Investment property refinance following a low appraisal?
Definitely don't borrow from your 401K.  If you quit or get laid off, you have to repay the whole amount back immediately, plus you are borrowing from your opportunity cost.  The stock market should be good at least through the end of this year.   As one of the commentators already stated, have you calculated your net savings by reducing the interest rate?  You will be paying closing costs and not all of these are deductible (only the points are).  When calculating the savings, you have to ask yourself how long you will be hanging on the property?  Are you likely to be long term landlords, or do you have any ideas on selling in the near future?   You can reduce the cost and principal by throwing the equivalent of one to two extra mortgage payments a year to get the repayment period down significantly (by years).  In this way, you are not married to a higher payment (as you would be if you refinanced to a 15 year term).   I would tend to go with a) eat the appraisal cost, not refinance, and b) throw extra money towards principal to get the term of the loan to be reduced. The new payment on $172,500 3.5% 15yr would be $1233/mo compared to $1614/mo now (26 bi-weekly payments, but 12 months.) Assuming the difference is nearly all interest, the savings is closer to $285/mo than 381.  Note, actual savings are different, the actual savings is based on the difference in interest over the year. Since the term will be changing, I'm looking at cash flow, which is the larger concern, in my opinion.    $17,000/285 is 60 months. This is your break even time to payoff the $17000, higher actually since the $17K will be accruing interest.  I didn't see any mention of closing costs or other expenses. Obviously, that has to be factored in as well.  I think the trade off isn't worth it. As the other answers suggest, the rental is too close to break-even now. The cost of repairs on two houses is an issue. In my opinion, it's less about the expenses being huge than being random. You don't get billed $35/mo to paint the house. You wake up, see too many spots showing wear, and get a $3000 bill. Same for all high cost items, Roof, HVAC, etc.  You are permitted to borrow 50% of your 401(k) balance, so you have $64K in the account. I don't know your age, this might be great or a bit low. I'd keep saving, not putting any extra toward either mortgage until I had an emergency fund that was more than sufficient. The fund needs to handle the unexpected expenses as well as the months of unemployment. In general, 6-9 months of these expenses is recommended.  To be clear, there are times a 401(k) loan can make sense. I just don't see that it does now.  (Disclaimer - when analyzing refis there are two approaches. The first is to look at interest saved. After all, interest is the expense, principal payments go right to your balance sheet. The second is purely cash flow, in which case one might justify a higher rate, and going from 15 to 30 years, but freeing up cash that can be better deployed. Even though the rate goes up say 1/2%, the payment drops due to the term. Take that savings and deposit to a matched 401(k) and the numbers may work out very well.  I offer this to explain why the math above may not be consistent with other answers of mine.) If I was you I would not borrow from my 401K and shred the credit card offer.  Both are very risky ventures, and you are already in a situation that is risky.  Doing either will increase your risk significantly. I'd also consider selling the rental house.  You seem to be cutting very close on the numbers if you can't raise 17K in cash to refi the house.  What happens if you need a roof on the rental, and an HVAC in your current home?   My assumption is that you will not sell the home, okay I get it.  I would recommend either giving your tenant a better deal then the have now, or something very similar.  Having a good tenant is an asset.
You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%. "I had the same thing happen to my house. I bought it in 2011 for 137,000, which was the same as the FHA appraised value (because FHA won't guarantee a loan for more than their appraiser thinks its worth). January of last year, I get the letter from the tax office and see that my house has been assessed at only 122,000. I was shocked too, until I read a similar document that Phil told you to read. The short of it is, no matter what the tax assessor calls their calculation, it is an assessment. It was mass-produced along with everyone else's in your neighborhood by looking at its specs on paper (acreage, house square footage, age, beds/baths) and by driving by your home to see its general condition. The fact that your lawn may be less well-kept than the last time they drove by could have affected the decision a little. It's very unlikely to have been a major determinant of the assessment. The assessment value affects taxes, and taxes only. It is, in most states, a matter of public record, and so it could be used by a potential buyer to negotiate a lower price. However, everyone in the housing business knows that the assessed value is not the market value, and the buyer's agent will be encouraging their client to make a more realistic bid. This ""assessed value"" is not an ""appraisal value"". An appraisal is done by someone actually walking into and through your home, inspecting the general condition inside and out, to try to make a fair evaluation of what the home is actually worth. That number is almost always going to be more than the assessment value, because it takes into account all the amenities of the home; the current fixtures, the well-kept (or recently-replaced) flooring, the energy-efficient HVAC and hot water system, etc etc. It also takes into account recent comparables; what have other houses, with the same general statistics, the same amenities, relatively close in location, sold for recently? That will still generally be different from the true market value of the home. That value is nothing more or less than what a potential buyer will pay to have it at the time you decide to sell it, and that in turn depends 100% on your potential buyers' myriad situations. Someone may lowball even the assessed value because they're looking for a deal and hoping you're desperate; you just reject the offer. Someone may be looking at comparables indicating the house is maybe overpriced by $10k. You can counter and try to come to an agreement. Or, your potential buyer could work five minutes from your house, and be willing to pay at or above your asking price because the next best possibility is another 10 miles away. Since you aren't looking to sell the home, none of this matters, except to determine any escrow payments you might be making towards property taxes. Just keep making your mortgage payment, and don't worry about it. If you really wanted to, you could petition the state for a second opinion, but you think the value should be higher; if they agree with you, they'll raise the assessed value and you'll pay more in taxes. Why in the world would you want to do that?" In regards to the legal recourse, no there is none.  Also, despite your frustrations with Citi, it may not be their fault.  Mortgage companies are now forced to select appraisers (essentially at random) through 3rd party Appraisal Resource Companies (ARCs).  This randomization mandate from the government was issued in order to combat fraud, but it is really causing more trouble for homeowners because it took away appraiser accountability.  Basically, there's nothing we can do to fire an appraiser anymore.  I've had appraiser do terrible jobs, just blatantly wrong, and have gone the distance with the dispute process only to find they won't change the value.  My favorite real-life example came from an appraiser who got the bedroom count wrong (4 instead of 5); yet he took pictures of 5 bedrooms.  The one he excluded he stated it shouldn't count because it didn't have a closet.  Problem is, it DID have a closet.  I had the homeowner take pictures of all of the closets in his house, and send them in.  He still refused to change the count.  After close to 2 months of the dispute process, the ARC came in and changed the count, but did not chagne the value, stating that the room count didn't increase the sqft, and there would be no adjustment in value.  I was floored.  The only solution we had was to wait for the appraisal to expire, then order it again; which we did.  The new appraiser got the count right, and surprisingly (not really), it came in at the right value... In regards to the value necessary to avoid MI, they are likely using 80%, but it's not based on your current balance vs the value, it's based on the new loan amount (which will include costs, prepaids, skipped mortgage payments, etc) vs the value. Here are your options: Get a new appraisal.  If you are confident the value is wrong, go somewhere else and get a new appraisal. Restructure the loan.  Any competent Loan Officer would have noticed that you are very close to 80%, and should have offer you the option of splitting the mortgage into a 1st and 2nd loan.  Keeping the first loan at 80%, and taking out a 2nd for the difference would avoid MI. Best Regards, Jared Newton Streamline refinance is the way to go.  You don't have to stay with the same bank to do so either.  The big advantage of the streamline is the original appraisal is used for the refinance, so as long as you didn't have negative amortization(impossible in FHA anyways), you're good to go.  It will be much less paperwork and looser credit standards.  The ONLY downside is that upfront and monthly FHA mortgage insurance ticked up from where it was 2 years ago.  If you're under a 80% LTV however you won't have to worry about it. If I understand correctly you describe putting a hold on an appartment as such: A sum of money that you give to the owner of the appartment to let them hold it for you because you are probably going to rent. In case you back out of the deal, this money can mitigate the expected loss from turning down other candidates. After asking them to hold the appartment for you, you decided not to rent. Also, you used the bank to get back the hold sum. Regardless of the legal details, it seems very clear to me that after putting down a hold and walking away, you should not get the money back.  There may have been some things that distracted/confused you (call about the key), but if you actually look at the things that happened it seems both right and practical to pay them their reclaimed hold as soon as possible. Streamline refinance is the way to go.  You don't have to stay with the same bank to do so either.  The big advantage of the streamline is the original appraisal is used for the refinance, so as long as you didn't have negative amortization(impossible in FHA anyways), you're good to go.  It will be much less paperwork and looser credit standards.  The ONLY downside is that upfront and monthly FHA mortgage insurance ticked up from where it was 2 years ago.  If you're under a 80% LTV however you won't have to worry about it. "I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate?  Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble?  The ""pay early"" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to ""would you be happy with a long term 5% return?"" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than ""paid in full"" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily.  If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point.  Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free." In short, your scenario could work in theory, but is not realistic... Generally speaking, you can borrow up to some percentage of the value of the property, usually 80-90% though it can vary based on many factors.  So if your property currently has a value of $100k, you could theoretically borrow a total of $80-90k against it.  So how much you can get at any given time depends on the current value as compared to how much you owe.  A simple way to ballpark it would be to use this formula: (CurrentValue * PercentageAllowed) - CurrentMortgageBalance = EquityAvailable.     If your available equity allowed you to borrow what you wanted, and you then applied it to additions/renovations, your base property value would (hopefully) increase.  However as other people mentioned, you very rarely get a value increase that is near what you put into the improvements, and it is not uncommon for improvements to have no significant impact on the overall value.  Just because you like something about your improvements doesn't mean the market will agree. Just for the sake of argument though, lets say you find the magic combination of improvements that increases the property value in line with their cost.  If such a feat were accomplished, your $40k improvement on a $100k property would mean it is now worth $140k.  Let us further stipulate that your $40k loan to fund the improvements put you at a 90% loan to value ratio.  So prior to starting the improvements you owed $90k on a $100k property.  After completing the work you would owe $90k on what is now a $140k property, putting you at a loan to value ratio of ~64%.  Meaning you theoretically have 26% equity available to borrow against to get back to the 90% level, or roughly $36k.  Note that this is 10% less than the increase in the property value.  Meaning that you are in the realm of diminishing returns and each iteration through this process would net you less working capital. The real picture is actually a fair amount worse than outlined in the above ideal scenario as we have yet to account for any of the costs involved in obtaining the financing or the decreases in your credit score which would likely accompany such a pattern.  Each time you go back to the bank asking for more money, they are going to charge you for new appraisals and all of the other fees that come out at closing.  Also each time you ask them for more money they are going to rerun your credit, and see the additional inquires and associated debt stacking up, which in turn drops your score, which prompts the banks to offer higher interest rates and/or charge higher fees... Also, when a bank loans against a property that is already securing another debt, they are generally putting themselves at the back of the line in terms of their claim on the property in case of default.  In my experience it is very rare to find a lender that is willing to put themselves third in line, much less any farther back.  Generally if you were to ask for such a loan, the bank would insist that the prior commitments be paid off before they would lend to you.  Meaning the bank that you ask for the $36k noted above would likely respond by saying they will loan you $70k provided that $40k of it goes directly to paying off the previous equity line.