Can an unmarried couple buy a home together with only one person on the mortgage?
It is highly unlikely that this would be approved by a mortgage underwriter.   When the bank gives a loan with a security interest in a property (a lien), they are protected - if the borrower does not repay the loan, the property can be foreclosed on and sold, and the lender is made whole for the amount of the loan that was not repaid.   When two parties are listed on the deed, then each owns an UNDIVIDED 50% share in the property.  If only one party has pledged the property as surety against the loan, then in effect only 50% of the property is forecloseable.  This means that the bank is unable to recoup its loss.   For a (fictional, highly simplified) concrete example, suppose that the house is worth $100,000 and Adam and Zoe are listed on the deed, but Adam is the borrower for a $100,000 mortgage.  Adam owes $100,000 and has an asset worth $50,000 (which he has pledged as security for the loan), while Zoe owes nothing and has an asset worth $50,000 (which is entirely unencumbered).  If Adam does not pay the mortgage, the bank would only be able to foreclose on his $50,000 half of the property, leaving them exposed to great risk.   There are other legal and financial reasons, but overall I think you'll find it very difficult to locate a lender who is willing to take that kind of risk.  It's very complicated and there is absolutely no up-side.   Also - speaking from experience (from which I was protected because of the bank's underwriting rules) and echoing the advice offered by others on this site: don't bother trying.  Commingling assets without a contract (either implicit by marriage or explicit by, well a contract) is going to get you in trouble. "I will expand on Bacon's comment. When you are married, and you acquire any kind of property, you automatically get a legal agreement.  In most states that property is owned jointly and while there are exceptions that is the case most of the time.   When you are unmarried, there is no such assumption of joint acquisition.  While words might be said differently between the two parties, if there is nothing written down and signed then courts will almost always assume that only one party owns the property.  Now unmarried people go into business all the time, but they do so by creating legally binding agreements that cover contingencies.  If you two do proceed with this plan, it is necessary to create those documents with the help of a lawyer.  Although expensive paying for this protection is a small price in relation to what will probably be one of the largest purchases in your lives. However, I do not recommend this.  If Clayton can and wants to buy a home he should.  Emma can rent from Clayton.  That rent could any amount the two agree on, including zero.  If the two do get married, well then Emma will end up owning any equity after that date.  If they stay together until death, it is likely that she (or her heirs) will own half of it anyway.  Also if this house is sold, the equity pass into larger house they buy after marriage, then that will be owned jointly. If they do break up, the break up is clean and neat.  Presumably she would have paid rent anyway, so nothing is lost.  Many people run into trouble having to sell at a bad time in a relationship that coincides with a weak housing market.  In that case, both parties lose.   So much like Bacon's advice I would not buy jointly.  There is no upside, and you avoid a lot of downside. Don't play ""house"" by buying a home jointly when you are unmarried." In this case can the title of the home still be held by both? Yes, it is possible to have additional people on title that are not on the mortgage. Would the lender (bank) have any reservations about this since a party not on the mortgage has ownership of the property? Possibly, but there is a very simple way to avoid this. Clayton could simply purchase the home himself, and add Emma to the title after closing by recording a quitclaim deed. The lender can't stop that, and from their point of view it's actually better, since they have two people to go after in the case of default. (But despite it being better they often make it difficult to purchase Tip, when you have an attorney draft the quitclaim document, have them draft the reverse document too. (Emma relinquishing the property back to Clayton.) There is usually no extra charge for this and then you have it if you need it. For example, you may need to file the reverse forms if you want to refinance. As a side note, I agree with  Grade 'Eh' Bacon's and Pete B.'s in recommending that Clayton and Emma do not do this. Once they are married the property will either be automatically jointly owned, or a spouse can be added to the title easily, and until they are married there are no pros but many cons to doing this. Reasons not to do it: As a side note, in a comment it was proposed: ...suppose Clayton loves Emma so much that he wants her name to be on the house... I understand the desire to do this from an emotional point of view, but realize this does not make sense from a financial point of view. The mortgage and title of the house would be under both your names equally.  When I applied for a mortgage with my girlfriend, I was the primary applicant because of my credit score and she was the secondary because of her income (she makes more).  When all was said and done, it was explained to us that the mortgage was ours equally and so was the house, and that I didn't hold more ownership than her over either.  We were approved quickly and hassle free. This is our first house too. This is in Florida. I did that.  What is allowed changes over time, though — leading up to the crisis, lenders would approve at the flimsiest evidence. In particular, my SO had only been in the country a couple years and was at a sweet spot where lack of history was no longer counting against her. Running the numbers, the mortgage was a fraction of a percent cheaper in her name than in mine.  Even though she used a “stated income” (self reported, not backed by job history) of the household, not just herself. The title was in her name, and would have cost money to have mine added later so we didn’t.  This was in Texas, which is a “community property” state so after marriage for sure everything is “ours”. It's not typically possible for someone to jointly own the house, who is not also jointly liable for the mortgage. This doesn't matter however, because it is possible for two people to get a mortgage together, where only one person's income is assessed by the lender. If that person could get a mortgage of that amount on their own, then the couple should also be able to get the same mortgage. Source: My wife and I got a mortgage like this. She is self-employed, rather than meet the very high requirements for proving her self-employment income, we simply said that we only wanted my income to be taken into consideration. It depends on the bank - In some cases(mine included :) ) the bank allowed for this but Emma had to sign on a document waiving the rights for the house in case the bank needs to liquidate assets in to recover their mortgage in case of delays or non-payment of dues in time. This had to be signed after taking independent legal advice from a legal adviser. There is no issue whatsoever, getting a mortgage this way as an unmarried couple. This is very similar to what I did while my wife and I were engaged. We we're on the title as joint tenants. I would expect them to have her as a signee to the mortgage.  She won't be able to claim 50% ownership and make things hard on the lender. The title will be contingent on the mortgage being paid. What will be harder is if you guys decide to split. It's not at all uncommon for unmarried couples to buy a house together. Find a broker and get their advice.
The rent versus buy question is a deeply personal one in which your personal desires for a living space need to be carefully combined with what makes economic sense.  Do you want your own place with all the joys of having it be yours and all the pains of having to handle all the maintenance and be the one ultimately responsible?  Have you tried living for a few months putting aside the amount required for not only a mortgage payment but the taxes and insurance on a house/condo in your price range to see if you can really afford it?  You can use a real estate website such as trulia to see the assessments of some for sale homes and figure out tax values.  The average home insurance in the US is around $900/year if I remember right - more for homes that are more expensive and less for less expensive ones, with flooding and other hazards as a factor.  Make sure you can afford to pay for all these items. From a financial perspective realize that you'll always be spending money on your living space.  Even if you pay for a house with cash you will be paying property tax and maintenance and would be wise to continue paying for insurance.  The value of the house at that point is, as contributor fennec often says, the rent you aren't paying. I personally don't recommend trying to time the market.  You can't predict the future - will real estate in your area be a double dip or has it bottomed and is it going up?  What you can do is buy a home only when you are sure that you can deal with its relative lack of liquidity by staying there for a long time.  Five years is usually a reasonable minimum.   There is a way that I recommend figuring out if it is likely bad financial decision to buy, and that's by looking at a financial comparison of renting versus buying.  In some cases even with the bursting of the bubble it is still a bad deal to buy.  DC went from renting being more cost effective to buying, but San Francisco is one area where buying is still not necessarily the best choice.  To figure out what the case is for your area, look at the New York Times rent versus buy calculator.  Find a home for rent on craigslist similar to what you'd look to buy.  Find a home for sale on one of the MLS aggregator sites that represents something you think you'd like.  Plug in the numbers.  Figure out how many years you'd have to stay in your purchase for it to be a good deal. In the likely event that the calculator says buy, start saving if that's what you really want.  You're never going to be able to absolutely guarantee that you won't be upside down.  What you can control is getting as much principal in that house as you can.  The more you have, the less likely you will be upside down.  Build a down payment now, reap the rewards later. Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings.  For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security.  And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner. 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. You should also update your Net Worth Statement as well as an inventory of all your assets.  Unfortunately these are extremely time consuming, but in the event that you pass away your loved ones will know all of your finances and it will be easier for them in a very difficult time.   The Net Worth Statement compiles just that, your net worth.  The net worth is compiled by subtracting your liabilities from you assets.  Assets include things such as cash, money in accounts, all estimated value of your household items, any life insurance, bonds, mutual bonds, and retirement money.  The liabilities include amounts such as your mortgage, second mortgage, car loans, unsecured loans, credit cards, student loans, and life insurance loans.  This statement is a great way to track year to year how you are doing on your finances and if you are where you need to be in order to retire when you would like. The Inventory is also very important. This is used in the event that you have a fire or some sort of disaster that requires you to give a statement of any items you had in your home.  This is a very difficult thing to go through, and having this statement ready to hand over only makes thing easier.  There are a couple ways to do this.  Some people take pictures of everything they have in their house and make notes of prices and values, some people take a video of the whole house, and some people write down item by item on the computer or on a piece of paper.  Whatever way you would like to do it is fine, what works for one person does not necessarily work for the other. It would depend on how those banks behaved in the market. Seven can own all.the houses and there would be no problem, it only becomes illegal if those banks then collude to fix prices (or some other monopolostic practice). It's important to remember that monopolies are not illegal per se. Construction loans have an entirely set of rules and factors than mortgages and that's hard to reconcile into one instrument.  Also, I'm guessing the bank would be a bit shy about giving a commitment to a home loan before they have any information about how the construction process is going.  There would have to be a ton of contingencies put into mortgage and they probably can't account for everything. 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. 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.