Buying apt with boyfriend...bad or good idea?

bad idea. get married first.

Bad idea imo.
Just b/c you're both on the hook for the mortgage doesn't mean you are only responsible for half of the debt.

If you break up, who moves out? what if its a bad break up and neither of you wants to move out.
what if 1 wants to sell and the other wants to hold onto it..you can only sell if both title holders agree i believe.

High risk of mess. Bad, bad idea. If you aren't at a point you are getting married, you have no business buying an asset like this together that will financially entangle you is potentially disastrous ways if things go wrong. Not worth the risk. At all.

I agree, especially with kyle; if you're not ready to get married, then you're not ready to share the burden of a mortgage.

Remember the last guy you broke up with? Remember how you felt about him and never wanted to see his stinking face again?

Would you want to go through all the hassle of finding a broker, staging a place, discussing sale price, prepping for open houses, discussing bids/offers, going through paperwork, reading of contracts, then finally meeting at a lawyer's office to close with your EX-boyfriend?

If you break up, THis guy will be just like THat EX-guy.

BTW; After 3 years, you should be saying Fiance, not boyfriend. And if you're not. . . well. . . that's a whole other thread.

word

Ever see the movie the Breakup? lol.

Why not get married? These big steps go hand in hand, IMO

Terrible idea for the bf, but not necessarily that bad for the OP if the down payment is 50%+.

I do think it's worth clarifying if the OP is straight or gay. I'm assuming straight, in which case I agree with most of the previous posts. But in the event the OP is gay, I actually think there are as many good reasons NOT to get married as there are reasons to get married right now. I've also found that the marriage discussion can be odd with young gay couples -- one may see it as a natural step whereas it may not be on the radar for the other, more because of the current difficulties surrounding it than anything about the relationship itself.

kylewest's sternly-worded advice is odd, given that he recently did exactly what OP asks about (except maybe the lopsided down-payment, and perhaps duration of relations) at a point when he wasn't ready to get married, and expresses no regrets.

Bad. Duh!

Bad

I bought with my g/f when we were at college many years ago and it turned out to be a great investment. We didn't stay together but made $$ and dividing a house is not that difficult. I did it. I made enough to pay off my student loans and more by the time I graduated. I wonder how many of the naysayers above have bought with their unmarried partners. I also bought with my present wife long before we were married. That particular property we still own and rent out. Think about doing it but not too much. Taking calculated risks is not always a bad thing. I did it twice and both times it was the right thing to do. Don't listen to those that have not done it.

alanhart, correct, I wasn't married when we bought. We were engaged. We had mixed feelings about chasing our civil rights around the country to get married in another state when we are born and bred NY'ers. There is something very offensive to us about that. It took time to figure out how we wanted to handle the legalities as a result. Indeed, for gay people it can be confusing right now because of the unequal application of the hodge-podge of laws that surround gay marriage. Even if you do marry in such a way that your state will recognize it, the fed still sees us as complete strangers from a legal standpoint. In addition, things were complicated in terms of timing. We both owned apts, neither of which was a place we could/would live as a couple, nor could we realistically rent them out. So if we got married first, we'd have to then deal with where to live and all the real estate transactions and the timing in a market we predicted was about to profoundly deteriorate (it was 2007). I believe in one "capital project" at a time if at all possible whether that means for a coop board or personally. So we decided: sell apts asap and rent while looking to buy, then get married once that was settled. We sold in the nick of time in late 2007. As we moved into a rental, my partner got a fantastic opportunity through his employer to pursue an additional degree in a difficult program that would take a couple of years. Then, we found the estate sale apt we loved. So we took on two capital projects: he would do the degree and I'd take care of the renovation/household/move during those years. To have thrown a wedding into the mix would have put us over the edge. When the reno/move/school was done, we began planning the wedding which is to take place shortly.

So, while we weren't married, we were most certainly more than boyfriends when we undertook all the real estate stuff. As lad says, it is to a degree a slightly more complicated question for same sex couples. But to undertake a real estate purchase together, I think the point is that one really ought to be in a very committed relationship both partners see as permanent. What "very committed" is may be subject to interpretation, but I guess I would say it means at least engaged or the equivalent. Preferably married, even though that may be difficult to pull of from a timing perspective.

wanderer, the only difference is that you bought many years ago where the ny real estate market is "always going up". It's a different world now, and I think the real estate market is going to be relatively flat for a long time. If that's the case, and you have to sell with the ex, that will be a nightmare instead of your experience of getting some lucrative investment proceeds.
so OP, I think it's a terrible idea.

don't

lousy time to buy anyway--let alone in live-in financial partnership with someone you are not close enough to to marry

don't

The first step, the discussion and negotiation about how to do it and how to divide the asset if you break up, will do wonders to your relationships and help the decision on whether staying together, buying is a real option etc. Once you are done with the agreement between the two of you (with the help of a mediator, therapists and a lawyer), the rest will be extremely easy.

The Breakup says it all.

Hi, we're a straight couple, thanks for your comments. What are people's thoughts on my bf doing the mortgage and down payment (20%) and I only have my name added to the title. Then when we hopefully get married down the road (currently differing on opinion of the value of marriage) we can transfer mortgage into both of our names. Is that less risky or more risky for me? FYI - we live in his condo at present where I pay rent to him.

NYCvilager, I wouldn't even put your name on the title until you get married. You can do that later as well, even though it requires a decent amount of paperwork I believe. Your current arrangement is fine and if he can afford the mortgage and down payment on a new place, why not let him handle that until you do walk down the aisle?

Wow. Lots of old fashioned people here. Its almost as easy to divorce as it is to split up with someone you've been dating for 3 years.

Married or not is your choice - you can get the same legal protection (vs. a condo purchase) outside of marriage.

So discuss how you want to deal with a potential split. That's what adults do. And then get a lawyer to draw up a binding agreement between you - this is the biggest financial commitment you will make, and so it deserves you to agree what to do in worst case scenarios as well as best case.

Different people view money differently - so you may want to split everything, or you may want one of you to pay, and both names on the title deed. I would rather have the both names on the deed and an even "contribution" to the downpayment - makes for an easier exit in the near term if things go wrong. In the long term, if you guys stay together, it doesn't matter....

DON'T.

Keep renting until you get married.

I assume a mortgage would have to name all title holders, and hold them jointly and severally responsible for paying up. No?

There's nothing about marriage that makes the process of breaking up any easier, and it's not like all marriages survive, so I'm not sure it follows that it's worse to own property* when unmarried then when married. The key question is: why aren't you married? Maybe you think you're in a lifetime relationship but don't think marriage is that important for whatever reason. Maybe you don't want to pay a marriage penalty when it comes to be tax time. In cases like these, I don't think there's a particular disadvantage to owning a home without being married; it just means that a break up will be a lot more like a divorce, with complicated separation of property, than in a usual dating situation.

On the other hand, if you're not married because you're not sure that this is the relationship for the rest of your life, I agree with others that it probably seems premature.

* Actually, marriage does provide one benefit: being able to own property with tenancy in the entirety. This probably makes it all the more difficult to deal with in a break up though.

streeteasy gives relationship advice too ? what a great site

I vote for you buy the palce and get the mortgage and then he pays rent to you ...

I am alone is seeing your currrent situation and the proposed purchase as having him in the position of most (perceived) power ... perhaps then the ring will come ... if YOU want it.

bad idea, just for the complications.

> finding the rental market overpriced with few options

have you actually done the math? Compared to the cost of buying?

> I bought with my g/f when we were at college many years ago and it turned out to be a great
> investment.

Ah, the anecdote as investment strategy... that always works out well.

"FYI - we live in his condo at present where I pay rent to him".

Just a thought; Was he involved in a live-in relationship when he bought the Condo you are both residing at presently? If so, then I think you could figure the rest out on your own.

Have a contract drawn up clarifying percentage of ownership,disagreement procedures and steps to remedy. Treat the apartment like a company the two of you are starting. Its best to do it at time of purchase when everyone is happy and on the same page.
It will remove most of the ackwardness if things go south as a set of procedures and/or rules are laid out and don't need to be fought over when emotions are in the wrong place.

Or you could just practice some old-fashioned restraint and delayed gratification and wait until AFTER you're married.

Like you did Matt?

Female end of a hetero couple here. We broke up after living in the apt. for around a year.

I paid the downpayment, but we couldn't get a mortgage unless both of us were on the title. But the de facto deal was that I was carrying most of the charges, with him adding a couple of hundred a month. Hardly carrying charges.

I wanted out of the relationship, he wanted to stay together. I wanted to sell, he wanted to keep the apt. (Surprise!) It was ugly, and I lost everything. But for the fact that I was thrilled to get the hell out of that relationship, financially it was not good for me. I've learned my lesson. Do not buy anything with anyone to whom you are not married. Obviously (and unfortunately) gay couples have an extra burden to bear here; I'm speaking from a heterosexual relationship viewpoint.

The even better news is that we obviously didn't get married. A bullet dodged, and I count my blessings.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

"I assume a mortgage would have to name all title holders, and hold them jointly and severally responsible for paying up. No?"

No - you do not have to name all title holders on the mortgage. It's unusual, but it does happen.

BTW, I really enjoy that a couple of the usual suspects will try to turn any thread into yet another rent-buy.

NYCvilager, I don't quite understand the type of relationship you're in. You would prefer to get married, but you're not; you're paying rent to your boyfriend, and although you have enough for a downpayment, he's going to buy the next place as well. If you are buying a place together, why aren't you each putting half of the dp, and have an agreement in place as to who owns what? Marriage is just a convenient predetermined arrangement, it doesn't mean you can't have legal agreements in place about who owns what, and how you share liabilities (mortgage/maintenance/tax) and the equity.
Let's say you break up within a year of two. He put all the dp, you'll have paid half the m+t as "rent" and you get zero equity. So in essence, you share the liability (having your name on the title), but not the equity. It seems like you're being taken for a ride.

I've owned a place when I was married, and have owned a place with a girlfriend (although I paid for everything- in both cases).
If your name is on the title, it's not much different whether you are married or dating- you both own the place (along with the bank). If you split up, it's not much different than a divorce... someone has to move, or you have to sell. Big deal.(Although a divorce is more of a headache for other reasons, not really related to real estate.)
It seems to me that most people on this thread have never done this, or don't understand how it works, because it really isn't that different.

broadwayron, the main difference is that if they were married, assets acquired during marriage would have to be divided equitably, as determined by a judge. As a partner, in the absence of a written agreement, there is no expectation of what a fair/equitable division might be. In this instance, having him put all the dp, and with her having paid "rent" in their previous arrangement, I wonder what would be deemed equitable?

Oh, lordy. I am going to turn this RE thread into relationship advice. Sigh . . .

Honey, if he's lived with you for 3 years, and there's not a ring on it, face the fact that he doesn't want to marry you. If a man really loves you, NOTHING will KEEP him from marrying you. He wants you off the market, and wedded to him forever, as fast as possible.

Here's an anology; remember that fabulous pair of boots (or shoes, or dress) that you saw and HAD to have? That you couldn't live without? Would anything really have kept you away? Now think of the other boots (or shoes, or whatever) you've seen; you like them, they'll do for now, they're on sale, might as well take them. They're nice to have in the closet, but they're not as GREAT as the pair you LOVE. See the difference?

http://www.amazon.com/No-excuses-Truth-Understanding-Expanded-export/dp/1416948678/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303311540&sr=1-6

>Honey, if he's lived with you for 3 years, and there's not a ring on it, face the fact that he doesn't want to marry you

On the side relationship aspect of this conversation, yes i have to agree, if after max 2 years not living together and after max 3 years no ring.......nevering

A few years ago I was selling a studio in a coop, and my first buyer was rejected because she was still theoretically on the hook for the mortgage on the house her ex-boyfriend was living in.

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy, but I agree with a lot of those above who advise you to really have something detailed and explicit in writing with your boyfriend as to how to divide the property, who covers what costs, etc.

I don't think marrying or not really plays into this discussion. You can accomplish through contract whatever real estate transaction you might have wanted to accomplish through exchanging rings and vows.

It's actually things like "boyfriend putting the down payment" or any other money aspect that extends the 3 year to 4+, 5+, etc. It's basically buying an extension.

I think the original poster already knows this isn't a good idea, or she wouldn't be posting.

"Advice is what you ask for when you already know the answer but wish you didn't." --Erica Jong

By him putting up the DP, isn't that better than blowing the money on a ring (I'm assuming half the DP is more than a ring)?
If the DP is $100K, wouldn't he essentially be giving her $50k, if her name is on the title? That seems like a better deal for her than an $8K ring.

"I would prefer to be engaged or married before buying a place" says it all. Get rid of the fool & find yourself your REAL life partner & your real estate life partner. This ain't the one.

Advice from someone that was in a similar position (i'm the female end of the relationship).

Don't do it. I considered co-owning when we bought a condo (well, HE bought, but i did all the legwork finding it, helped with the negotiations, blah blah blah), but in the end it was all him. We moved in, i paid him rent (1/2 of maintenance, interest, & insurance, all AFTER tax benefit -- no way i was gonna be paying for his principal if i didn't own!). Things were great, until 2 years later when we broke up. Having to find a new place and pack up all your stuff, and move out of your dream house is bad enough as it is, i can't imagine if we also had to fight over the place. In the end, i think we approached it the right way -- rent from him, don't pay for his principal, and if you get married in the end, its all a wash and no one got screwed. If you break up, ditto -- no one got screwed. FYI, me and the ex are still good friends. Don't know if that would have been true if we fought over real estate.

2nd example: friends of ours bought a place, sold for a profit, bought another place, broke up. Fought over who would get to stay and who would leave. The girl wound up buying out the guy's half, but they had to negotiate how much the place was worth, which is tricky at best... AND she had to scramble to get the cash to pay him, because she couldn't exactly take out another mortgage to pay off the boyfriend. Disaster. Avoid.

"I think the point is that one really ought to be in a very committed relationship both partners see as permanent. What "very committed" is may be subject to interpretation"

Back in the day, the only "interpretation" was that you were committed for *life*.

So, in brief: dtmf and buy your own place. With this newfound pride and self-confidence, you'll attract a better class of louse.

You need to consider and think about worst case scenario: Breaking up and having to sell - what if the apartment you buy is not worth what you paid when you have to sell it? Who assumes the loss? My cousin just closed on a place that she owns and that her boyfriend and her moved into - however we had her boyfriend sign a document stating that even though he is paying 1/2 he has no legal right to the apartment.

Please, DON'T do it!!
Not committed enough for a ring, definitively not
committed enough for a mortgage. The difference
between you and the other "boyfriend/girlfriend"
who purchased is, YOU would prefer the ring.

I'm "buying" with my girlfriend, but keeping everything in my name to avoid the hassles mentioned above. I think our arrangement is fine. I'm putting down all the money, and she will pay half of the carrying costs (e.g. maintenance, interest payments on mortgage, utilities). If we break up, we have agreed that the place is mine and she would move out. Of course, I take upside and downside risk on the value of the apt, and suffer the forgone income on the down payment.

Just be aware, if your boyfriend pays you rent (or vice versa), that's taxable income (which may be offset by your interest deductions/depreciation). To avoid receiving income, you should agree that you are each liable for half of the carrying costs while living together.

"no legal right to apartment"

Be careful of such non-legal language. What this means is pretty open to interpretation. No ownership right? No right to occupancy? What about right in equity as opposed to law? If you are going to make supposedly binding and valid legal agreements, a lawyer should be involved because you are unlikely to create what you think you are creating if you write something on your own. For example, even if you effectively agree that one party will have no claims of an ownership interest in the property, that does not address the occupancy issue; in NYC, if you live somewhere are pay to do so (or frankly, even if you don't) for a brief period of time, you cannot be forced to leave without proper notice. And if you choose to fight the eviction, the legal proceedings can drag on for many months. If the breakup is bad and the non-owning party feels wronged, it is a real sh-t show trying to get them out if they won't leave. Similarly, even if the agreement has terms for what is to happen if one party wants to sell, compelling the other to agree to the terms if they refuse can be an expensive and time-consuming endeavor. Even if you get everything in writing in nice tight legal language, there is no magic force that will ensure both parties will respect the agreement. Breakups can be nasty events and people can become stubborn, vindictive or develop a sense of fairness that defies logic and the written agreement. Lawyers are expensive as are legal proceedings. My point: don't think that writing down the terms of dissolution will somehow mean that the mess of a breakup can be avoided along with the potential for very serious financial consequences.

A friend of mine owns half of three different properties with three different ex. Best thing ever done, he says.

He says, he couldn't have gotten that equity without going half with someone. No real income as mortgage on all three but looks good paper.

He had issues with getting a new mortgage with his current gf. New rules and harder to get mortgage when you have half three different mortgage.

jif: "best thing ever done, he says." Has he done a lot? Because this doesn't sound so great. All his equity is tied up in 3 properties that produce no income and in which he does not live or gain any benefit, yet he has to remain entangled financially with an ex even as it has negative impact on his present relationship. That's a "best thing?" I don't think I want him anywhere near my finances.
And what does "looks good on paper" mean? Looks good to whom? Himself? Obviously not to the new mortgage company. Sounds like a mess.

Hey thats what he says. I think it too crazy. three half mortgages with your ex. There is NO income because all three ex lives in them, so no market priced rental. I think its dumb. He could be having some decent cash flow. Or better yet, sell the three and get a bigger place right now.

This is the advice (unsolicited but given anyway) i gave both my sons when they decided to live together with their girlfriends. One Year. You have one year to figure this out. If she is the one, you will know easily before the end of the year and you can ask her to marry you if she'll have you. You don't need more time than that because you just can't change people into someone they are not regardless of time spent. If your relationship has gone on longer than that with no sign of a ring, he is just looking for a comfortable spot until 'someone better' in his mind comes along.
NYCvilager, this is something you probably don't want to hear and i am sorry. But have the 'marriage' discussion first with him before you do the real estate adventures. Your are lucky/smart enough to have other options as you have your own financial resources. Good for you.

rosina: your sons are lucky to have such a wise mother. I've always said that if you are a relatively mentally healthy person, there is nothing you will learn after two years together that is likely to materially alter what you each think about whether you belong together or not. Date for two years, live together if you must, but if you aren't sure at 2 years there's no reason to believe you'll know any more at 3 or 4 or 5. What you see is what you get in a person--they do not change that much if they are relatively mature and mentally healthy. Also, a relationship in the early years is often as easy as it gets. If it is a struggle at the beginning, it rarely gets easier. When it is right, you don't need to figure it out forever--you know. It is when it is not right that we too often delude ourselves into all sorts of contorted thinking to avoid recognizing it just isn't going to work.

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that she will own half of the down payment if they split?
And, breaking up a serious relationship is not much different if you are married or dating (unless you have a ton of assets, which doesn't seem to be the case here).

You two have it nailed.

NYCvilager, it sounds to me as though you've already made up your mind and want confirmation. If that is the case, don't do it unless you each are represented by an attorney and the attorneys draw up a contract that covers all contingencies for a RE partnership.

But if you're still on the fence -- JUST DON'T DO IT! For all the reasons others have stated above. If you want to be engaged or married before you buy a place (and being married is a much better position than being engaged under these circumstances), then why isn't that what you're doing? Stick to your guns about that one issue and I believe much truth will out. Even if it turns out not to be a truth you want to hear, I think you will be better off in the end.

Or you could each buy a place and visit each other until the time comes when he's ready to make a commitment.

This is advice from an old person who's seen a lot and has kids who might even be significantly older than you and your boyfriend.

You need to talk to a lawyer about wills as there may be inheritance issues if god forbid something happens to one of you. Does the other inherit everything or does the estate? Will the survivor be left with the remaining mortgage? If you are not married, there may be inheritance tax issues too.

This kneejerk reaction of "marry first!" makes little sense to me.
Why is it any better or smarter to be married before buying?
If they divorce, you're in the same exact place with regards to the apt.
Being married or not has zero bearing on the decision to buy the apt.

Also, why is the boyfriend putting up the entire downpayment?

Things have definitely been lost due to the computer problems yesterday.

including, I think, new listings. there are only 40 listings showing up for manhattan in the last two days, and i'm fairly certain that is quite a bit off. i wonder if they'll ever be found!

not lost -- just in the cloud

Terrible idea (unless you are gay in which case the considerations are different as others have mentioned). If you do buy, put everything in one persons name. And make sure that person can afford to pay the mortgage in full if you two break-up. If you do that, one person can help with the mortgage but if you decide to split up, you are not stuck trying to sell the place. The transaction costs associated with selling a place are very high (6% for broker; 2% transfer taxes and others) so if you break up and need to sell the place, unless you have a significant amount of cash you can flush away, it would be a financial diaster. I know the idea of owning place sounds great, but (imho) if you are not ready to commit to marriage (and there is nothing wrong with that) you should not be doing things that mix your financial affairs so much.

One contract at a time.
If you love each other enough to buy concrete then cement your future in concrete.
I recommend prestressed concrete.

One dirty little secret not mentioned here so far is the fact that many co-op boards do not look favorably on couples buying apartments who aren't married.

The bias doesn't necessarily apply to gay couples (for obvious reasons, since they *can't* be married).

But presumably, since straight couples CAN be married, the fact that you aren't doesn't speak well to to a board to the stability of your union.

Listings might not be a bug. It is both Easter and Passover this weekend. Why list now?

jordyn / broadwayron, it is not about whether it is more complicated to deal with splitting the apartment as a married couple vs. an unmarried couple. Sure, it can be a pain or relatively easy (but still costly) depending on the couple and the reasons for break-up. However, if a marriage has a 50%(?) chance of ending in divorce, what do you think the chances are for an unmarried couple breaking up? I think the latter is why most are saying "don't do it."

Get married first. If he opposes marriage on principle and you clearly sound like you want to get married then it will be a problem. Get it resolved first. Taking out a mortgage together is not a way to get someone to marry you nor is it a substitute for marriage. If he can put a downpayment let him take the morgage on his name and keep your name off this apartment. You can just agree on a sum that you will contribute monthly. 2 of my friends did that and it worked out great.