How can a person with really bad credit history rent decent housing?
This tale makes me sad the more I learn of it.  I am impressed with your dedication and caring for your ex-wife and particularly your kids; you seem like a good person from your questions. But you are tired and exasperated too.  You have every right to be.  The problem isn't how this woman can rent a new apartment (which there isn't a good way that won't screw over some unsuspecting landlord) but how to get this woman into conseling on a regular basis.  Not just money, but personal or group therapy. She honestly needs help and must face this problem herself otherwise these questions will never stop.  I know you mentioned this doesn't appear to be an option, anf maybe it isn't your job, but I. See your questions are much deeper than personal finance. I wish you the best and I really do admire your resolve to take care of your kids. She can find a landlord that doesn't do credit checks.  Maybe on Craigslist?  She may end up paying more, have a bigger security deposit, etc. She can get someone else (not you) to sit her down and explain to her frankly that she's messing things up for herself and her children by being a poor manager of her finances.  As her credit score improves, more opportunities will open up for her. Co-signing the loan is an option, but I do think you're wise not to do that. Having been recently evicted she is unlikely to find any one willing to rent to her at anything close to reasonable terms.  Any landlord that would consider it is likely to require a huge deposit. Her best solution may be a hotel/motel with weekly/monthly rates.  It is generally much easier to get someone out of a hotel/motel for non payment than it is an actual apartment with a lease and landlord-tenant laws.  But when you pay they take care of all utilities, and you can receive mail and register them as your permanent address for finding employment. Any other place that is willing to take someone who they know is a high risk for nonpayment/eviction is probably not going to be the type of place you want your children. "I saw where you said ""I thought of co-signing is if a portion of child/spousal support goes directly to the landlord. I asked the Child Support Services (who deduct money from my paycheck monthly to pay support to my ex) and they told me that they are not authorized to do this.""  I know going back to court isn't a pleasant thought, but from the looks of things, your suggestion is the only way to accomplish this. It's ridiculous for anyone to suggest you keep up your payments and cosign, yet the ex has no obligation to use that income to actually pay her rent. From what you've said, she sounds irresponsible and self-destructive.  As someone who has had bad tenants, I'd not go near her, even with a cosigner. It's just not worth the risk." "I don't think you've mentioned which State you're in. Here in Ontario, a person who is financially incapable can have their financial responsibility and authority removed, and assigned to a trustee. The trustee might be a responsible next of kin (as her ex, you would appear unsuitable: that being a potential conflict of interest); otherwise, it can be the Public Guardian and Trustee. It that happens, then the trustee handles the money; and handles/makes any contracts on behalf of (in the name of) the incapable person. The incapable person might have income (e.g. spousal support payments) and money (e.g. bank accounts), which the trustee can document in order to demonstrate credit-worthiness (or at least solvency). For the time being, the kids see it as an adventure, but I suspect, it will get old very fast. I hope you have a counsellor to talk with about your personal relationships (I've had or tried several and at least one has been extraordinarily helpful). You're not actually expressing a worry about the children being abused or neglected. :/ Is your motive (for asking) that you want her to have a place, so that the children will like it (being there) better? As long as your kids see it as an adventure, perhaps you can be happy for them. Perhaps (I don't know: depending on the people) too it's a good (or at least a better) thing that they are visiting with friends and relatives; and, a better conversational topic with those people might be how they show your children a good time (instead of your ex's money). One possible way I thought of co-signing is if a portion of child/spousal support goes directly to the landlord. I asked the Child Support Services (who deduct money from my paycheck monthly to pay support to my ex) and they told me that they are not authorized to do this. Perhaps (I don't know) there is some way to do that, if you have your ex's cooperation and a lawyer (and perhaps a judge). You haven't said what portions of your payments are for Child support, versus Spousal support (nor, who has custody, etc). If a large part of the support is for the children, then perhaps the children can rent the place. (/wild idea) Note that, in Ontario, there are two trusteeship decisions to make: 1) financial; and 2) personal care, which includes housing and medical. Someone can retain their own 'self-care' authority even if they're judged financially incapable (or vice versa if there's a personal-care or medical decision which they cannot understand). The technical language is, ""Mentally Incapable of Managing Property"" This term applies to a person who is unable to understand information that is relevant to    making a decision or is unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a    decision or lack of decision about his or her property. Processes for certifying an    individual as being mentally incapable of managing property are prescribed in the SDA (Substitute Decisions Act), and in the Mental Health Act."" The Mental Heath Act is for medical emergencies (only); but Ontario has a Substitute Decisions Act as well. An intent of the law is to protect vulnerable people. People may also acquire and/or name their own trustee and/or guardian voluntarily: via a power of attorney, a living will, etc. I don't know: how about offering the landlord a year's rent in advance, or in trust? I guess that 1) a court order can determine/override/guarantee the way in which the child support payments are directed 2) it's easier to get that order/agreement if you and your ex cooperate 3) there are housing specialists in your neighborhood: They can buy housing instead of renting it. Or be given (gifted) housing to live in." Explain the situation to a landlord and offer to prepay a few months of rent in advance as a guarantee.  This may or may not work, but being honest and committed may just be the answer. Here's some ideas: Hope that helps.
"You're definitely not the first to pose this question.  During the peak of the housing crisis I noticed a decent amount of very high dollar properties get abandoned to their fates.  Individuals who can afford the mortgage on a 5 million dollar home don't necessarily need their credit to survive so it made more sense to let the asset (now a liability) go and take the hit on their credit for a few years. Unsecured debt, as mentioned is a little trickier because its backed by default by your personal estate.  If the creditor is active they will sue you and likely win unless there are issues with their paperwork.   Thing is though, you might escape some impacts of the debt to your credit rating and you might not ""need"" credit, but if you were to act as a wealthy person and not ""new money"" you would observe the significant value of using credit. credit allows you to leverage your wealth and expand the capacity of your money to import your overall wealth picture.  It may prove best to learn that and then make more wealth on your winnings than take the short sighted approach and welch on the debt." Talk to the property manager and explain your situation. They may be more willing to work with you than you think. At the very least they will tell you if you should even bother filling out the application. In most cases they are obligated to do a background and credit check so you will have to provide them with the required information one way or another. What they are really looking for is your ability to pay the rent. Property managers take a lot more things into consideration than a mortgage company would for a loan. If you have a history of paying on time in the past (a reference from a previous landlord perhaps) and if you show proof of the ability to pay now and in the future they will usually take that into consideration regardless of what the credit check says. It all depends on how motivated they are to fill the rental and how willing they are to take on a potential risk. Keep in mind property managers don't make money on empty rentals. How realistic is it that I will be able to get a home within the 250,000 range in the next year or so?  Very unlikely in the next year.  The debt/income ratio isn't good enough, and your credit score needs to show at least a year of regular payments without late or default issues before you can start asking for mortgages in this range. You don't mention how long you've been employed at these incomes, this can also count against you if you haven't both been employed for a full year at these incomes. They will look even more unfavorably on the employment situation if they aren't both full time jobs, although if you have a full year's worth of paychecks showing the income is regular then that might mitigate the full time/part time issue. next year or so? If you pay down your high interest debt (car, credit cards), and maintain employment (keep your check stubs and tax returns, the loan officer will want copies), then there's a slight chance. And, from this quick snap shot of our finances, does it look like we would be able to qualify for a USDA loan? Probably not.  Mostly for the same reasons - the only time a USDA loan helps is when you would be able to get a regular loan if you had the down payment. Even with an available down payment of 50k, you wouldn't be able to get a regular loan, therefore it's unlikely that you'd qualify for a USDA loan. If you are anxious to get into a house, choose something much smaller, in the 100k-150k range. It would improve your debt/loan ratio enough that you might then qualify for a USDA loan.  However, I think you'd still have issues if you haven't both been employed at this rate of income for at least a year, and have made regular payments on all your debts for at least a year. I'll echo what others have suggested, though, strengthen your credit, eliminate as much of your high interest debt as you can (car, credit cards), and keep your jobs for a year or two.  Start a savings plan so you can contribute a small down payment - at least 3-5% of the desired home price - when you are in a better position to buy. During this time keep track of your paycheck stubs, you may need them to prove income over the time period your loan officer will request. Note that even with a USDA loan you still have to pay closing costs, and those can run several thousand dollars, so don't expect to be able to come to the table with no cash. Lastly, there's good reason to be very conservative regarding house cost and size.  If you can, consider buying the house as if you only had the 46k per year.  Move the debt to the person making the lower income, and if you buy the house in the name of the person only making 46k per year, then the debt/loan ratio looks very positive.  Further it may be that the credit history of that person is better, and the employment history is better.  If one of you has better history in these ways, then you might have a better chance if only one of you buys the house.  Banks can't tell you about this, but it does work.  Keep in mind, though, that if you two part ways it could be very unhappy since one would be left with all the debt and the house would be in the other's name.  Not a great situation to be in, so make sure that you both carefully consider the risks associated with the decisions made. EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history.  While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price.  Both the buyer and the seller have to agree.   If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price.  If that isn't low enough, then readjust down.  I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly.  In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house.  If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells.  Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells.  I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells.  You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated.  Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental.  You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor.  If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal.  They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house.  Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house.  If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue.  It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own.  Before you extend your good name or credit think about it.  It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it.  This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving.  There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days.  If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement.  They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for.  You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose.  This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future.  Don't do this.  If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu.  There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems.  Talk to the bank and work out a deal. Many factors really. No loans but my HOA is $240 per month. Car is $292. I keep having my bikes stolen (mine twice and girlfriend's once within the past 4 months). I hit a pothole and tore a hole in my oil pan last week, AC broke a few months ago in my condo. I just can't get ahead but I'm hopeful. "Credit scores are not such a big deal in Canada as they are in the US and even some European countries.  One reason for this: the Social Insurance Number (SIN number) isn't used for so many purposes like the Social Security Number (SSN) in the US.  The SIN number isn't even required to get credit (but with some exceptions it is needed to open an interest-bearing savings account, so that the interest income can be reported).  You can refuse to provide the SIN number to most private companies. Canada also has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates of any large country, so new arrivals are expected, and services are geared up for them.  Most of the banks offer special deals for ""New Canadians"".  You should get a credit card (even if just a secured credit card) through them with one of these offers to start a credit file anyway, but there's no need to actually use it much.  Auto-paying a utility bill through the card, and paying it off in full each month, is one way to keep it active.  No need to ever pay any interest. Most major apartment rental firms will expect a good proportion of their renters to be new to Canada, so should have procedures in place to deal with it (such as a higher deposit).  You should not give them your SIN for a credit check, even when you're more established. Same for utilities, they can just charge a higher deposit if they can't credit check you.  For private landlords, everything is negotiable (but see the laws link at the end of this answer). You will later need a credit rating for a mortgage on a house (if not paying cash), so it's worth getting that one token credit card.  Useful for car rental also. Here's a fairly complete summary of the laws on renting in Canada, which includes the maximum deposits that can be asked for, and notice periods." I would say generally, the answer is No.   There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay.  This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture.  The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed.  Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests.  Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it?  This might mean taking several part time jobs.  Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible.  However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford.   People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home.  Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan.  Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means.  If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working.  This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people.  You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt.  Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards.  If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible.  Which one gets paid first.  Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation.  They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over).  There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters).     People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first.  Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc...  Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors.  They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt.  It is there and real despite many people noticing it.  There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank.  This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life.  I can tell you it is quite liberating. Honestly, the best way to manage this risk is to manage your savings appropriately. Many experts recommend that maintain a reasonably liquid account with 6-9x your minimum monthly expenses for just this occurrence. I know, easier said than done. Right? As for insurance, I can only speak for what is the case in the US. Here, most mortgages will require you to get PMI insurance until you have at least 20% equity in your house. However, that insurance only protects the BANK from losing money if you can't pay. It doesn't save you from foreclosure or ruining your credit.  Really, the type of insurance you are talking about is Unemployment insurance which all states in the US make available to workers via deductions from their paycheck.  The best advice, I suppose, is to keep your expenses low enough to cover them with an unemployment check until you have accumulated enough savings to get through a rough patch. That may mean buying a less expensive home, or just waiting until you have saved a bigger down payment. If you didn't plan ahead, and you are already in the house, another option might be to extend your mortgage. For example from a 20 to a 30 year to reduce your payments to a manageable level. A more risky option might be to convert to a variable rate loan temporarily, which typically carries a lower interest rate. However, it might be hard to secure a new loan if you don't currently have an income.