What is the meaning of Equal Housing Lender? Do non-banks need to display it?
At the top result of the Google search, on the Google results page it's sumarized as applicable to every lender participating in FDIC: The terms equal housing lender and equal opportunity lender are synonymous and refer to all banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in the United States. Such banks are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, or familial status. If a bank is evaluating a persons qualifications to qualify for a loan they have to follow the FDIC and HUD guidelines for equal opportunity credit. If they offer mortgages they will use the phrase equal housing. from the lending club website (fine print area): 2 This depiction is a summary of the processes for obtaining a loan or   making an investment. Loans are issued by WebBank, an FDIC insured   Utah-chartered industrial bank located in Salt Lake City, Utah, Equal   Housing Lender. Investors do not invest directly in loans. Investors   purchase Member Dependent Notes from Lending Club. Loans are not   issued to borrowers in IA and ID. Individual borrowers must be a US   citizen or permanent resident and at least 18 years old. Valid bank   account and social security number/FEIN are required. All loans are   subject to credit review and approval. Your actual rate depends upon   credit score, loan amount, loan term, credit usage and history.   LendingClub notes are issued pursuant to a Prospectus on file with the   SEC. You should review the risks and uncertainties described in the   Prospectus related to your possible investment in the notes. Currently   only residents of the following states may invest in Lending Club   notes: AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA,   MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, NV, NY, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT,   VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, or WY. Our mailing address is: Lending Club, 71   Stevenson, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105.
The ownership of the house depends on what the original deed transferring title at the time of purchase says and how this ownership is listed in government records where the title transfer deed is registered. Hopefully the  two records are consistent.  In legal systems that descended from British common law (including the US), the two most common forms of ownership are tenancy in common meaning that, unless otherwise specified in the title deed, each of the owners has an equal share in the entire property, and can sell or bequeath his/her share without requiring the approval  of the others, and joint tenancy with right of survivorship meaning  that all owners have equal share, and if one owner  dies, the survivors form a new JTWROS. Spouses generally own property,  especially the home, in a special kind of JTWROS called tenancy by the entirety. On the other hand, the rule is that unless explicitly specified otherwise, tenancy in common with equal shares is how the owners hold the property. Other countries may have different default assumptions, and/or have multiple other forms of ownership (see e.g. here for the intricate rules applicable in India). Mortgages are a different issue. Most mortgages state that the mortgagees are jointly and severally liable for the mortgage  payments meaning that the mortgage holder does not care who makes the payment but only that the mortgage payment is made in full. If one owner refuses to pay his share, the others cannot send in their shares of the mortgage payment due and tell the bank to sue the recalcitrant co-owner for his share of the payment: everybody is liable (and can be sued) for the unpaid amount, and if the bank forecloses, everybody's share in the property is seized, not just the share owned by the recalcitrant person.  It is, of course, possible to for different co-owners to have separate mortgages for their individual shares, but the legalities (including questions such as whose lien is primary and whose secondary) are complicated. With regard to who paid what over the years of ownership, it does not matter as far as the ownership is concerned. If it is a tenancy in common with equal shares, the fact that the various owners paid the bills (mortgage payments, property taxes, repairs and maintenance) in unequal amounts does not  change the ownership of the property unless a new deed is recorded with the new percentages.  Now, the co-owners may decide among themselves as a matter of fairness that any money realized from a sale of the property should be divided up in accordance with the proportion that each contributed during the ownership, but that is a different issue. If I were a buyer of property titled as tenancy in common, I (or the bank who is lending me money to make the purchase) would issue separate checks to each co-seller in proportion to the percentages listed on the deed of ownership, and let them worry about whether they should transfer money among themselves to make it equitable. (Careful here! Gift taxes might  well be due if large sums of money change hands). "I am going to respond to a very thin sliver of what's going on.  Skip ahead 4 years. When buying that house, is it better to have $48K in the bank but a $48K student loan, or to have neither?  That $48K may very well be what it would take to put you over the 20% down payment threshhold thus avoiding PMI. Banks let you have a certain amount of non-mortgage debt before impacting your ability to borrow. It's the difference between the 28% for the mortgage, insurance and property tax, and the total 38% debt service.  What I offer above is a bit counter-intuitive, and I only mention it as you said the house is a priority. I'm answering as if you asked ""how do I maximize my purchasing power if I wish to buy a house in the next few years?""" Assuming a good credit score with no issues like bankruptcy they look at 2 ratios: housing related debts and non-housing debts. For you the housing debts are: principal and interest ($1986/month), property taxes ($490/month), Home Insurance ($120/month) and HOA fee ($120/month). Add these up ($2716/month). You want this to be below 28% of your gross, though some lenders use 33%. For you 109K/year is 9083/month or 29.9%. The 20% down payment saves you the PMI payments. Note that the deductions for interest and taxes already hidden in the ratio limits, so don't try to reduce the monthly impact by a expected deduction. Many lenders will require you to give them the money from taxes and insurance each month, they will forward the funds to the government of insurance policy when the bills are due. The 2nd ratio is for the non-housing debts, which you claim to be zero. That should be less than 10%. If they insist on keeping you below 28% you might need a lower rate or bigger down payment. Your current income and budget have allowed you to accumulate significant savings, though you retirement balances seem low. The savings and CD balances show that you could increase your spending each month without severely impacting your financial health. Should you buy, can't be answered because that is an individual choice.  Keep in mind that home ownership also includes additional responsibilities that a renter can ask a landlord to fix and pay for. That is the stuff that is impossible to predict. Are there any other losses that can be expected beyond the above? The lender may have to invest some money into the house in order to get it in shape to sell. Also, while the lender possesses the house they are liable to the property taxes and possibly utilities. are there any statutes or pressures to motivate the financial institution to get fair price when the property is sold? The lender is motivated to at least break even when selling the property in order to limit losses on their investment. This means they are very motivated to seek a higher price, but they're also motivated to sell the property quickly in order to limit their losses due to property taxes. Usually the lender takes a loss of the investment if foreclosure occurs; only 10 percent to 20 percent  of auctioned foreclosed houses did yield a surplus. When the lender sells the foreclosed property using a realtor, they're motivated to sell it as quickly as possible so long as they break even. In this case there is little motivation to sell the property for a surplus. If the property is being sold via auction, then time is not a factor and the lender will just sell to the highest bidder. Why doesn't it seem right to you? The lender financed the house and has the first right claim (mortgage) on it, so if you have any insurance proceeds they're first offsetting your debt to the lender. Same as if you were selling the house - first the loan is paid off, whatever is left goes to you. If the property is not lost, then the proceeds are going to you and you keep paying the mortgage. So if a pipe burst and you need to replace the flooring, the insurance will cover it, and you'll get the proceeds. If the building is lost and you're paid the fair market/rebuild value, then you first need to pay off the mortgage. Its standard. While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group.  (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.)  That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage.  IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan.  (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.)  That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine.  If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me.   I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements.  The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan.  That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan.  And vice-versa.  Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property. As per my comments, I think this is up to you and how much work you want to put forth.  I do not feel it is trivial to provide documentation even with 90% of it will be the same among lenders. See this question: First answer, third and fourth paragraphs. You need to go as far as understanding the total cost of the loan, you probably need a good faith estimate.  I would also compare a minimum of three lenders. Just as a renter doesn't care what the landlord's mortgage is, the buyer of a house shouldn't care what the seller paid, what the current mortgage is, or any other details of the seller's finances.  Two identical houses may be worth $400K. One still has a $450K loan, the other is mortgage free. You would qualify for the same value mortgage on both houses. All you and your bank should care about is that the present mortgage is paid or forgiven by the current mortgage holder so your bank can have first lien, and you get a clean title.  To answer the question clearly, yes, it's common for a house with a mortgage to be sold, mortgage paid off, and new mortgage put in place. The profit or loss of the homeowner is not your concern.