currently you're in the clear and (Part 2) Section 6.2.a says the Bill cannot be used retroactively against you if your relationship is over before it becomes law (I expect with Brexit etc, this Bill isn't a high priority - it's been a year since the first reading). Section 6.2.a: This Part does not apply to former cohabitants        where the former cohabitants have ceased living together as a        couple before the commencement date;    However, if you're still together if/when this Bill becomes Law then basically all of (Part 1) Section 2 may be relevant as it notes the conditions you will fall into this bill: Section 2.1.a: live together as a couple and Section 2.2.d: have lived together as a couple for a continuous        period of three years or more. and the ""have lived together"" at that point counts from the start of your cohabitation, not the start of the Bill being law:  Section 2.4.a: For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), in determining        the length of the continuous period during which two people have lived       together as a couple - any period of the relationship that fell before        the commencement date (of the Bill) is to be taken into account If you have kids at some point, you'd also fall under 2.2.a through 2.2.c too. After that, the financial parity decided upon by the court depends on a whole bunch of conditions as outlined in the Bill, but Section 8.1.b is pretty clear: Section 8.1.b: (b)the court is satisfied either—       (i)that the respondent has retained a benefit; or       (ii)40that the applicant has an economic disadvantage,       as a result of qualifying contributions the applicant has made I'm not qualified to say whether your partner helping to pay off your mortgage in lieu of paying rent herself would count as just paying rent or giving you an economic benefit. Sections 12, 13, and 14 discuss opt-outs, also worth a read. The a major disclaimer here in that Bills at this early stage have the potential to be modified, scrapped and/or replaced making this info incorrect. As an additional read, here's an FT article from Feb 2016 discussing this lack of rights of a cohabitant which should alleviate any current concerns." "So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the ""normal"" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years?  Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less?   If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property.  The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses.   Another way to think about it:  If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?" Here are some other things to consider: "Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka ""people to lug your stuff""). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)" You need a cosigner. Someone prepared to repay the mortgager if you should fail to. Needless to say this is going to have to be someone who knows you and trusts you very much. One way is to find someone prepared to share a house with you. Buy a bigger house than you would otherwise need. You would own half each, and the sharing agreement would specify that if one of you defaulted on their payments the other would get a larger share according to how much extra they end up paying. The other way is to find a silent partner, who doesn't live there. They put up no money unless you actually default. They would almost certainly have to be part owners, but you can structure the agreement so that you end up with the whole house if you succeed in paying off the mortgage, or miss no payments until you sell. Parents sometimes do this for their kids. "Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit.  The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be ""other than house debt"" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment.  PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering.  I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low.  By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?" 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. Timo's concern may be accurate, but talking to the bank is the next step.  If I am the banker, I'm happier that (a) there's 25% down, and (b) it's not an additional loan as some might get from a parent.  It's not that your parents have a lien for the 25% as a lender would, the structure is ownership, they own 25%. An important, if not obvious, distinction.  Timo is right that as an asset of the parents, the ownership stake is at risk if their finances run into issues. Other than that, so long as all is done above board, your proposal can work. The bank will want your parents to sign the note of course, you can't mortgage property you don't fully own. A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan.  Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have.  If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin. "Because this question seems like it will stick around, I will flesh out my comments into an actual answer. I apologize if this does not answer your question as-asked, but I believe these are the real issues at stake. For the actual questions you have asked, I have paraphrased and bolded below: Firstly, don't do a real estate transaction without talking to a lawyer at some stage [note: a real estate broker is not a lawyer]. Secondly, as with all transactions with family, get everything in writing. Feelings get hurt when someone mis-remembers a deal and wants the terms to change in the future. Being cold and calculated now, by detailing all money in and out, will save you from losing a brother in the future. ""Should my brother give me money as a down payment, and I finance the remainder with the bank?"" If the bank is not aware that this is what is happening, this is fraud. Calling something a 'gift' when really it's a payment for part ownership of 'your' house is fraud. There does not seem to be any debate here (though I am not a lawyer). If the bank is aware that this is what is happening, then you might be able to do this. However, it is unlikely that the bank will allow you to take out a mortgage on a house which you will not fully own. By given your brother a share in the future value in the house, the bank might not be able to foreclose on the whole house without fighting the brother on it. Therefore they would want him on the mortgage. The fact that he can't get another mortgage means (a) The banks may be unwilling to allow him to be involved at all, and (b) it becomes even more critical to not commit fraud! You are effectively tricking the bank into thinking that you have the money for a down payment, and also that your brother is not involved! Now, to the actual question at hand - which I answer only for use on other transactions that do not meet the pitfalls listed above: This is an incredibly difficult question - What happens to your relationship with your brother when the value of the house goes down, and he wants to sell, but you want to stay living there? What about when the market changes and one of you feels that you're getting a raw deal?  You don't know where the housing market will go. As an investment that's maybe acceptable (because risk forms some of the basis of returns). But with you getting to live there and with him taking only the risk, that risk is maybe unfairly on him. He may not think so today while he's optimistic, but what about tomorrow if the market crashes? Whatever the terms of the agreement are, get them in writing, and preferably get them looked at by a lawyer. Consider all scenarios, like what if one of you wants to sell, does the other have the right to delay, or buy you out. Or what if one if you wants to buy the other out? etc etc etc. There are too many clauses to enumerate here, which is why you need to get a lawyer." 3 years ago I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question by a fellow blogger in my state.  What I focused on was the way banks qualify you for a loan, a percentage for the housing cost, and a higher number that also comprises all other debt. If the goal is speed-to-purchase, you make minimum payments on the student loan, and save for the $100K downpayment as fast as you can.  The question back to you is whether the purchase is your priority, and how debt averse you are. I'd caution, if you work for a company with a matched 401(k), I'd still deposit to the match, but no more.  Personal finance is just that, personal. We don't know your entire situation, your current rental expenses vs your total condo cost when you buy. If you are in a location where renting costs far more than your cost of ownership, Ben might change his mind a bit. If the reverse is true, you're living a college student's lifestyle with a room costing $400/mo sharing a house with friends, I'll back off and say to pay the loan and save until you can't tolerate the situation. You'll find there are few situations that have a perfect answer without having all the details.