Pay down on second mortage when underwater?
I'd split whatever cash flow you have between saving money and paying down the 20% loan. The fact that you are carrying an unrealized loss isn't really too relevant -- unless you have plans to walk away from the loan or go bankrupt, it doesn't really matter until you sell. You're either going to repay now or later. "You're welcome to throw in the towel and stop paying any time you want.  You'll just suffer the consequences of doing so. It sounds like you're concerned about losing your job ""in the next few years.""  What are you doing to stem this off?  Are you building up a side income?  Are you building up portable skills -- ones that can be used anywhere?  If you think you have a few years left, use them.  Build something up.  You may be able to recover more quickly, or last longer until you find a new job. Some of my blogging friends have been at it about as long as I have, and they're in high-five, low-six figures now.  For blogging.  Some did it even faster.  All it takes is time.  Your expenses for starting a blog are $10/month plus cutting out two hours of TV / drinking / anything else consumer-ish to learn more about your favorite interest, write about it, and interact with the online community. That's just one idea.  Season to taste or choose a different meal altogether. Are you frugal?  Are you looking for ways to cut expenses?  If you can find extra money to save a little bit more and knock out just one of those debts (say, the car), you'll be able to throw that payment at the student loan.  Then they'll both be gone, and you can save up a cushion for yourself faster. I just think it's a little weak to give up when you're not really in trouble yet.  You're tight, but you can get through that." If you're planning to walk away from the house - don't invest any more money in it. Just be aware of the consequences. It may be worth considering a short sale if both the lenders will agree to erase the debt. If you're going to keep the house, then the fact that you're underwater now is irrelevant, and you should do your best to reduce the burden by paying off the higher rate loan. But, I personally think that accumulating enough cash to make you comfortable in case of a job loss for several months is a higher priority. I think everyone else answered before you added the info about your car loan in your comment. While it makes sense to pay off loans with the highest interest rate first, keep in mind that in most cases you can deduct mortgage interest from your taxable income. So the after-tax rate of interest that you're paying on your 8.6% second mortgage will be less than your 7% car loan, assuming that your tax bracket is more than 18% (federal and state combined). If you plan to use your funds to pay down debt, definitely attack the car loan first. "Well, I suppose it depends on your idea of a ""lost cause"". Are you planning to lose the house to foreclosure?  If so, then yes, it's a lost cause.  Don't waste your money paying down the principal. In any other scenario* you should absolutely pay down the principal to the extent that you'd pay down any loan with nearly 9% interest (in other words, moderately aggressively). The fact is, you owe someone $265,000 unless you plan on losing the home to foreclosure.  You can manage the amount of interest you pay while you hold that debt by paying it down. * Short sale and bankruptcy would be special conditions as well, but not exactly the same effect as foreclosure." There are programs out there which will let you refinance even when underwater, under the Government's HARP program. You are overpaying by nearly $7,000 per year compared to a refinance to 4.5%. A classic example of how the bubble hurt people who overextended themselves a bit as housing shot up.  The bank risks a $50K loss if you default or short sell this property. I'd go in and sit down with a branch manager and ask what they can do to recast the loan to a lower rate as you are ready, wiling and able to keep the house and make your payments. Good luck.
I would definitely pay down the debt first.  If it is going to take 15 years to do so, you probably need to allocate more money to paying down debt. Cut expenses by going out to eat less, and keeping spending to the bare necessities.  You might even consider getting a second job, just for paying down the debt.  If that isn't enough, consider selling off some assets.  You should be able to come up with a plan to be debt free (excluding maybe a regular mortgage) within 3-5 years. Once the only debt you have is a home mortgage, then its time to look at putting money towards retirement again. Note, you should not take money out of a 401k or IRA to pay off debt.  The costs for doing so are nearly always too great. You did borrow money for the downpayment.  When you apply for a mortgage loan on your new home, you will be required to list all your assets and all your liabilities. You must disclose the first mortgage as well as the second mortgage on your current condo as well as the monthly payment on each of these loans.  If you took out the second mortgage five years ago, you can truthfully say that you have not taken out any loans within the past year to get cash for the down payment when you apply for a mortgage for purchasing your new house. But, what the lender will be looking at is: Can  the applicants' current income support monthly payments of   $1000 for the first mortgage on the condo plus $300 for the second   mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the   new house? You might argue that you will be selling that condo soon, or will be renting it out and that the rental income will cover the mortgage payments on the condo, but will the lender give much credence to this? The condo may not sell easily, you might not be able to find a tenant right away, or be able to rent the condo at a high enough rental to cover the costs etc. If you simply save money from your current extra cash flow and use that to make the down payment, the lender will be pondering the question Can  the applicants' current income support monthly payments of   $1000 for the mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? Which deal will the lender be happier with? If you are uncomfortable saving your extra cash flow in a savings account or CD or investing it in stocks and/or bonds until you need the money for the down-payment on your new house, put that money in a sock under your mattress (and don't smoke in bed!) If you already have the money, put the 20% down but here is another option: You can put whatever you want down...Let's say 10%. For the other 10%, take out a 2nd mortgage. This enables you to avoid PMI. The rate you will get on the second mortgage will be higher than the first but the combination of 2 mortgages may be less than 1 plus PMI. When you get to 20% equity you can refinance and consolidate to one lower rate mortgage without PMI. The general rule is to spend as little as possible on transportation, as it is an expense. Many people can get by without a car at all, but you say you can not. So, what you need is the cheapest car that is sufficiently reliable for your needs. I suggest you do not need three cars. You don't need to loan cars to your children; if they need a car, they can get a job and buy one, or borrow your reliable vehicle if (but only if) you are not using it. I would suggest, then, selling two of your vehicles and holding on to one for your daily commute. Pick the car you judge to be the most reliable. However, not all decisions are made purely rationally. My vehicle is a 2012 Subaru Forester. AWD is very nice in my snowy climate, but I could have picked up a second hand vehicle for a lot less money. Similarly, you may choose to hold on to a second or even a third vehicle because you judge it a reasonable use of your money. It's an unnecessary expense, but so is coffee and you can have my coffee when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. More generally, there's a rule of 28/36. Roughly speaking, that says that a household should spend a maximum of 28% of its gross income on housing expenses (mortage, heating, etc. etc.), and no more than 36% on total debt (the aforementioned housing, plus also car loans, credit cards, and other loan repayments). If you are spending significantly more than that, it's time to seriously consider selling one or two of your cars, plus cutting back elsewhere. If you are significantly below that, the fact that you may be underwater on your home may be a far less pressing matter. What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval. "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." "Say you're buying a 400K house. Your relative finances 120K (30%). Say I'm optimistic, but the real-estate market recovers, and your house is worth 600K in 5-6 years (can happen, with the inflation and all). The gain is 200K. Your relative gets 100K. You repay him 220K on 120K loan for 5 years. Roughly, 16% APR. Quite an expensive loan. I'm of course optimistic, it seems to me that so is your relative. The question is: if the house loses value in that term, does your relative take 50% of the losses? Make calculations based on several expected returns (optimistic, ""realistic"", loss case, etc), and for each calculate how much in fact will that loan cost. It will help you to decide if you want it. Otherwise your relationships with your relative might go very bad in a few years. BTW: Suggestion: it's a bad idea to mix business and friend/family you don't want to lose." The rules of thumb are there for a reason. In this case, they reflect good banking and common sense by the buyer. When we bought our house 15 years ago it cost 2.5 times our salary and we put 20% down, putting the mortgage at exactly 2X our income. My wife thought we were stretching ourselves, getting too big a house compared to our income. You are proposing buying a house valued at 7X your income. Granted, rates have dropped in these 15 years, so pushing 3X may be okay, the 26% rule still needs to be followed. You are proposing to put nearly 75% of your income to the mortgage? Right? The regular payment plus the 25K/yr saved to pay that interest free loan? Wow.  You are over reaching by double, unless the rental market is so tight that you can actually rent two rooms out to cover over half the mortgage.  Consider talking to a friendly local banker, he (or she) will likely give you the same advice we are. These ratios don't change too much by country, interest rate and mortgages aren't that different. I wish you well, welcome to SE.