Unmarried couple buying home, what are the options in our case?
"You've laid out several workable options.  You might try going to mortgage broker and looking at what offers you get each way.  I can say that it sounds like your partner will have a difficult time qualifying for a mortgage.  That puts you on the first and third options. Forget about ""building equity.""  You cannot rely on the house you're living in to provide a return on investment.  Housing is an expense, even if you own it outright.  Keep that in mind when you consider taking from the stream of money contributing to your retirement. This link is to a blog which really clarifies the ""rent vs. own, which is better?"" question.  The answer is, it depends on the individual and the location, and the blogger in the link explains how to answer that question for your situation.  One of the key advantages of ownership is that it gives you freedom to modify the interior, exterior, and grounds (limited by local building codes of course.)" "Personally I would advise only buying what you can afford without borrowing money, even if it means living in a tent. Financially, that is the best move. If you are determined to borrow money to buy a house, the person with income should buy it as sole owner. Split ownership will create a nightmare if any problems develop in the relationship. Split ownership has the advantage that it doubles the tax-free appreciation deduction from $250,000 to $500,000, but in your case my sense is that that is not a sufficient reason to risk dual ownership. Do not charge your ""partner"" rent. That is crazy." You are thinking about this very well.  With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract.  What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance?  If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person.  (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one.  The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own.    If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage.  Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic.
A few gadgets on credit is no replacement for a viable future, nor does it invalidate poverty.  It's easy to get a couple thousand dollars, but difficult to amass any significant amount of self sufficiency.  Besides that, it fucking sucks being poor.  If not for my PC I'd be forced to commit some very depraved acts upon various orifices of strangers.  Sure poor people might be able to get a couple of gadgets, but what we cannot get is decent healthcare, education (without massive debt), economic opportunity (without nepotism) and a home of our own (instead of renting from the landed gentry and having the bank own more than half the houses in our country). "At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts.  Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question.  I seek high return rather than protection of principal.  If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover.  But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like.  If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars).  Will you have low or high monthly  expenses?  Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties?   Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year.  You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund.  You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years.  You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times.  Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies.  There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities.  In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say ""how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire""?  The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future.  You are off to a good start.  Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting.  The rest will follow.  After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future." Buying a property and renting it out can be a good investment if it matches your long term goals.  Buying an investment property is a long term investment.  A large chunk of your money will be tied up with the property and difficult to access.  If you put your money into dividend producing stocks you can always sell the stock and have your money back in a matter of days this is not so with a property. (But you can always do a Home equity line of credit (HELOC)) I would also like to point out landlording is not a passive endeavor as JohnFx stated dealing with a tenant can be a lot of work.  This is not work you necessarily have to deal with, it is possible to contract with a property management company that would place tenants and take care of those late night calls.  Property management companies often charge 10% of your monthly rent and will eat a large portion of your profits.  It could be worth the time and headache of tenant relations.  You should build property management into you expenses anyway in case you decide to go that route in the future. There are good things about owning an investment property.  It can produce returns in a couple of ways. If you choose this route it can be lucrative but be sure to do your homework.  You must know the area you are investing very well.  Know the rent, and vacancy rates for Single family homes, look at multifamily homes as a way of mitigating risk(if one unit is vacant the others are still paying). "In some cases perhaps, but in others not.  Several homes near me were sold over and over again during the bubble years (at incrementally higher and higher sale prices) -- the last owners in nearly all cases defaulted and the banks (after dragging their feet for a couple of years) finally foreclosed and sold the homes off cheap.  In all but one of the ""distressed sale"" cases, the people buying the houses now ARE in fact moving into them as their primary home (the exception being a current resident who bought the adjacent home with the intentions of fixing it up &amp; renting it out, I believe at least initially to a family member); but in ALL cases (in no small part due to the fact that they were able to purchase the properties cheap) these new owners are investing substantial money into fixing them up (new roof &amp; gutters, new windows &amp; doors, paint and/or siding, often all new carpeting, some landscaping, etc).  Also, from the perspective of our homeowners association, all of these new people think our annual HOA fees are a ""bargain"", whereas the previous bubble-era ""homeowners"" (if, having invested almost nothing, they could truly be called that) did nothing but whine and complain (well, and once they began defaulting on their mortgages, they also defaulted on their HOA fees).  So it's a win-win for our neighborhood. We're getting good, solid residents who are planning on taking care of their properties... the exact opposite of what you are claiming.   (The ""house-flippers"" you decry were the ones buying with ""no money down"" during the bubble era -- and they nearly killed the neighborhood.)" "There are several areas of passive fraud by being unclear on what you are doing.  When a citizen buys a house, the mortgage lender wants all the details as to how the buyer rounded up the money.  That is so they can use their own formulas to assess the buyer's creditworthiness and the probability that the buyer will be able to keep up on payments, taxes and maintenance; or have they overextended themselves. The fraud is in the withholding of that info. By way of tricking them into making a favorable decision, when they might not have if they'd had all the facts.  Then there's making this sound all lovey-dovey, good intentions, no strings attached, no expectations. You're lying to yourself.  What you've actually done is put money between yourselves, because you have not laid down FAIR rules to cover every possibility.  You're not willing to plan for failure because you don't want to admit failure is possible, which is vain.  Once you leap into this bell jar, the uncertainty of ""what happens if..."" will intrude itself into everyone's thoughts, slowly corroding your relationship.  It's a recipe for disaster.  That uncertainty puts her in a very uncomfortable position.  She has to labor to make sure the issue doesn't explode, so she's tiptoeing around you to avoid fights.  Every fight, she'll wonder if you'll play the breakup card and threaten to demand the money back.  The money will literally come between you. This is what money does.  Thinking otherwise is a young person's mistake of inexperience.  Don't take my word on it, contact Suze Orman and see what she says. Your lender is also not going to like those poorly defined lovers' promises, because they've seen it all before, and don't want to yet again foreclose on a house that fighting lovers trashed.  (it's like, superhero battles are awesome unless you own the building they trashed.)  This thing can still be done, but to remove this fraud of wishful thinking, you need to scrupulously plan for every possibility, agree to outcomes that are fair and achievable, put it in writing and share it with a neutral third party.  You haven't done it, because it seems like it would be awkward as hell - and it will be! - Or it will test your relationship by forcing direct honesty about a bunch of things you haven't talked about or are afraid to - and it will! - And to be blunt, your relationship may not be able to survive that much honesty.  But if it does, you'll be in much better shape.   The other passive fraud is taxes.  By not defining the characteristics of the payment, you fog up the question of how your contribution will be taxed (if it will be taxed). A proper contract with each other will settle that.  (there's an argument to be made for involving a tax advisor in the design of that contract, so that you can work things to your advantage.)  As an example, defining the payment as ""rent"" is about the worst you could do, as you will not be able to deduct any home expenses, she will need to pay income tax on the rent, but she can cannot take landlord's tax deductions on anything but the fraction of the house which is exclusively in your control; i.e. none." Mostly ditto Pete B's answer. There's little you can do about closing costs. Some closing costs are government fees. There's nothing you can do about this. Sad and unfair as it is, taxes are not optional and not generally negotiable. Title insurance and fire insurance are required by the lender. Even if you're paying cash, you don't really want to skip on these. If your house burns down and you have no insurance ... well, if you're worried about saving a few hundred on your closing costs, I assume that losing $200,000 because your house burned down and you have no insurance would be a pretty bad thing. Title insurance protects you against the possibility that the seller doesn't really legally own the property, maybe a scam, more likely a mistake or a technicality. You can, and certainly should, shop around for a better deal on insurance. Last couple of housing transactions I made, title insurance was a one-time fee of around $200. (I'm sure this depends on the cost of the house, where you live, maybe other factors.) Maybe by shopping around I could have saved $10 or $20, but I doubt there's someone out there charging $50 when everyone else is charging $200. Fire insurance you're probably paying a couple of thousand a year, more opportunity for savings. Typically the buyer and the seller each have a realtor and they split the fee. If you go without a realtor but the seller hires one, she'll keep the entire fee. So the only way to avoid this expense is if neither of you has a realtor. I've never done that. Realtors cost a ton of money but they provide a useful service: not only helping you find a house but also knowing how to deal with all the paperwork. Plenty of people do it, though. I presume they get the title agency or the bank or somebody to help with the paperwork. There are also discount realtors out there who don't show your home, do little or nothing to market it, basically just help you with the paperwork, and then charge a very low fee. Timing closing for a certain day of the month can reduce what you owe at closing time -- by reducing the amount of interest you pay on the first month's loan payment -- but it doesn't save you any money. You'll make it up over the course of the loan. You might possibly save some money by timing closing around when property taxes are due. Theoretically this shouldn't matter: the theory is that they pro-rate property taxes between buyer and seller so each pays the taxes for the time when they own the house. So again, you might need less cash at closing but you'll make it up the next time property taxes are due. But the formulas the banks use on this are often goofy. Maybe if you live some place with high property taxes this is worth investigating. You could skip the inspection. But inspections I've had done generally cost about $500. If they found something that was a major issue, they might save you from buying a house that would cost tens of thousands in repairs. Or less dramatically, you can use the inspection report for leverage with the seller to get repairs done at the seller's expense. I once had an inspector report problems with the roof and so I negotiated with the seller that they would pay for a percentage of roof repair. I suppose if you're buying a house that you know is run down and will require major work, an inspection might be superfluous. Or if you know enough about construction that you can do an inspection yourself. Otherwise, it's like not buying insurance: sure, you save a little up front, but you're taking a huge risk. So what can you control? (a) Shop around for fire insurance. Maybe save hundreds of dollars. (b) Find a seller who's not using a realtor and then you don't use a realtor either. Save big bucks, 6 to 7% in my area, but you then have to figure out how to do all the paperwork yourself and you severely limit your buying options as most sellers DO use a realtor. Besides that, there's not much you can do. Ah ok. Sounds like you guys need to have a heart to heart. I'd consider setting up a contract with regards to execute a buy-out at a given date. It may require some compromise on both of your guys' side.  Good luck and Happy Cake day! I second (or fifth?) the answers of the other users in that this should have been foreseen and discussed prior to entering the partnership.  But to offer a potential solution: If the mortgage company allows you to assume the whole mortgage (big if) you could buy the other partner out. To determine what a fair buyout would be, take the current value of the house less the remaining mortgage to get the current equity. Half that is each partner's current gain (or potentially loss), and could be considered a fair buyout. At this point the partner realizes any gains made in the last 5 years, and from now on the whole house (and any future gains or losses) will be yours. Alternatively your partner could remain a full partner (if s/he so desires) until the house sells. You would see the house as a separate business, split the cost as you have, and you would pay fair market rent each month (half of which would come back to you). A third option would be to refinance the house, with you as a sole mortgage holder. To factor in how much your partner should receive out of the transaction, you can take his/her current equity and subtract half of the costs associated with the refi. I would also recommend both of you seek out the help of a real estate lawyer at this point to help you draft an agreement. It sounds like you're still on good terms, so you could see a lawyer together; this would be helpful because they should know all the things you should look out for in a situation like this. Good luck!