Home Co-ownership

[kap]

Doc wrote:
If B's credit is good and he's got the money, why not do it as a purchase of the home by B with the loan solely in B's name, followed by a lease of the premises to A with rent sufficient to cover B's loan payments, taxes and insurance?

B's credit is excellent and he has a steady income to take care of the mortgage payment that includes taxes and insurances but B doesn't have enough for a down payment and the loan he qualifies from the bank isn't that much more. Hence comes A's offer.

Doc wrote:
Consult an attorney for the fine-points, but the lease agreement can be structured to mimic the effects of one of those other arrangements with rules for assigning the burden of maintenance and the results of improvements, automatically renewing on the same terms (or making amendments) and giving A the right of first refusal if B decides to sell the place.

Good point!

[mattkime]

>>Until A or B has sex with C

C is for Cookie

[BernDog]

mattkime wrote:
>>Until A or B has sex with C

C is for Cookie

I didn't know hookers were still using names like that.

[Mac1337]

Fess up. Are you A or B?

[kap]

Neither but I know A who is a good friend.

EDIT: Got the letter mixed up.

[Seacrest]

No, no and no.
Road to Hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

If A is underwater, and there is no foreseeable hope of A hitting the lottery any time soon, A should play "Jingle Mail" and walk away.

If A has an equity cushion -- a rather LARGE equity cushion, A should sell ASAP, rent with the proceeds, and buy back the property for cash in a few years.

Forget anything you think you know about real estate, and ignore anything a Realtard® may tell you -- we are in uncharted territory right now. (The territory's been charted before, but not in our lifetimes.)

†The standard disclaimers regarding taking financial advice from random strangers on The Internets apply.

[kap]

Seacrest wrote:
No, no and no.
Road to Hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

If A is underwater, and there is no foreseeable hope of A hitting the lottery any time soon, A should play "Jingle Mail" and walk away.

If A has an equity cushion -- a rather LARGE equity cushion, A should sell ASAP, rent with the proceeds, and buy back the property for cash in a few years.

In other words, A would end up to be the biggest loser in this deal if B was to be the title holder. However, A could still reclaim ownership if a Quit Claim Deed was drawn.

Seacrest wrote:
Forget anything you think you know about real estate, and ignore anything a Realtard® may tell you -- we are in uncharted territory right now. (The territory's been charted before, but not in our lifetimes.)

†The standard disclaimers regarding taking financial advice from random strangers on The Internets apply.

:hail:

[Seacrest]

kap wrote:
In other words, A would end up to be the biggest loser in this deal if B was to be the title holder. However, A could still reclaim ownership if a Quit Claim Deed was drawn.

No.
Unless they are married, "B" should stay as far away from "A" as possible.

[davester]

How are you figuring that a bank is going to go along with this deal? The bank is the entity that owns the property. They will not lightheartedly agree to any nonstandard "A has loan, we add B to title" deal.

[modelamac]

A has to sell property to A and B. A and B have to get a new loan for the sale to go thru. A and B will be on both the mortgage and deed.

Or

A refinances the home for a longer term at a lower interest, and B is out of the picture.