Home loan: loss payable clause in favor of lender for home insurance?
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. Here's a good rule of thumb. In any situation where you are required to purchase insurance (Auto Liability, Property Mortgage Insurance, etc.) you can safely assume that you aren't the primary beneficiary. You are being required to buy that insurance to protect someone else's investment.
"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is ""reasonable"" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender.  Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an ""education expense"", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now.  Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans." Danger. The affidavit is a legal document. Understand the risk of getting caught. If you are planning on using the condo to generate income the chances that you default on the loan are higher than an owner occupied property. That is why they demand more down payment (20%+) and charge a higher rate.  The document isn't about making sure you spend 183+ nights a year in the property, it is making sure that it isn't a business, and you aren't letting a 3rd party live in the property.  If you within the first year tell the mortgage company to send the bill to a new address, or you change how the property is insured, they will suspect that it is now a rental property.  What can they do? Undo the loan; ask for penalty fee; limit your ability to get a mortgage in the future; or a percentage of the profits How likely is it? The exact penalty will be in the packet of documents you receive. It will depend on which government agency is involved in the loan, and the lenders plan to sell it on the secondary market.  It can also depend on the program involved in the sale of the property. HUD and sister agencies lock out investors  during the initial selling period, They don't want somebody to represent themselves as homeowner, but is actually an investor. Note: some local governments are interested not just in non-investors but in properties being occupied. Therefore they may offer tax discounts to residents living in their homes. Then they will be looking at the number of nights that you occupy the house in a year. If they detect that you aren't really a resident living in the house, that has tax penalties. Suggestion: If you don't want to wait a year buy the condo and let the loan officer know what your plan is. You will have to meet the down payment and interest rate requirements for an investment property. Your question implies that you will have enough money to pay the required 20% down payment. Then when you are ready buy the bigger house and move in. If you try and buy the condo with a non-investment loan you will have to wait a year. If you try and pay cash now, and then get a home equity loan later you will have to admit it is a rental. And still have to meet the investor requirements. Are you interested in refurbishing your rented home here in Singapore? If you are struggling with financial difficulties, you can apply for a renovation loan offered by banks. Most banks in Singapore offer renovation loans and home loans only to those who own a property. It is very hard to find a renovation loan for a rented home.  **Home loans for renovation**  You can take a home loan for your rented property and top up your home loan to finance your renovation project. If you already have a home loan, all you need to do is ask your bank representative to add extra financing to your [home loan](https://www.bankbazaar.sg/home-loan.html) for renovation purpose. Applying for a home loan for a rented property is simple. You can use an online loan calculator and compare home loans provided for a rented property. According to your repayment capacity and financial requirements, you can choose a home loan and use it for renovation. Make sure you have a good credit score while applying so that your home loan gets approved easily.  **Personal loans for renovation**  If you are not able to find too many home loans or renovation loans for rented property, you need not worry. Have you considered taking a personal loan to make awesome home improvement measures? That’s right; you can apply for a personal loan and use the funds to renovate your abode. The best thing about a personal loan is that a lender does not enquire about the purpose for your loan application. So, you can use your personal loan for any of your needs.  *Eligibility criteria for personal loans*  The general criteria to be qualified for a personal loan in Singapore are: The applicant should be 21 to 65 years old. The applicant should be a Singaporean or a permanent resident or a foreigner. The minimum income requirement for a Singaporean or PR is generally S$20,000 p.a. and S$40,000 p.a. for a foreigner.  **When are personal loans ideal for renovation?**  There are a few situations when a personal loan is the best option for renovating your rented property: Many banks give personal loans with attractive promotions such as interest-free loan for a certain period. You can take this loan and even repay the full amount before the zero-interest period expires. This will help you save efficiently on your renovation project. The minimum income required to secure a home loan is generally higher than the income requirement for a personal loan. Hence, a personal loan is a better option. A home loan generally gives a higher sum of money than a personal loan. This high amount is suitable for a construction project but will be excessive for renovation work. Therefore, it makes more sense to apply for a personal loan to give the perfect makeover to the kitchenette in your home. The approval process for a home loan is typically very lengthy. Personal loan applications get approved within 24 hours by most banks in Singapore. So now you can apply for a personal loan without any tension and remodel your balcony to have a party at home sweet home! Personal loan rates are generally lower than home loan rates. You can refurbish your living space by paying your loan at an interest rate not more than 4%. Now, you would have got a fair idea about how to finance your remodelling work. Always remember to enquire about every loan’s terms and conditions. Never sign any loan contract without being absolutely clear about the loan’s features. "Taking out your equity when refinancing means that you take out a new loan for the full value of your house (perhaps less 20% as a down payment on the new mortgage, otherwise you'll be paying insurance), pay off your old lender, and keep the rest for yourself. The result is much the same as using as a HELOC or home equity loan (or a second mortgage), except it's all rolled into a single new mortgage. The advantage is that the interest rate on a first mortgage is going to be lower than on HELOC or equivalent, and the equity requirements may be lower (e.g. a HELOC may only let you borrow against the amount of equity that exceeds 25% or 30%, while a new mortgage will require you only to have 20% equity).  This is especially attractive to those whose homes have appreciated significantly since they bought them, especially if they have a lot of high-interest debt (e.g. credit cards) they want to pay off. Of course, rolling credit card debt into a 30-year mortgage isn't actually paying it off, but the monthly payments will be a lot lower, and if you're lucky and your home appreciates further, you can pay it off fully when you sell the property and still have paid a lot less interest. The downside is that you have turned unsecured debt into secured debt, which puts your home at risk if you find yourself unable to pay. In your case, you don't yet have even 20% equity in your home, so I wouldn't recommend this.  :-) Equity is simply the difference between the amount you still owe on your home and the amount you'd get if you were to sell it. Until you do sell it, this amount is tentative, based on the original purchase price and, perhaps, an intervening appraisal that shows that the property has appreciated. That is really all that it is and there's nothing magic about it, except that since you own your home, you have equity in it, while as a renter, you would not. It used to be (decades ago, when you needed 20% down to get a mortgage) that selling was the only time you'd be able to do anything with the equity in your home. Now you can ""take it out"" as described above (or borrow against it) thanks to various financial products. It is sometimes tempting to consider equity roughly equivalent to ""profit."" But some of it is your own money, contributed through the down payment, your monthly principal payment, and improvements you have made -- so ""cashing out"" isn't all profit, it's partly just you getting your own money back. And there are many additional expenses involved in owning a home, such as interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and various fees, not to mention the commissions when you buy or sell, which the equity calculation doesn't consider. Increasing equity reflects that you own a desirable property in a desirable location, that you have maintained and maybe even improved it, that you are financially responsible (i.e., paying your mortgage, taxes, etc.), and that your financial interests are aligned with your neighbors. All those things feel pretty good, and they should. Otherwise, it is just a number that the banks will sometimes let you borrow against.  :-)" "Any sensible lender will require a lean lien against your formerly-free-and-clear property, and will likely require an appraisal of the property. The lender is free to reject the deal if the house is in any way not fitting their underwriting requirements; examples of such situations would be if the house is in a flood/emergency zone, in a declining area, an unusual property (and therefore hard to compare to other properties), not in salable condition (so even if they foreclose on it they'd have a questionable ability to get their money back), and so forth. Some lenders won't accept mobile homes (manufactured housing) as collateral, for instance, and also if the lender agrees they may also require insurance on the property to be maintained so they can ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall both properties at one time (as happens occasionally). On the downside, in my experience (in the US) lenders will often require a lower loan percentage than a comparable cash down deal. An example I encountered was that the lender would happily provide 90% loan-to-value if a cash down payment was provided, but would not go above 75% LTV if real estate was provided instead. These sort of deals are especially common in cases of new construction, where people often own the land outright and want to use it as collateral for the building of a home on that same land, but it's not uncommon in any case (just less common than cash down deals). Depending on where you live and where you want to buy vs where the property you already own is located, I'd suggest just directly talking to where you want to first consider getting a quote for financing. This is not an especially exotic transaction, so the loan officer should be able to direct you if they accept such deals and what their conditions are for such arrangements. On the upside, many lenders still treat the LTV% to calculate their rate quote the same no matter where the ""down payment"" is coming from, with the lower the LTV the lower the interest rate they'll be willing to quote. Some lenders might not, and some might require extra closing fees - you may need to shop around. You might also want to get a comparative quote on getting a direct mortgage on the old property and putting the cash as down payment on the new property, thus keeping the two properties legally separate and giving you some ""walk away"" options that aren't possible otherwise.  I'd advise you to talk with your lenders directly and shop around a few places and see how the two alternatives compare. They might be similar, or one might be a hugely better deal! Underwriting requirements can change quickly and can vary even within individual regions, so it's not really possible to say once-and-for-all which is the better way to go." "Title insurance protects you from losing rights to your property in case of a court decision. Let's look at an example I recently found in local newspapers. One old woman sold her apartment to person A. The deed was attested by a notary public who verified that indeed in was that old woman putting her signature on the deed. Then person A sold the apartment to person B, etc, then after several deals some unfortunate Buyer bought that apartment. The deal looked allright, so he's got a mortgage to pay for the apartment. Later it turned out that the old lady died three months before she ""sold"" the apartment and the notary public was corrupt. Old lady's heirs filed a lawsuit and the deal was void. So the ultimate Buyer lost all rights to the apartment although he purchased it legally. This is the case when title insurance kicks in. You need one if there's a chance for a deal to be deemed void." If you're refinancing a conforming (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) mortgage, don't go with an FHA. Try a HARP refinance, which won't increase your mortgage insurance even if your home has lost value. HARP also limits the risk-based pricing adjustments that can be charged, so your rate should be very competitive. With an FHA mortgage, even once you get the loan-to-value ratio down to 80 percent, you still have mortgage insurance for several years, plus the upfront costs. In your case, I think it's a bad deal. That sucks.  If BofA is taking responsibility for the insurance payment, then they should..., well, take responsibilty - full responsibility.  I hope these people get reimbursed fairly.  Didn't their insurance company contact them about the policy?  If not, I'd certainly be shopping for a new insurance company, and possibly I'd include them in a lawsuit.  The insurance company should be contacting the bank **and** their customer.  Mine sent me a couple of letters, saying a copy was sent to the bank (although I think they still had the original bank, not BofA).  But BofA had recently paid the premium, so they ignored it - basically dropped the ball.  When I got the 2nd letter from the insurance company, I called again, and the guy at BofA got right on the ball, checked it out, and fixed it very quickly, then helped me cancel my escrow so I could handle it directly in the future.  Perhaps I was lucky to get someone who cared about their job enough to follow through.  But I also jumped in to make sure it got taken care of, so if he hadn't, I would have been bothering them until they did.