Timeline for Able to pool funds for a downpayment and co-ownership of a home?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 5, 2019 at 13:44 | comment | added | Scott Skiles | So, if there are no family members involved, does the calculus totally change? Because that's not the impression I've gotten thus far. | |
| Jul 5, 2019 at 13:25 | comment | added | RonJohn | "I am struggling to understand why this is such an obviously Bad Idea." Type "Never mix bus" into the Google search bar. The first hint I got was "never mix business with family". cbsnews.com/news/… | |
| Jul 4, 2019 at 20:37 | comment | added | Scott Skiles | This seems to answer quite a few of those questions: "Limited partners are much like stockholders in a public company in that they have only limited influence in the business operations of the partnership. Limited partners also have limited liability. If the RELP faces losses, limited partners are only liable for the amount of their capital contributions." investopedia.com/terms/r/realestatelimitedpartnership.asp | |
| Jul 4, 2019 at 19:04 | comment | added | xyious | In short: It's a bad idea because the details are so extremely hard to iron out and because very likely many questions remain that won't be answered until it's too late. What happens if the person paying the mortgage defaults ? Are the people helping with the down payment out of money ? What happens if there's no appreciation ? Does everyone go home with what they put in ? | |
| Jul 4, 2019 at 19:02 | comment | added | Scott Skiles | @xyious - The idea is that the person living in the home is the primary owner and would be responsible for fixing things that break. Another aspect of this question is seeing where the math breaks down over time for which parties, and that definitely sounds like one area to consider. | |
| Jul 4, 2019 at 18:57 | comment | added | Scott Skiles | This is currently more of a thought experiment now so I appreciate you all raising potential issues. However, I am struggling to understand why this is such an obviously Bad Idea. I understand a lot of specifics, such as time frame, who pays what, etc. need to be ironed out, but that is the idea behind this question. The purchase is not imminent. But how is this that different than selling shares in a company or other illiquid asset? The incentive is the potential return on investment, which could include any future rental payments as well. Of course, keeping in mind downside risk as well. | |
| Jul 4, 2019 at 18:42 | comment | added | xyious | If no one were related there would be even less of an incentive for literally everyone involved. I wouldn't be happy with a 95% gain on what could be 20 years. I also wouldn't want to have to answer to 4 different landlords (plus myself). If something breaks who is paying for it ? who's paying the mortgage ? shouldn't the person paying the mortgage have 80% share ? plus 30% of the rest ? | |
| Jul 4, 2019 at 18:35 | comment | added | RonJohn | @ScottSkiles you're describing a (convoluted) real estate partnership. KISS (not the band!) and have the person living there pay rent to the partnership. (It's still a Bad Idea to so it with a bunch of family members.) | |
| Jul 4, 2019 at 18:28 | comment | added | Scott Skiles | Let's say, hypothetically, no one was related. Would that change your opinion? Basically, it would be like shares in an investment. | |
| Jul 4, 2019 at 15:35 | history | answered | xyious | CC BY-SA 4.0 |