Settling house with husband during divorce. Which of these two options makes the most sense?
Both are close, but two notes - amiable or not, I'd rather have a deal that ends now, and nothing is hanging over my head to get or pay money on a future sale.  401(k) money is usually pre-tax, so releasing me from $10K of home equity is of more value than the $10K in a 401(k) that would net me $7K or so.  As I commented to Joe, I'd focus on valuation. If your house is similar to those in the neighborhood, you might easily value it. If unique, the valuation may be tough. I'd spend a bit on an appraiser or two. Both seem to be reasonable. To decide you need to guess if the value of the house will go up or down between now and when you sell. If you think the value will go up - reach a calculation agreement now. If you think the value will go down - wait until the house is actually sold. So ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer chances... I think I understand the two scenarios Unless you are absolutely confident that you understand both scenarios - make sure your lawyer gets involved and explains them to you until you do understand. How about a third approach: Figure the buyout as above. Figure what percentage of the value of the house the buyout constitutes. When the house sells the other party gets that percentage of the sales price.
"You are ""pool[ing] the sales from both houses as downpayment on the new house."" But they are going to pay you rent.  Your question as it stands, just opens more questions. What, exactly is the ownership of the new house? If your's (and your wife's) was the money a gift?  Ignoring the gift, if that's what it is, and if the in-law suite is 25% of the house value, you have a rental. You claim 25% of the expenses, including property tax and mortgage interest, along with 25% of the utilities, unless their part has its own meters.  That's a start, if you add details, I may edit my answer. (Not to be pedantic, but whose parents are they. They can't be ""our in-laws,"" can they?)" I'm not going to speculate on the nature of your relationship with your wife, but the fact that you are worried about what would happen in the event of a divorce is a bit concerning.  Presumably you married her with the intent of staying together forever, so what's the big deal if you spend 50k upgrading the house you live in, assuming you won't get divorced? Now, if you really are worried about something happening in the future, you might want to seek legal advice about the content of the prenup.  I am guessing if the 400k were your assets before marriage, you have full claim to that amount in the event of a divorce*.  If you document the loan, or make some agreement, I would think you would have claim to at least some of the house's appreciation due to the renovations if they were made with your money*. *obligatgory IANAL There are many other good answers here, but I just wanted to note that it could be dangerous to rely on the changes in alimony and child support that you've mentioned. You have no way of predicting if your ex will lose her job or take the kids back more of the time. If you already have a house and mortgage and all of a sudden alimony and child support go up again, you could be in big trouble. Congrats on everything getting better, it sounds like you're dealing well with a crappy situation. Good luck! Well, it sounds like you have two options: 1) Continue to jointly own the house. 2) Compensate her for her equity and get the title transferred.  I hate to tell you this, but she is entitled to half of the equity regardless of how much she paid into it. That said, she is still on the hook equally for the loan amount, but it won't do you any good if she is not willing to pay. Also, option 2 probably isn't a good deal for your co-signer as she would still be liable for the entire loan loan (just as you are) regardless of the title. 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. 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. "In the short term what does it matter if she has poor credit?  Just let it ride and focus on the important things. In the long term the most important part is ""completing the divorce"".  That is separating all parts of her financial life from her ex-husband.  This might mean she takes possession of the house and has him off the loan, or she gets off the loan and this may mean forcing a sale. If there are children or alimony involved she needs to build her income to the point that paying child support or alimony does not impact her budget.  If she is on the receiving end, then she should budget so those items are bonus money and not counted on. She is flat broke and does not need to worry about borrowing money at this juncture.  In this case a low credit score is a blessing." The days are long gone when offered mortgages were simply based on salary multiples. These days it's all about affordability, taking into account all incomes and all outgoings. Different lenders will have different rules about what they do and don't accept as incomes; these rules may even vary per-product within the same lender's product list.  So for example a mortgage specifically offered as buy-to-let might accept rental income (with a suitable void-period multiplier) into consideration, but an owner-occupier mortgage product might not. Similarly, business rules will vary about acceptance of regular overtime, bonuses, and so on. Guessing at specific answers: #1 maybe, if it's a buy-to-let product, Note that these generally carry a higher interest rate than owner-occupier mortgages; expect about 2% more #2 in my opinion it's extremely unlikely that any lender would consider rental income from your cohabiting spouse #3 probably yes, if it's a buy-to-let product "I encourage you to think of this home purchase decision as a chance to buy into a community that you want your children to grow up in.  Try to find a place where you will be happy for the next 20 years, not just the next 2 or 7 years. In your situation, option 1 seems like a bad idea.  It will create an obstacle to having children, instead of establishing a place for them to grow up in. Option 2 is close to ""buying a house on a layaway plan"".  It offers the most financial flexibility.  It also could result in the best long-term outcome, because you will buy in an established area, and you will know exactly what quality house you will have.  But you and your fiancé need to ask yourselves some hard questions:  Are you willing to put up with the mess and hassles of remodelling?  Are you good at designing such projects?  Can you afford to pay for the projects as they occur?  Or if you need to finance them, can you get a HELOC to cover them? Especially if you and your fiancé do much of the work yourselves, break down the projects into small enough pieces that you can quickly finish off whatever you are working on at the time, and be happy living in the resulting space.  You do not want to be nagging your husband about an unfinished project ""forever"" -- or silently resenting that a project never got wrapped up.  I posted some suggestions for incrementally finishing a basement on the Home Improvement Stack Exchange. If you are up to the job of option 2, it is less risky than option 3.  Option 3 has several risks: You don't know what sort of people will live in the neighborhood 5 - 20 years from now.  Will the homes be owner-occupied?  Or rentals?  Will your neighbors care about raising children well?  Or will lots of kids grow up in broken homes?   Will the schools be good?  Disappointing?  Or dangerous?  Whereas in an established neighborhood, you can see what the neighborhood is currently like, and how it has been changing. Unless you custom-build (or remodel), you don't control the quality of the construction.  Some neighborhoods built by Pulte in the last 10 years were riddled with construction defects. You will be paying up-front for features you don't need yet.  You might never need some of them.  And some of them might interfere with what you realize later on might be better. In stable markets, new homes (especially ones with lots of ""upgrades"") often decline in value during the first few years.  This is because part of the value is in the ""newness"" and being ""up-to-date"" with the latest fads.  This part of the value wears off over time. Are the homes ""at the edge of town"" already within reasonable walking distance of parks, schools, church, grocery stores, et cetera?  Might the commute from the ""edge of town"" to work get worse over the next 5 - 20 years?" 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 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. I'm glad that you feel like being fair and equitable to your party. Other answerers are, of course, correct that being fair and equitable to your girlfriend is not in your best interests but that's not what you're trying to do here and I commend you for it. There is nothing that stops you drawing up a simple legal contract giving your girlfriend a share of the value of your house in return for her payments. Just get it signed and witnessed and checked over by a legal representative. You can include reasonable terms for the money to be paid back if you separate - perhaps when you sell the property or within two years of the breakup - that don't put you in immediate danger of losing the property. Just make clear that this contract is between you and her for a sum of money linked to the value of your house; it does not establish any legal claim on your house itself. A reasonable level for her to claim the property would be one half of the change in equity between when you start joint paying and when you separate - should that happen. As pointed out in a comment, it would be more natural to get a regular mortgage on the second house, which is essentially using the second house as collateral for its own loan.  If you are to use the first house, either mortgage it or get a home equity line of credit on it and use that money to buy the second house. The relative merits of the options may depend in part on where you live, whether or not you live in the homes, and the relative cost of the two properties.  For example, in the US, first and second homes get preferred tax treatment in addition to rates that are typically better than commercial loans (including mortgages for investment properties).  If you're going to get a better rate and pay less taxes on one option and not on the others, that's definitely something to weigh. If the homeowner knows the situation is hopeless, and the end result will be the loss of the home, jumping to the end result can be helpful. It is quicker, they don't spend as much time fighting a losing battle. Deed in Lieu of foreclosure is not so great for the borrower if the bank goes after them for the rest of the money owed. There can also be tax implications if the debt is forgiven. Though these issues also exist when the drawn out foreclosure option is done. For the bank. The longer the process the more the house deteriorates. The borrower may stop maintenance and may even vandalize the house. Getting their lock on the door quickly is important to them. They protect it, clean it, and prep it for sale right away. They also save on lawyer fees. They know that the moment they start the foreclosure process all money from the borrower stops, this can save thousands in carrying costs.  One issue will be how the accounting losses will be divided among the servicing company, and the investors. If the servicing company will make more money from the longer process they may not push for the quick settlement. If the opposite is true, they will be quickly on board.  For the new buyer, the issue with either foreclosure is that the longer process can result in greater hidden and visible damage. The heat pump may work, but the disgruntled homeowner stopped changing the filters the last six months. They may have also removed and damaged things on the way out. Other than that I don't see a big difference. Because the bank had lower costs involved in the foreclosure they might settle for a lower purchase price, but that might be hard to know. "I'm going to assume that by ""register the house in my name"" you mean that the house is legally yours. In that case there are a number of implications, tax and otherwise. You should also be very clear with your father about what happens when the house is sold. Do you give him back what he paid for it? Does he get all the value? What happens if the value has gone down? Some of this is down to Indian law, which I know nothing about. However all of these are red flags which you should consider before doing this. This is not legal advice in any jurisdiction."