Is a property that comes with tenants a risk?
"The perceived risk depends on the entire situation, but often it is considered more risk, especially if you want to occupy yourself. Things you need to consider: It can be very difficult to show a property with tenants occupying it. There are many reasons for this and most homes show / sell better empty. I have found many tenants make it difficult on the seller. Leaving their areas a mess, being unaccommodating and especially in markets that are flooded with options, a lot of buyers just won't bother with the difficulty of scheduling a showing in occupied properties. I've tried to purchase many properties where the renter insists on being there during a showing, but won't open the door and there's no recourse for the landlord because his lease or laws in the area don't allow you to enter without permission. Also, it can be difficult to look past a lot of clutter and other people's decorating and aroma ""preferences"" to be kind. :) Is the property currently under lease and what is the period of that lease? It could be that the lease is month to month, or it could be years remaining on the lease period. It is likely a legal requirement in most areas that you honor the existing lease. I would never buy a property that has multiple years remaining. While some amateur landlords will allow 2 or even 5 year leases, this is a very bad idea for many reasons! What are laws like in your area for evicting tenants? You should know this regardless of whether or not you intend to occupy or keep it a rental. It can be a very difficult process evicting tenants and this process is vastly different from country to country and state to state here in the USA. Look into the security deposit - assuming there is one. How much is the deposit? Will it cover damage that may not exist yet? Don't think that just because you plan on evicting them soon, it isn't important. People can trash a place on the way out and an expensive lawsuit could be your only recourse. It is far easier to take a deposit than sue. I would absolutely demand that the deposit transfer to you upon sale. View the current renters with a fresh eye. Especially if you are considering leave it a rental, look into all of the typical requirements: Their monthly income, their credit history, their criminal record, their payment history, their references. Are they likely to be good or terrible renters? If you're interested in the property, consider an offer which requires the current landlord to evict within the time-frame of the buy/sell agreement. This isn't an uncommon requirement. I think the first thing to do is go look at the property and see if you can determine for yourself why it hasn't sold yet. Properties all have different reasons for not selling in a reasonable time to the local market. Having renters alone in most markets shouldn't be that big of a factor. I would suspect bad smells, nasty renters, or an unfavorable lease agreement exists."
"Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did ""not amount to much"" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail.  Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way." What you are doing is unethical and illegal but is very hard to catch and prosecute. The key thing for an unethical person to think about here is insurance.  For most government incentive programs you have to have the intention to live there. It is extremely hard to prove intent - unless you ask this question under your name on a public forum that is archived by many search engines and maintains a log of all changes.  For other folks, it is common for them to claim that they intended to take residence but were surprised that their finances didn't work the way they anticipated. Still, as long as the bank is paid, it is unlikely that they will investigate. However, what happens if there is a major repair needed? You have insurance -  because your bank has asked for proof of insurance before they will give a mortgage. That insurance is for an owner occupied building, which you do not have.  Your insurance will inspect your claim. If the circumstances do not match what you are insured for because you have lied to the insurance company, they will not pay your claim - which they are entitled to do.  You are operating uninsured with tenants. This is a hidden risk you may not be considering. Tenants do not treat property with the same care as an owner - this is why they are insured differently. You are now paying for insurance that you will have a difficult time ever filing a claim on.   In addition, if something were to happen that makes it time to claim the insurance value so that you can pay off the mortgage, the insurance company will investigate. They may very easily refuse to pay your fraudulent claim. They may refer you to the police for insurance fraud. The bank will want their money. If they discover that you were not occupying the property, they may just foreclose.  They may also notify the government that you were not occupying the property, at which point some one might search and find that you were showing intent to defraud the program out of money that is free for you but gotten through deception. Consider a less risky unethical path like telling people you've been locked out of your car and just need a little money to pay the locksmith to open it. You promise to pay them right back once you get in your car where your wallet is. Then take their money and go find another sucker. It's ethically equivalent and you are much less likely to go to jail. However you have to face the people you are deceiving for money, so you may feel less comfortable.  Good luck making your decisions! "Another option you might consider is rolling over some of that 401K balance into a self-directed IRA or Solo 401K, specifically one with ""checkbook privileges"". That would permit you to invest directly in a property via your IRA/401K money without it being a loan, and preserving the tax benefits. (You may not be able to roll over from your current employer's 401K while still employed.)  That said, regarding your argument that your loan is ""paying interest to yourself"", while that is technically true, that neglects the opportunity cost -- that money could potentially be earning a much higher (and tax-free) return if it remains in the 401K account than if you take it out and slowly repay it at a modest interest rate. Real Estate can be a great way to diversify, build wealth, and generate income, but a company match and tax-free growth via an employee sponsored retirement account can be a pretty sweet deal too (I actually recently wrote about comparing returns from having a tenant pay your mortgage on a rental property vs. saving in a retirement account on my blog -- in short, tax-free stock-market level returns are pretty compelling, even when someone else is paying your mortage). Before taking rather big steps like borrowing from a 401K or buying a rental property, you might also explore other ways to gain some experience with real estate investing, such as the new crop of REITs open to all investors under SEC Reg A+, some with minimums of $500 or less. In my own experience, there are two main camps of real estate investors: (1) those that love the diversification and income, but have zero interest in active management, and (2) those that really enjoy real estate as a lifestyle and avocation, happy to deal with tenant screening and contractors, etc. You'll want to be careful to be sure which camp you're in before signing on to active investment in a specific property." Here would be the big two you don't mention: Time - How much of your own time are you prepared to commit to this? Are you going to find tenants, handle calls if something breaks down, and other possible miscellaneous issues that may arise with the property? Are you prepared to spend money on possible renovations and other maintenance on the property that may occur from time to time? Financial costs - You don't mention anything about insurance or taxes, as in property taxes since most municipalities need funds that would come from the owner of the home, that would be a couple of other costs to note in having real estate holdings as if something big happens are you expecting a government bailout automatically? If you chose to use a property management company for dealing with most issues then be aware of how much cash flow could be impacted here. Are you prepared to have an account to properly do the books for your company that will hold the property or would you be doing this as an individual without any corporate structure? Do you have lease agreements printed up or would you need someone to provide these for you? Today, when finding reliable tenants is a tough task, they leave no stone unturned to search for suitable tenants for your property. The best part is that when you have the support of a good property management company, you can sit back and relax, as they would take away your entire burden about the handling of your property. They call you because that is their business rules. They want their money, so their system calls you starting on the 5th.  Now you have to decide what you should do to stop this. The most obvious is to move the payment date to before the 5th. Yes that does put you at risk if the tenant is late. But since it is only one of the 4 properties you own, it shouldn't be that big of a risk. No it is not safe to take out a new mortgage - loan or anything credit related or any investment - in greece. Growing political risk, bonds have junk credit rating.  You will be underwater on your mortgage the day you apply for it. And you better believe that the buyers will be dry once you realize that it doesn't make sense to keep paying the mortgage. If you want to have some assets, there are more liquid things you can own, in your case: paper gold. Just rent. "There are loans. Usually they're secured by the assets, and you also cosign them personally. Your own credit worthiness comes to play, your own assets are in jeopardy. As to what it is that you're buying - no, it is not necessary for the seller to sell you the building. You might buy the business, but not the actual space it occupies. In fact, the space may not even belong to the seller. You may find yourself taking over the lease, which is in fact a liability, not an asset. You should agree with the seller on what exactly it is that you're buying. You should ask for a full inventory list that would include all the assets and the liabilities that would be transferred to you. Lease, as mentioned, but you might also ""buy"" loans, debts, lawsuits, and god knows what else that is attached to the business."