Money put down on home
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is, when you buy a house with someone you are not married to, to make a legal agreement on how the money should be divided when you sell. I know it's too late for you, but I write this for anyone else reading this answer. From a legal point of view, if you made no agreement otherwise, you each own 50% of the house. If you want to divide it any other way, you will have to agree what an appropriate division is. Dividing according to the amount each of you paid towards it is a good way. Decide for yourselves if that means just mortgage payments, or also taxes, repairs, utilities etc. You should also be aware that if you have been living together a long time, like more than a year, some jurisdictions will allow one party to sue the other as if they were getting divorced. Then the courts would be involved in the division of property. You should have drafted a contract of purchase that stipulated out equity stake in the home based of his down payment and yours, along with future monthly payments.  But morally, if the house sells, yielding 100,000 profit (after fees/taxes/etc), you should get ( To Calculate Your Cut: (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) / (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = Your Cut His would be: (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) / (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = His Cut You'd then take mortgage payment totals for each; and calculate the payments made towards interest; and claim the correct amount each of you paid on payments for the mortgage interest deduction when you file your taxes. Although, depending on how the loan is written, the banks may issue 1099s which dont reflect actual payments made... Talk to an accountant. "To quote Judge Judy:  ""Our courts are not in the business of settling assets of couples who decide to play house"". This is one of the reasons we put off buying houses with a partner until we are married.  The courts have rules for couples who marry, then split,  but none for those who don't. In the scenerio you spelled out, you are at the mercy of your ex-boyfriend as far as getting your downpayment back.  Legally, you are entitled to 50% of the funds remaining after the sale and expenses."
"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the ""bank""). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house.  To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term." "The loan-to-value ratio (LTV Ratio) is a lending risk assessment ratio that financial institutions and others lenders examine before approving a mortgage. It sounds like your lender has a 60% requirement. Remember the home is the collateral for the loan.  If you stop making payments, they can take the house back from you.  That number is less than 100% to accommodate changing market prices, the cost of foreclosure, repairing and reselling the home.  They may be a safety factor built in depending on the home's location.   If you want to buy a $1.8 million dollar home you will have to come up with 40% down payment.  That down payment is what reduces the risk for the lender.  So no, there is no way to cheat that. Think about the transaction from the view of the lender.   Note: in some areas, you can still get a loan if you don't have the required down payment.  You just have to pay a monthly mortgage insurance.  It's expensive but that works for many home buyers.  A separate insurance company offers a policy that helps protect the lender when there isn't enough deposit paid. Update:  Er, no.  Keep it simple.  The bank will only loan you money if it has collateral for the loan. They've built in a hefty safety margin to protect them in case you quit paying them your monthly payments.  If you want to spend the money on something else, that would work as long as you provide collateral to protect the lender.  You mention borrowing money for some other purpose then buying a home.  That would be fine, but you will have to come up with some collateral that protect the lender. If you wanted to buy a new business, the bank would first ask for an appraisal of the value of the assets of the business.  That could be applied to the collateral safety net for the lender.  If you wanted to buy a business that had little appraisal value, then the bank would require more collateral from you in other forms.  Say you wanted to borrow the money for an expensive operation or cosmetic surgery. In that case there is no collateral value in the operation. You can't sell anything from the surgery to anybody to recover costs. The money is spent and gone.  Before the bank would loan you any money for such a surgery, they would require you to provide upfront collateral.  (in this case if you were to borrow $60,000 for surgery, the bank would require $100,000 worth of collateral to protect their interest in the loan.) You borrow money, then you pay it back at a regular interval at an agreed upon rate and schedule.  Same thing for borrowing money for the stock market or a winning horse at the horse race.  A lender will require a hard asset as collateral before making you a loan...   Yes I know you have a good tip on a winning horse,and you are bound to double your money, but that's not the way it works from a lender's point of view.    It sounds like you are trying to game the system by playing on words.  I will say quit using the ""40% to 60%"" phrase.  That is just confusing.  The bank's loan to value is reported as a single number (in this case 60%)  For every $6000 you want to borrow, you have to provide an asset worth $10,000 as a safety guarantee for the loan. If you want to borrow money for the purchase of a home, you will need to meet that 60% safety requirement.  If you want to borrow $1,000,000 cash for something besides a home, then you will have to provide something with a retail value of $1,666,667 as equity. I think the best way for you to answer your own question is for you to pretend to be the banker, then examine the proposal from the banker's viewpoint. Will the banker alway have enough collateral for whatever it is you are asking to borrow? If you don't yet have that equity, and you need a loan for something besides a home, you can always save your money until you do have enough equity.  Comment One. I thought that most lenders had a 75% or 80% loan to value ratio. The 60% number seems pretty low.  That could indicate you may be a high risk borrower, or possibly that lender is not the best for you.  Have you tried other lenders?  It's definitely worth shopping around for different lenders.   Comment Two. I will say, it almost sounds like you aren't being entirely honest with us here.  No way someone with a monthly income who can afford a $1.8 Million home would be asking questions like this.  I get that English probably isn't your first language, but still.  The other thing is: If you are truly buying a $1.8 Million dollar home your real estate agent would be helping you find a lender that will work with you.  They would be HIGHLY motivated to see this sale happen.   All of your questions could be answered in ten minutes with a visit to your local bank (or any bank for that matter.)  When you add up the costs and taxes and insurance on a 30 fixed loan, you'd have a monthly mortgage payment of nearly $10,500 a month or more.  Can you really afford that on your monthly income?" At an income of $95K you are on the edge of qualify for $500,000 mortgage (once you have a down payment).   Yes the fastest way to qualify for a $500,000 condo is to save for a down payment.  I am suggesting that might not be the best long term financial plan.  You are only going to qualify for a 30 year term.  You still have a student loan where interest is not tax deductible.   You have put you yourself in a long term debt position and if you lose your job a potential cash flow problem with a risk of losing the condo.   Since you are living at home I would go after that student debt.  Looks like you could pay it off in like a year.  I don't know prices in you area but maybe go in at less than $500,000 for your first home. How you answer is actually dependent on when they ask. If it is early in the process the question/answer is to determine the type of loan you are looking for: Auto loan, home loan, home improvement loans, education loans; all have products that are geared to those uses. In many cases they will use the item you are purchasing as collateral for the loan. In return for this they will offer you a low interest rate, because they know they can protect their money be repossessing the collateral.  For these standard loans they will ask for more specifics before they give a check for the money because they need to know exactly what you are spending the money on, and they will need to file legal paperwork to protect their money. If it isn't one of those standard loans then you are looking at a loan that is only backed by your signature. That loan could have a high interest rate. They are asking as part of the process of assessing their risk. Unless you are putting a lie on a form, I am not sure being untruthful puts you in jeopardy.  In some cases they don't care. People get lines of credit without knowing exactly what they are going to spend the money on. I think anything from 10% on demonstrates a reasonable ability to save.  I would consider ongoing debt level a better indicator than the size of the down payment. It's been my experience that, without exception, there is a direct correlation between a persons use of revolving credit and their ability to manage their money & control their spending. Living in Seattle, I only put 10% down on my first house, but not only have we never missed a payment we have always paid extra and now have about 50% equity after 10 years with a family. Yet it would have taken me another year to save the other 10% during which time I would have burned that amount and 1/2 again in useless rent. I'd suggest you put only 20% down if you qualify for the 80% amount of the mortgage. Live in the house a year and see what expenses really are. Then if your non-Ret accounts are still being funded to your liking, start prepaying the mortgage if you wish.  It's great to start with a house that's only 50% mortgaged, but if any life change happens to you, it may be tough to borrow it back. Far easier to just take your time and not make a decision you may regret. You don't give much detail about your retirement savings, but I'd suggest that I'd rather have a large mortgage and fund my retirement accounts to the maximum than to have a paid house and start the retirement account at age 35. Some choose that option. The simple answer is yes - put 20% (or more) down. In the past I have paid PMI and used a combination first and second mortgage to get around it. I recommend avoiding both of those situations. I am much more comfortable now with just a regular mortgage payment. The more equity you have in your home the more options you will have in the future. That's why they're taking the deal. But it's not like they completely stole all that money. I don't have any stats, but I'd assume most of those people who got their loans are still in their homes. (Sorry, I could be way off. Please correct) But they still are bastards for not letting me refinance. Could have just been because they saw this penalty coming.