I don’t know if this applies in the US but multiple people can take out a mortgage against the same property. If you have 3/4 trustworthy friends then you can pool your money to buy a place. It’s complicated but better to invest your money in your own property than to line the pockets of cunt landlords and letting agents.
That would require people to have three to four close friends that could tolerate their presence. That’s an exceedingly rare thing in the US as we’re mostly all intolerable cunts.
Also, it would require every friend to have savings to put down a down payment and also credit good enough to actually qualify. That’s on top of finding 3 or 4 friends you’re willing to live with.
4 people with 5k each can get almost 20% down on a 350k propery. Thats pretty decent except in the most expensive cities. 10k is harder but with 4 people would let you buy pretty much anywhere.
And with that many people on the loan a lot of banks would let you put less down. 15% has become really common even for single income buyers and special programs like CRA exist to let you go down to 10% even in coastal cities. My house was in the CRA program zone and it’s only 1 mile from the beaches and downtown. CRA has no limits on number of shared buyers.
Maybe first-time home buyer programs? But those are like 3% typically so it wouldn’t get you there and that’s before including closing costs, moving costs, and possible repairs.
Not to mention 3 or 4 ppl that can and will reliably make mortgage payments for 15 or more likely 30 years. Once someone drops out because of life events then they’ll want to be bought out by the next person which introduces a whole bunch of headaches. Having watched this exact thing play out, this will most likely turn into a bitter nightmare of endless paperwork and some ruined relationships.
This is called tenency in common. I’m unaware of it being illegal in any states and a cursory search brought up nothing. Do you have any leads you can share?
I see it now. I’m looking at tenancy in common based on the original comment, you (and presumably the previous commenter) are talking about unrelated occupancy provisions. One is about co-owning, the other is about cohabitating.
This is exactly why people DO use exact language, despite your utterly bizarre insistence otherwise - because those that don’t confuse the rest of us with their shitty communication.
“You no one use right word, too big. Use small normal word like me, me big big smart, good Google hunter. Me find many result. No end.” Seralth reaches into his loincloth, scratches his scrotum, then vigorously snuffles at his fingertips, oblivious of the glob of spittle making its way down his dirt smeared chin.
Yours has to be the most American comment I’ve seen this morning. BTW, you’re literally using literally incorrectly.
Co-ownership is kind of a horrible idea overall. What happens when one of the 4 people wants to use the property as collateral for a loan?
Not to mention that this promotes increase in property costs without fixing the issue. If the norm is to continue pooling money between individuals then real estate can continue to raise prices. Then you just need 6 friends 10 friends 14 friends etc. we need a market crash and we need corporate residential ownership to be heavily regulated.
wants to use the property as collateral for the loan
Nothing major honestly. If they default, they would lose their stake in the claim. Since they don’t own the entire house, the bank couldn’t foreclose but they could assume ownership of their portion of the loan. The bank would view it more like a financial instrument rather than a real property.
From experience, basically no banks take collateral on co-owned homes. You probably won’t run into problems like that specifically. You can also easily structure an agreement with a lawyer. In many states you have to have an attorney to buy a home anyway (CT, MA, GA, DE, KY, LA, MD, MI, NH, ND, OK, RI, VT, WV, WO). We used ours to write and tack on the equivalent of an HOA arrangement you’d see in a condominium for our shared rooms.
I do find it amusing we have redditors arguing landlords should be illegal and others arguing co-ownership is a bad idea. Yes, let’s build millions of single room houses for everyone who is single that span the entire continent.
Contact an attorney to draft a trust where you all share equity at an amount you all agree to. The terms of the trust should indicate how someone sells their interest and what happens upon default, etc.
The trust buys the property and owns it. Ownership is managed through the trust.
The hardest part is qualifying for a loan. You’re essentially operating as a business and most home loans are designed for people and couples.
I’m not 100% certain what our attorney did to structure our trust but we were able to do this without the trust having to buy the house itself and still could utilize a CRA loan program loan from a traditional bank and avoid PMI at a lower down payment.
I knew people who did this after college with an apartment building. Not sure that’s feasible these days but that seems like it would be much easier to transition out of than a roommate situation.
Hah what are you going to do, buy a house instead? We’re all fucked once this is the norm.
I haven’t really had any delusions that I’ll ever be able to afford to buy a house anyway, but I’m kind of at the point where I don’t even want to.
I don’t know if this applies in the US but multiple people can take out a mortgage against the same property. If you have 3/4 trustworthy friends then you can pool your money to buy a place. It’s complicated but better to invest your money in your own property than to line the pockets of cunt landlords and letting agents.
That would require people to have three to four close friends that could tolerate their presence. That’s an exceedingly rare thing in the US as we’re mostly all intolerable cunts.
Also, it would require every friend to have savings to put down a down payment and also credit good enough to actually qualify. That’s on top of finding 3 or 4 friends you’re willing to live with.
4 people with 5k each can get almost 20% down on a 350k propery. Thats pretty decent except in the most expensive cities. 10k is harder but with 4 people would let you buy pretty much anywhere.
And with that many people on the loan a lot of banks would let you put less down. 15% has become really common even for single income buyers and special programs like CRA exist to let you go down to 10% even in coastal cities. My house was in the CRA program zone and it’s only 1 mile from the beaches and downtown. CRA has no limits on number of shared buyers.
350,000 x 0.20= 70,000
70,000 / 4 = 17,500
17,500 - 5000 = 12,500
Each person would need 17,500 for a 20% down payment, 12,500 more than the 5000 quote.
Do you think that 20% of $350k is about $20,000? I feel like I’m missing something important here .
Maybe first-time home buyer programs? But those are like 3% typically so it wouldn’t get you there and that’s before including closing costs, moving costs, and possible repairs.
Except they explicitly said “nearly 20%”. Which is blatantly false. Terrible at basic math. And this is why people will remain poor
Not to mention 3 or 4 ppl that can and will reliably make mortgage payments for 15 or more likely 30 years. Once someone drops out because of life events then they’ll want to be bought out by the next person which introduces a whole bunch of headaches. Having watched this exact thing play out, this will most likely turn into a bitter nightmare of endless paperwork and some ruined relationships.
And bam, new laws come out that makes it illegal for more than X people who aren’t related to each other to share a home.
This is actually a thing in many places so people can’t do what you just described, isn’t American Freedumb so beautiful
This is called tenency in common. I’m unaware of it being illegal in any states and a cursory search brought up nothing. Do you have any leads you can share?
Stop searching using the correct legal term
Literally no one talks like that, and thus no articles will pull up. Use normal words.
A search using normal people words pulls up endless articles and links on Google on this topic.
I see it now. I’m looking at tenancy in common based on the original comment, you (and presumably the previous commenter) are talking about unrelated occupancy provisions. One is about co-owning, the other is about cohabitating.
This is exactly why people DO use exact language, despite your utterly bizarre insistence otherwise - because those that don’t confuse the rest of us with their shitty communication.
Yours has to be the most American comment I’ve seen this morning. BTW, you’re literally using literally incorrectly.
I searched “illegal for more than X people who aren’t related to each other to share a home” and came up with quite a bit.
I imagine many of those are ordinances intended to regulate fraternities and sororities—or similar college student shared housing situations.
LOL, look up “brothel laws”. :)
And typically unenforceable.
Co-ownership is kind of a horrible idea overall. What happens when one of the 4 people wants to use the property as collateral for a loan?
Not to mention that this promotes increase in property costs without fixing the issue. If the norm is to continue pooling money between individuals then real estate can continue to raise prices. Then you just need 6 friends 10 friends 14 friends etc. we need a market crash and we need corporate residential ownership to be heavily regulated.
Nothing major honestly. If they default, they would lose their stake in the claim. Since they don’t own the entire house, the bank couldn’t foreclose but they could assume ownership of their portion of the loan. The bank would view it more like a financial instrument rather than a real property.
Millions of tiny houses isn’t the worst idea.
From experience, basically no banks take collateral on co-owned homes. You probably won’t run into problems like that specifically. You can also easily structure an agreement with a lawyer. In many states you have to have an attorney to buy a home anyway (CT, MA, GA, DE, KY, LA, MD, MI, NH, ND, OK, RI, VT, WV, WO). We used ours to write and tack on the equivalent of an HOA arrangement you’d see in a condominium for our shared rooms.
I do find it amusing we have redditors arguing landlords should be illegal and others arguing co-ownership is a bad idea. Yes, let’s build millions of single room houses for everyone who is single that span the entire continent.
More apartments, town houses and better residential and commercial integration communities would help a lot
Going full neet and building endless and countless single person dwellings and nothing else with no other changes is beyond stupid tho.
Create a trust instead.
Contact an attorney to draft a trust where you all share equity at an amount you all agree to. The terms of the trust should indicate how someone sells their interest and what happens upon default, etc.
The trust buys the property and owns it. Ownership is managed through the trust.
The hardest part is qualifying for a loan. You’re essentially operating as a business and most home loans are designed for people and couples.
I’m not 100% certain what our attorney did to structure our trust but we were able to do this without the trust having to buy the house itself and still could utilize a CRA loan program loan from a traditional bank and avoid PMI at a lower down payment.
I knew people who did this after college with an apartment building. Not sure that’s feasible these days but that seems like it would be much easier to transition out of than a roommate situation.