this post was submitted on
101 points (69% like it)
178 up votes 77 down votes
all 125 comments

[–]mhgilliland 153 points154 points ago

My advice to you would be to speak with a financial planner immediately.

[–]human_botfly_larva 111 points112 points ago

You mean you wouldn't make a $100k decision based on what random people on the Internet tell you? Madness!

[–]insomnia_accountant 1 point2 points ago

The internet is serious business. It' ALWAYS true. Why would anyone make stuff up anyway.

[–]nyyoooo 29 points30 points ago

How does one find a reputable and trustworthy financial planner? What questions would you ask them or what would you look for in their credentials to determine or indicate to you that you can trust them?

[–]traal 29 points30 points ago

First, it needs to be a flat fee/hourly rate financial planner, not one who earns commissions on financial transactions.

[–]MadmanPoet[!] 2 points3 points ago

Even fee based FA get paid a commission. They just get it based on the fee (which is based on your financial transactions). That is something my time at Ameripise taught me. They just get paid a draw against commission, which is basically the same as commission but there is a floor to their weekly income.

I work on straight commision now and have to submit to an impartial reveiw of recommendations I make for my clients.

[–]mackstann 2 points3 points ago

Fee-only.

[–]lotzasunshine 5 points6 points ago

Check with local credit unions. The one I work for has a financial planner on staff so members can get input for free.

[–]excoriator 1 point2 points ago

Get a recommendation from NAPFA, the professional association for Fee-Only Financial Advisors. Go to the Resources page on that site for a checklist that you can take to your first meeting with the advisor that will help determine whether you want to work with him/her.

[–]bannana 21 points22 points ago

The Op is asking someone for advice don't make it sound like s/he is an idiot and this hasn't occurred to them. It's in every way normal to ask one's peers for advice on difficult matters before spending money on a 'professional' that could possibly turn out to be a thief.

[–]warmshower 8 points9 points ago

this was sound advice, i thought, and didn't seem to be condescending... i think you may have read too much into his "tone"

to back up the guy above, see if someone you know who is in their 40s-60s, that you trust and who does well, has a financial planner. i did this when looking at some financial questions myself and wound up with very good guidance. and all i did was have a 100% free, 30 minute phone call. the planner knew i was young and agreed to speak with me because of my connection - also presumably to build up his network of future potential clients. no pressure, no cost.

[–]mhgilliland 0 points1 point ago

I really was not trying to be condescending. I've seen many instances where folks have sought opinions on the internet and have not planned on speaking with financial planners.

[–]bannana 1 point2 points ago

I came back like I did because over the last year or so when someone would ask a question around here the top answer would be "go to some costly professional" which is exactly what the OP's question is trying to avoid or at the very minimum have some working ammunition if they do have to seek professional help. All these answers were making it sound as though anyone giving advice would be held liable for a crappy answer if the OP followed it and something horrible happened. The only time that happens is if an actual professional (lawyer, doctor etc) gives an answer in a professional capacity. Regular people giving advice on the tubes is a-ok and what people are looking for when they ask these questions in the first place. I didn't mean to be a dick about it, there's just been a long history of people asking about their head cold and the peanut gallery saying "GOODGODGOTOTHEDOCTORNOWBEFOREYOUDIE" or I just broke up with girlfriend and she has my teddy bear "HOLYFUCKINGCHRISTGETALAWYERBEFORESHETAKESYOURLIFESAVINGS" and these are the top comments for some bizarre reason.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 3 points4 points ago

Thanks, I was just looking for random internet opinions and planned on speaking with one this week.

[–]mhgilliland 2 points3 points ago

You're welcome and I am really sorry if my comment sounded condescending at all. Best of luck to you with figuring out what to do and I am sorry for your loss.

[–]kidNurse 51 points52 points ago

What about buying but then rent the whole house out! It's a 4 bedroom and much larger than your current needs and depending upon where you live, you would have more that enough to cover the mortgage and your rent in a place that won't require as much maintenance. If you estimate a one bedroom rent is 650, what's a 4 bedroom going for, 2500 maybe? That would cover your rent somewhere else and you still have the investment.

[–]UnderEachSnare808 15 points16 points ago

This is a good idea but I would be just a little leery of the tenants. Case and point: My family recently inherited a house from a family friend who died with no family. My friends and I rented it from my dad for about two years. When I was living there everything was "OK" and there were only minor problems that surfaced because I was regulating a little bit. After I moved away however, the place got trashed. My dad had to replace so much shit including - I shit you not - 8 doors and countless other issues that need to be resolved before the house can be put on the market.

That being said renting is a lucrative and viable option because you can cover the mortgage and supplement income while keeping the property. I would definitely talk to a financial planner however and get a good idea what the real estate market is like in your area. Good luck my friend.

tl;dr - If that house needs more work to go on the market now - renters (who often care little about upkeep) might make it worse.

edit property taxes are a bitch though :/

[–]kidNurse 5 points6 points ago

You inspire another point, the income might be a problem if you're on financial aide and taxes, you'll have to pay taxes on the income. So yes, go directly to a financial planner, do not pass go, do not collect $200...

[–]noctrnalsymphony -1 points0 points ago

Before you do this, find out what fees/licenses are required to be a lessor in your locality. You are probably looking for something called something like "(Your Town) Office of Landlord Tenant Affairs" and googling that will likely find you their website.

[–]Kerrits 0 points1 point ago

I have probably been lucky so far, but I have had 2 very good tenants in the place that I rent out. The last one even keeps on paying rent, even though she was retrenched.

If you do a credit check, have a look at the last 3 month's bank statements and phone the previous landlord, and then go with your gut feel on top of that, you should be reasonably safe.

Maintaining the place can still be a pain, although there is a maintenance guy in the same complex that does everything and just sends me the bill.

[–]akalo11 8 points9 points ago

This is a great idea; passive income is always helpful.

Another option is to sell the house and invest the 100k+ into a multi-family with an 8-10% ROI. Read Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad Poor Dad to help make the decision. Find It, Fix It, Flip It is another good resource that can help a lot right about now.

But renting the house out to 4-5 tenants might bring you the most return for your effort.. take advantage of having a 4 bedroom house, it's a rare gift.

[–]kidNurse 13 points14 points ago

The unfortunate problem from renting to 4-5 individual tenants is that it's been my experience he'll still have to do maintenance and upkeep weekly and he might not have the time for that as a student.

[–]kazza789 8 points9 points ago

Is this common? I lived in a 4-bedroom share house for 5 years as a student, and we had maybe 3 or 4 issues that we called the landlord about in all that time. I'm not in the USA, though, so expectations might be different here.

[–]kidNurse 7 points8 points ago

Individual tenants need to have their responsibilities clearly spelled out, including upkeep of shared space and even then people tend to do the minimum or let things go.

[–]akalo11 4 points5 points ago*

A property manager only costs about 8-10% of gross income.. it will pay for itself.

This isnt to say it's the only cost tho; with property tax (im guessing about 1800 a year for his property), insurance (about 80 a month), repairs (maybe 130-150 a month averaged out, considering AC repair, flooring, painting every few years, etc.), and assuming 75% vacancy rate, with 2400 coming in from 4 tenants at 600 a pop, he can easily average 1200-1500 a month. 1400-1700 if he rents out the basement too. Even after the mortgage payment, it isnt a bad ROI if it's a 200k property

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

600$ a month is not a realistic amount that I could charge monthly, more like 400$, and $500 for the basement. Also maybe $600 for the master bedroom if I rent that out instead of staying in it.

[–]akalo11 1 point2 points ago

Okay.. that changes things a bit.

Hope this isn't weird, but I like to calculate property costs, so I tried to make yours more accurate to calculate ROI.

If you're getting 2100 a month ((4 * 400$)+500), If you figure you'll have a 70% vacancy factor (figuring tenants aren't found easily in your area), that leaves $1470. 10% goes to the property manager, that leaves $1323. $960 goes to mortgage and property tax, that leaves $363. (maybe consider refinancing if you can get a lower rate?) $80 to insurance and $150ish for repairs, that leaves $133 a month profit. Not sure if you'll pay for electrical, water, trash, sewage, etc.

This doesn't leave very much profit, but under good circumstances it can probably pay for itself. Real-estate is pretty cheap now, so waiting for the market improve, and for your property to appreciate in value (if you think it will based on how nicely it's been maintained), might not be a bad idea.

I know someone who bought a 100k property and has seen it appreciate 40k over the past 10 months. Yours is worth 200 now; it might be worth 300 in a few years.

Just a thought, good luck making a decision. Reddits here for you if you need us.

ps. wink-wink nudge-nudge charge them 450. ;)

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 1 point2 points ago

We're looking at 3 rooms rented since I would live here too. I have went over the numbers a hundred times in my head.. I can do it and get by month to month without touching the leftover money much as long as I have tenants in all 3 rooms that pay on time.

Really I am weighing the responsibility of owning the house(maintenence, current repairs needed, being a landlord, etc) and if it is worth the stress and risk.

[–]akalo11 0 points1 point ago

ok, good luck

[–]kidNurse 0 points1 point ago

If you are a handy-type and like ,or at least, don't mind the maintenance then go for it. I've known students to do this, it's not really common now, so the level of responsibility is up to you. Just remember, and this is the important part, once you sell you can never go back. But if you put the money out now, you can always sell down the line.

[–]eric1589 1 point2 points ago

Don't count on renting out multiple rooms to multiple people... Especially if they are friends or school buddies. That sounds like a good way to get stiffed or taken advantage of. Unless you have some really respectable friends that are never tight on money and don't have any scum bag friends of their own coming over occasionally. Money, responsibilities and obligations will break or at the very least strain and change relationships. And if anyone ever gets mad at you, you have a big fat 4 bedroom liability that you can't sit and watch 24/7.

I know it sounds like the dream scenario to stay in there and hold things down yourself, but it's also the most risky. The more people you have to depend on, the more potential problems there are, the more likely they are to occur and the weaker your position is. I personally would lean towards renting it out completely, with professional assistance to make sure you are legally covered for anything. Or selling it and getting yourself a very small and affordable place to stay on your own. And taking time to really research about budgeting and investing for your future. This way your set for now and a good amount down the road. You aren't depending on others to make your ends meet therefore their problems will not become your problems. And you will have financial stability and security. As long as you handle it properly you may be able to buy and rent places later on, if you want to do that.

[–]onepedro57 7 points8 points ago

Unfortunately, being a landlord isn't always very passive.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 1 point2 points ago

I agree on paper the landlord thing sounds great, but I have one tenant already and that is scaring me off from doing it already. I can't imagine having to hassle 3 people for rent every month and never getting it on time. Not to mention she has never lifted a finger to clean her own room, or the kitchen at all, I have to go in her room to retrieve dishes for a 29 year old like her fucking mother. (needless to say, if I keep the house she is gone)

[–]mackavelli 2 points3 points ago

Have a lawyer write up a contract. You shouldnt have to hassle your tenants for rent every month. If there is a penalty for paying late im sure they would get it to you in time.

[–]kidNurse 0 points1 point ago

He's another idea, I hesitate to put it out there, but if income is the real issue, then consider subsidized housing. If you rent the whole house you get a guaranteed income paid by the county if you're in the US. Section 8 it's called in California. It does require you to rent the whole house though and I can almost promise that your house will take more wear and tear.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 2 points3 points ago

Rent for individual bedrooms is about 500 a month, 600 for basement with full bathroom and private entrance(kind of). That puts me at 500+500+500+600=$2100 a month in rental income IF all rooms are rented and all people don't fuck my house up and pay on time, and aren't obnoxious to live with. The chances of my house getting fucked up without me living there to check shit periodically is much higher. I like the new idea though, something to think about.

[–]jacobb11 1 point2 points ago

If you don't want to live in the house, I think you are better off selling it. Sure, the house can be used to generate income, but that's probably more difficult and less profitable than you think.

[–]bookishboy 1 point2 points ago

Keep in mind that if you no longer inhabit the house, the city/state rental codes for "non owner occupied" are usually more strict including inspections and fixes that (if you're financially strained) you may not be able to afford or properly monitor. For example, if there aren't 2 standard sized doorway exits from the basement, it may not be legal to rent that out as habitable space if the house isn't owner occupied.

[–]kidNurse 0 points1 point ago

depends upon where you live. In California, we have building codes, but that's it. Unless you rent ADA.

[–]mangorocket 1 point2 points ago

being a landlord, especially one who is live in with multiple roommates is NOT a fun/easy job. You have to really want to be a landlord and be prepared for people trashing the place, making more repairs than usual, having a plan for when there is an extended vacancy, and sharing your living space with strangers.

[–]kidNurse 1 point2 points ago

Personally, I could barely handle one renter, which I've done on occasion let alone a houseful. However, I did have a friend do this, then rent a room closer to his work. Every weekend he would go back to the house and take care of the extensive garden he had. He was growing most of his veggies. It worked out to be a net positive on sooo many levels.

[–]m741 17 points18 points ago

First, sorry for your loss. What do you need the house for? You say it's a 4 bedroom house. There's one of you. That's a huge house, and a huge investment to have hanging over your head. To see if that's worth it, you need to compare to rent for an apartment in your area.

Here's the balance for each decision. My assumption is a sustainable rate of return of 3% in the market, and that maintenance, depreciation, unrented months are 50% of rent, which is a bit pessimistic:

Sell House

+117k @ 3% SWR = $3,500 annually = $300/month investment income
-- Rent

Buy House

+25k @ 3% SWR = $62/month investment income
+ $400/month basement rent * .5 = $200/month
+ $500/month bedroom rent (estimated) * .5 = $250/month
-- $960/month mortgage & tax

Thus, I would consider buying, if general rent were $650-$750 in your area. You'd probably come out further ahead if you were handy enough to make home improvements and proved to be a decent landlord. Personally I would keep the home and try to rent out two bedrooms + basement. I would pay off the mortgage in advance with any spare income and after a year or two stop renting one of the bedrooms (too much effort), and then a year or two later I would try to sell the house and move into something of a more reasonable size.

Hope this was helpful.

[–]ness36 0 points1 point ago

Plus, once you finish school, is it likely you will move somewhere for a job or grad school? Are you in an area with a good job market? Consider this when you are considering keeping the house.

[–]kidNurse 0 points1 point ago

or start a family :)

[–]m741 2 points3 points ago

"Oh wow, you're getting married! When did you decide this?"

"Well, I decided it would be better to amortize housing expenses across two people."

[–]McNuggz 26 points27 points ago

Buy the house, keep your 25k. If you decide you don't want a house and would rather have the money.. then sell the house later. If you sell the house for 150k, wouldn't you be in a much better position than if you never bought the house to begin with? You would have 175k rather than your initial 87k.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Johnny_Thrust 7 points8 points ago

Exactly what I was thinking...I'd sit on it for a while until it isn't such a buyers market.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

The problem is in this area it takes like 6 months to sell a house in good condition, I'm scared to default basically is the only thing stopping me. Also the stress of renting and worrying about month to month bills.

If I sell it I will have a huge security nest-egg and not have to worry about anything at least until I get out of school.

[–]jiqiren 2 points3 points ago*

Depending on the seriousness of your heart condition… You probably don't want to have $25k of cash if you have a medical issue. Unless you have good health converge already - you won't qualify for government help if you have assets. Better to have the house + debt + qualify for gov health assistance.

If you have any assets beyond a home and low-value car the government will force you to spend the money to cover costs before they help.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

I'm nmot too worried about my heart condition, I was born with it and havent been to a doctor in 8 years, if I drop dead, I drop dead, when I get out of school hopefully I'll get a job with health insurance then I'll see a proper doc.

[–]littlejohnnyjewel 7 points8 points ago

Buy the house. Mortgage & insurance under 1k is a pretty good deal...it might be your best opportunity to own. You're on track to be a homeowner, with a paid off mortgage, at 43! That will put you WAY ahead of the game, even if you have a meager income, in the meantime.

As a student, you should be in a good position to find tenants for extra rooms, if you decide to rent them out.

[–]Stubb 4 points5 points ago*

Sorry to hear about your loss. Sounds like you've been dealt an unpleasant combination of issues to deal with.

I'd recommend selling the house. Buying it will commit you to maintaining it and complicate moving to chase opportunities. Working part time and going to school will take up a considerable amount of time. Do you really want to spend what's left of your free time mowing the grass, cleaning gutters, painting, caulking, and fixing shit that breaks? Several of my pals own rental properties, and big variable is finding renters that will pay on time and not trash the place. That's harder than you'd think.

Stick with an apartment for the time being. It may cost a bit more, but you can pick up and move much more easily and you're not on the hook for maintenance.

Also look for a financial advisor that can help you manage your savings. You're sitting on significant amount of cash. I'd recommend finding someone that operates off a fixed fee (e.g., 1% of your invested amount) and has complete freedom in placing your assets (i.e., they're not getting a commission from a particular family of funds).

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 1 point2 points ago

That is what I'm leaning towards because its too stressful to find people to pay on time and not fuck up my house, plus I have to maintain the house which is already in fair condition and needs at least some electrical work and a new/repaired air conditioner.

An apartment right up the street will cost me roughly 8000 a year.. I could theoretically on my current income live in the apartment for 15 years(which I don't plan on doing) More like 5 years until I land a decent enough job and use the rest as down payment on a different house in a location of my choosing.

[–]missingpiece 6 points7 points ago

If I were in your situation, I would sell the house. Where you're at in your life, you don't need an entire house to yourself, and you don't want to piss your money away paying to live in a huge house every month. Plus, you don't want to be tied to this house. If you sell it, you could move anywhere, do anything!

Other posts are saying that you could always sell the house if you decide you don't want it, but now is not a good time to sell a house, and it likely won't be for the next several years. Meanwhile, having over $100k would be enough to give you complete financial freedom for a long time, if you're careful with it. I'd still keep my job and not live outside my normal means, as you'll bleed money like a stuck pig, but you're no longer limited by finances.

Pay for your school and then decide where you want to live. Europe, Asia, the ocean, Lake Michigan, you name it.

[–]TheGoddamBatman 0 points1 point ago

So your two siblings want to sell you a 180k house for 67k?

They sound pretty foolish. Jump on that before they realize what they're giving away.

[–]jacobb11 2 points3 points ago

Nope.

The house is appraised at $180k, with a mortgage balance of $87k, leaving equity of $93k. He can buy out his siblings' portion of the equity for $62k, which is exactly 2/3rds of that equity, presumably because he has 2 siblings.

[–]TheGoddamBatman -2 points-1 points ago

Ah, of course. He should low ball them on the equity then to make the deal worthwhile then -- since he's the holdout, I'm guessing he's in a pretty decent negotiating position.

He can be creative -- either offer each the same amount, or play one off the other. Figure out who's more desperate to sell, and offer her less.

I'm assuming OP is a scumbag like that since he's already renting out a basement that he doesn't own and doesn't report taxes.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago*

They are selling me their shares of the house for 67k, plus they get to walk away from the 87k that is left on the mortgage. Including the fact that I own 1/3 of the house as well this is exactly 66% the cost of the house. That is how things work, we each own 1/3 of the house so if any of the three of us wanted to buy it, it would be at 2/3 of the cost. Both siblings are open to buy the house as well, they don't want it.. neither of them grew up in it nor even have been in it for 5 years, they did not communicate with my father even though he paid for them to go to college and are benefiting from his death, which is a whole different story.

These are the numbers that our family lawyer laid out for us. I had permission to rent from my siblings and I'm pretty sure it's common for people to do small side jobs and not report earnings on it. You know what they say about making assumptions..

[–]jacobb11 0 points1 point ago

BTW, something to consider is that selling a house has costs, and you might knock that off the equity. For example, a 6% real estate agent commission would be $5k+. (I have no idea if 6% is fair -- I've never sold a house -- but that's what I've heard is "typical".)

[–]TheGoddamBatman 0 points1 point ago

Generally speaking, you don't want a lawyer handling both sides of a negotiation -- and I'm telling you, everything is negotiable. Offer to buy their 2/3rds interest for less, to cover the costs and risk of selling. Maybe offer each $25k, or one $20k and one $25k, something like that. You'll immediately be ahead on paper, and selling a house /is/ risky. Besides, you can then turn around and renegotiate the mortgage with the bank, threaten foreclosure, etc. Might get some of the principal knocked off there, too.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago*

I've entertained the idea, I think I'm going to let them put the house up for sale, and when they realize they have to put 10k into it to get it upto code to even be able to sell it, and they aren't going to be getting offers for 180, and might have to pay the mortgage for 6 months to a year, they will be begging me to take it off their hands, and if they aren't, it isn't worth 180 to me so that's fine too.

[–]realshygirl 1 point2 points ago

The appraised value isn't necessarily what it'd sell for. For example, the 5-year old house I bought 10 months ago for $110K was supposedly worth $140K at the time. In general, it's a bad time to try to sell a house in near-perfect condition, so I can't imagine trying to sell a fixer-upper. While they may hope to get $180K for the house, they may only get offers in the $140K range (or worse), which isn't even $18K each after the mortgage is paid off.

The $62K would cover the OP's siblings' portion of the owed mortgage payments, the only definitive "value" the house currently has, and they may be smart to take $31K apiece rather than to continue paying the mortgage while putting in the extra effort/money that goes into trying to sell a fixer-upper. The OP lives there (the OP's siblings may not live nearby) and already has one renter, and is thus in a far better position to maintain/repair the property and if he/she decides to buy the house, deserves to profit from such an investment in the long run. Each of the OP's siblings could easily take their $31K and put it toward down payments on smaller houses/condos that stand to gain value as the economy recovers and won't require so many repairs or such large mortgage payments (interest rates are fantastic these days).

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

They're not really giving away anything, since 87k is still owed on it, and I already own 1/3rd of it.

[–]Squameda 0 points1 point ago

Sell everything, move to Thailand...

[–]Drapetomania[!] 5 points6 points ago*

Sell the house, invest that money carefully. Since you're still going to school and haven't started a career it's likely this won't be the house you'll live in forever.

Also realize that owning a house is a lot of work and maintenance, including cost of repairs. You'll have to mow the lawn, shovel the snow (depending on region), possibly deal with shit like backed-up sewer, burst pipes, broken dishwasher, etc. In an apartment you don't have to deal with that, and frankly it sounds like it's already in a bit of disrepair. And depending on your lawn mowing can be labor intensive especially if you have to mow on a slope (which really sucks).

Don't fall into the "I HAVE TO OWN A HOUSE!" bullshit that culture dictates. This money will get you through school and help you possibly start your own business or help put you on the path to finding one. Just spend it RESPONSIBLY and don't think that because you have a lot of money in the bank you can eat at Red Lobster every night.

Buying the house to sell later is a risky venture because of the state of the economy and property values.

Also, renting--it can be a lot of work, because people don't treat the house as well as they would their own and then you have to deal with repairs, possible criminal activity on your property, so on and so forth. Do you really want that headache while you're in school? My mother rented out before and it was a real headache.

[–]Dokterrock 8 points9 points ago

because you have a lot of money in the bank you can eat at Red Lobster every night.

I'm willing to bet that even people who do have a lot of money in the bank don't do this.

[–]Drapetomania[!] 0 points1 point ago

Impulsive people do. People that want to keep a lot of money in their bank account don't.

[–]learycm 4 points5 points ago

I think he was referring to the quality of food at Red Lobster.

[–]Drapetomania[!] 0 points1 point ago

Okay, that's funny.

[–]slimjuvie 5 points6 points ago

WHOOSH

[–]Drapetomania[!] -1 points0 points ago

Uh, no; there was an article here on frugal not too long ago about how many millionares live frugally and don't drive the fancy cars or act like you'd expect.

[–]SexBobomb 1 point2 points ago

Hey dont make fun of my lobster-and-biscuits-only diet!

[–]UnderEachSnare808 1 point2 points ago

A lot of good points here

[–]TableTopFarmer 4 points5 points ago

Buy the house from the sibs, make small principal only payments until you are out of school, and then refi and give them each a fat balloon payment.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

Give who a fat balloon payment?

[–]sunnydaize 0 points1 point ago

I think it mostly depends on if you want to stay in that house long-term, what sorts of expenses that house is going to incur (ie does it need a new roof etc) Also I don't care if that guy in the basement is your best friend since kindergarten, if he doesn't pay his rent kick his ass out. This is why you shouldn't mix business with friends. :)

[–]thomas533 4 points5 points ago

Buy the house. The general rule is to acquire assets (things that generate money). Since you are renting rooms out, the house is a money maker for you. If you rent out a second room, the mortgage will be almost completely covered and your rent is essentially free.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

Yes this is what would happen in a perfect world, but the problem is finding reliable people who will pay, if I go too long without renters, it will drain my funds quickly.

[–]thomas533 0 points1 point ago

Not sure about the details but here goes...

Let your friend know he needs to pay the rent on time or you will find a new renter (mixing business with friendship is a tough dilemma but you need to be firm about this with him). Normally a vacancy rate of about 10% is generally assumed in rental property business plans. Eventually you will want 10% of the property value saved as an emergency fund but starting off with $10k is good for now. If you can, negotiate with your siblings that any immediate repairs that need to be done should be equally paid for by all. If not take $5k and fix the house up. If your basement friend is having a hard time paying his rent, and is able, have him do some of the repair work. It would be a tax benefit to both of you.

Rent out two more rooms for $300/mo. If the basement is really that good of a deal, up the rent to $450 and you will essentially be breaking even on mortgage and taxes even taking into account the 10% vacancy rate. Then what ever you would normally be paying towards rent should go to increasing your emergency fund until you get it up to 10% of the property value. If you can't up the basement rent then your emergency fund just grows slightly slower, but it isn't a deal breaker.

This should leave you with $10k left over for your own personal rainy day fund in addition to the property emergency fund. If you do decide to legitimize your business (and you should seeing as you have more assets to lose now) and run it out of your house, any loses you take in the property can be leveraged against your other income so you don't have to pay as much in income taxes. It is worth paying a CPA a few hundred to go over all of this for you.

Even if your vacancy rate is double the average you are still only about $1500 short for the year which is far less than what you would have to cover if you were paying rent on your own apartment.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

I like where you're comming from. The basement is more like 500-550 but I was helping out a friend in need, as she was also helping me out since we don't know the fate of the house. It is fully finished 330 sq/ft bedroom with an attached full bathroom. I have made it clear to her that she can move to an upstairs bedroom for $400 when I find a tenant for downstairs but she has to start paying on time every month, and sign a proper lease.

The bedrooms could go for $400 a month maybe $500 including utilities.

The only variable is finding renters that are responsible, and paying the mortgage on months when no renters are present, that would drain my funds very quickly.

[–]thomas533 0 points1 point ago

With a $10k emergency fund you have nearly a years worth of backup payments. If you can manage to pay yourself $500/month in rent (which is cheaper than the $650 you said that you'd pay in rent) that will be $6k per year your emergency fund increases.

With the basement at $550 and the bedrooms at $400 with the 10% vacancy rate you will be making about $3k a year in profit which should cover most shortfalls that arise and after about a year you will be getting free rent too seeing as to the fact that your emergency fund will be topped off. It might be a bit stressful initially, but having that sort of passive income asset as you start your life after college will be absolutely worth any difficulty you go though now.

[–]syuk 0 points1 point ago*

Sorry to hear about your loss.

Drop some cash on a financial aid, or do it free at a bank if they still can. Don't mention your business until you legitimise it, or you can pretend that this is an opportunity to go into business and then legitimise it.

It is not a huge amount of money so remember that, it won't last forever but you can use it as a great springboard into a nice future for yourself. don't let anyone make you do anything until you have got some advice (not from the internet, from a financial advisor, a bank or a lawyer).

Internet guy advice, don't waste any money, if you like the cellphone business go apeshit with that (get some leaflets and a website and some stock (parts or cheap tablets) maybe but don't go carraaazy, just tidy things up.

edit: if you keep the property drop a fair chunk of your money on improving and maintaining it. If there are problems with it then it might not be worth what you expect later.

Good luck!

[–]japaneseknotweed 0 points1 point ago

Go to the local hardware store, call the local realtors, talk to the folks down at the town office. Ask around, find out who the local landlords are who actually do a good job keeping their houses in good repair. Find out who the good contractors are. Pay a landlord and a contractor a respectable hourly fee to do a walkthrough/consult with you, talk to you about what you are getting into.

If you keep the house, you can always rent part of it to someone at a reduced rate in return for management/upkeep.

[–]thewhitebear -1 points0 points ago

Buying and renting the whole house is a good long term decision, and you will benefit from it years to come. If anxiety is getting to you. Sell the house, take the cash and rent. Less things on your mind, and it will just be simpler. Definitely write them all out so it gets it out of ur head and onto paper. Good luck!

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

The problem is finding people who will pay on time every month and won't fuck me.. it seems hard to find reliable people. The person who is currently living in the basement is about to get kicked the fuck out and can't afford a measely $400 a month on a 60+ hour a week job with close to no other bills, it boggles my mind.

[–]jooes 0 points1 point ago

A similar thing happened to my friend about a year ago. His mom passed away, and he was stuck with the house. So, he just figured out how much it would cost to run the house, and then rented out bedrooms to people. He lives there basically for free, and usually he comes out ahead too (He also factored in "emergency expenses" in the rent he charges, which aren't always needed)..

But seriously, talk to somebody who actually knows this kind of stuff... That's probably the smartest thing you can do...

[–]DoingEverything 0 points1 point ago

Be cautious. With so much uncertainty in your monthly cash flows for the next few years, you would expose yourself to a huge amount of risk by buying out the entire property. Are your siblings employed? Continuing to hold the property jointly isn't a bad idea.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

Continuing to hold the property jointly will be impossible, my siblings are not up for debate or discussion, they want to sell it asap and have nothing to do with it, they never lived in it, just me and my father.

[–]vcaylor77 0 points1 point ago

If this is your childhood home where all your family memories were made, be sure you really want to sell if you decide to sell.

As for the job situation, it's not hard to get jobs for local government as an emergency services dispatcher. Usually pays decently and you're sitting in an office.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 1 point2 points ago

No, not really but it does have some sentimental value. My father bought it after my parents divorced, only me and my father lived in it for 8 years until I moved out, then moved back in a few years ago

[–]hardman52 0 points1 point ago

This post and thread seem strangely familiar.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

My situation is hardly unique, and considering millions of visitors to reddit every day, I'm not surprised.

[–]vbullinger 1 point2 points ago

First off, sorry to hear about your dad.

I've never rented and never will. Seems insane to me that people are suggesting you sell the best asset you'll ever have plus give up on all your memories and then give money to other people so that you can stay at their place for a short period of time.

If you have a mortgage of $87,000 and you're paying $960/month, you're paying too much. Obviously, that was set for the full mortgage. You should refinance. It might be tough if you don't have a full-time job, however. You might need to wait a while.

Don't move and rent out the whole house. Just find one or two very trustworthy people and rent to them while you live in the house. Get handy, if you aren't already, because you're the landlord now. You're 26, not 12, so you probably already know a thing or two.

Seriously, focus on that full-time job thing. This is extremely important. I don't want to sound mean, but 26-year olds shouldn't be living with their parents anyway. This is a rude awakening and a rough kick in the pants to get you going, but you need to get a career off the ground and fast.

In the meantime, your minor income plus rent from a friend or two (at most, no need to go crazy) should easily pay the bills.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 1 point2 points ago

I guess you missed the part where I said I can't find a job that isn't strenious labor is impossible here without or sometimes with an education, and the heart condition part.

And the part where I just moved back in 2 years ago, to get back on my feet after being on my own since 18.

[–]vbullinger 0 points1 point ago

Career advice, career advice... okay. Get a full time job. Any full time job. Work at a gas station or something. Doesn't matter. Another idea would be to find a company that would have a position for you someday and then get any job there. You can rub shoulders with the people that could transfer you to wherever in the future.

[–]rainbownerdsgirl 1 point2 points ago

Buy out the house and rent out all the rooms except for yours and continue to live there.

I am sorry about you losing your dad. Please let us know what happens.

[–]fishbulbx 1 point2 points ago

Do not sell while the housing market is down and mortgages are at record lows. You can always sell the house later if your situation changes. Plus your siblings could help you out on the payment structure if they are more financially secure (let them bring that up.)

[–]nonviolentprotestor 0 points1 point ago

Buy out your siblings, if that option exists. That leaves you with the option to live in the house, or sell it, or rent it, without having to split things in the future with them.

It looks like the 62k is a 2/3 split of the present equity in the house. I suppose that's the fairest way to do it. If I were your brother, I'd probably give you my share for a bit less than the appraised value, if you were moving into it and taking ownership. But, obviously, if you decide to sell now, I'd expect a fair 3 way split of all proceeds of sale.

Sorry for you loss, but I hope you get this sorted out soon. As others have suggested, consult with a financial planner immediately as well, to make sure that the cash you have is handled well. And if you do assume the full mortgage and full ownership of the home, renegotiate that mortgage at a nice new low rate. Being a student, I'd recommend locking into a fixed rate 5 year term, at least, so you know what your rate is. Having a couple of room mates paying you to live in the extra rooms is totally the way to go, if you can find people that you can trust. I did this for the past five years, and built up a substantially equity in a house which I sold this past summer when I got married, and we now live in a brand new dream home as a result. Having other people pay my mortgage for me for a few years was awesome. But again, your situation may be different. Best of luck.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

Unfortunately you aren't my brother and sister, even though they had no communication with my father for 3 years before his death, while he paid child support and then for both of them to go to college, and cars... they feel entitled to every last penny they can get their hands on. For no good reason, my father was a good man and treated us all well. I asked them why they never saw him and my sister blames my mother and my brother gets all overly defensive and just throws insults at me. How dare you ask me that etc etc.

[–]noctrnalsymphony 0 points1 point ago

I rent out the basement for $400 a month(which is a steal) to a friend

renters pay on time(current one doesn't)

These two statements are your problem. As far as financial obligations, you MUST be a landlord first. I would advise not renting to friends, especially not at a loss to you. There's generosity and there's being used. Figure out which one is your scenario.

Maybe $400/month is OK for one of the bedrooms, and someone who can afford the basement could move in? Is it a finished basement?

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago*

Yeah, that arrangement is temporary due to not knowing the fate of the house. My siblings were okay with it so I could pay the homeowners fees, and Utilities so they didn't have to pay it out of the estate. It was an impulsive decision and there is no renters agreement and no mail or proof that she lives here so she can't give me shit when I kick her out, which I plan on doing if she doesn't straighten herself out.

Also yes it is a fully finished basement, 330 sq foot bedroom with an attached full bathroom with standup shower, no bathtub.

[–]RosieMuffysticks 0 points1 point ago

I strongly recommend that you buy out your siblings, then rent out two of the rooms in your house for $250/mo each. Strict rules on kitchen and bathroom usage, no messes left in the common areas, and you take responsibility for vacuuming, dusting, etcetera. Use your second bedroom as a studio, home-business office, or storage of family heirlooms.

You can shop around for cheaper homeowner's insurance, take out carpets and replace with laminate or vinyl, which will lower the insurance premiums, install fire alarms and extinguishers, which will also lower the premiums.

Whatever you decide, understand that owning a house is a huge responsibility, and you may want to weigh the fact that this was your parents' house (sentimental value) against your youth and ambitions.

If you install a vanity sink and mirror in each of the rental rooms, you can charge $300/mo.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

They can fetch $400-$500 easily, the basement can go for $550-600 it is a 330sq/ft bedroom with an attached full bath. It is in a very good neighborhood.. this house was once worth 330k, I can only assume real estate can only go up since it is half of what it was.

[–]RosieMuffysticks 0 points1 point ago

Well, I think you've got a good deal there!

[–]herpderpherpderp -1 points0 points ago

Jesse Pinkman?

[–]slack_with_me 1 point2 points ago

Buy the house from your siblings. Property, although low now, is an asset and assets are good things to have in these trying times.

Then rent the house out to someone trustworthy (maybe the sibling) for what it would take to make you comfortable now. I.e. take the cost of taxes and mortgage and get as close to that as possible.

I did this when I bought a house valued at 600 at the time for just under 5, and the value dropped a third (upside down on it basically). After 5 years, the value is up bc the rent paid for upkeep/improvements, I have a mortgageable asset, and in a few years maybe will even make a profit.

I had to pay out of pocket for difference between the rental value and the mortgage payment/taxes. and I won't lie it was pretty difficult. There was a lot of sacrifice. But I came out the other end with a manageable home in an amazing neighborhood, if I ever decide to move back with a family.

The base point being, I made someone else pay down nearly 7 years of my mortgage principal. That's pretty frugal.

[–]rbarnette123 -1 points0 points ago

1st world problems. You're a toolbag.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

right....

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

Maybe I should just kill myself and donate my estate to a charity for africans to have new spears and mudhuts made so they can live like savages lmao... no one gives a fuck about the third world because they don't give a fuck about themselves.

[–]dont_be_an_arse 0 points1 point ago

find a good handyman. preferable someone with awesome reviews. pay him to fix the house to a decent standard. then rent it out to a family (etc). then get an apartment. their rent payments will cover your apt rent and then some. put a huge chunk into something safe, like an ira or good stocks. get a decent car if you need one.

[–]lensman00 0 points1 point ago

If you file your taxes (which you really should be doing anyway), you'll very likely come out ahead by receiving an Earned Income Credit which should more than exceed any tax liability you might have.

[–]diggity801 -1 points0 points ago

I'd sell the house and invest the money. That is too much house for one person. You could get roommates but then you have to have the hassle of getting them to pay you every month. If it were me, I'd just live simpler in a 1 bedroom apartment and invest the money.

[–]Manilow -2 points-1 points ago

God you're pathetic. 87k... really? If you need a financial planner to figure out what to do with that you might as well just go and blow it on hookers and booze right now. No amount of professional help will save you from being so fuckcing stupud.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, move along troll.

[–]otherwiseyep 0 points1 point ago

Holy shit you are barking up the wrong tree in this forum. Forget about frugal and do it right.

First off, you need a lawyer and a financial planner. I am very sorry for your loss but the first order of business is divvy up the estate cleanly, not to maximize returns.

Who is the executor here? Is it you?

Given a vague "everything left to everyone" will/estate, first order of business is to divvy up the personal possessions, furniture, stereo, etc. My advice is to just let everyone pick in order of youngest-to-oldest, or some randomized order. Everyone picks one thing until everyone's done picking. Then just liquidate the rest and split it: put the house and cars on the market.

PI hate to say it, but people in your position are a Real-Estate-Speculator's best friend. Divorces and deaths are the best ways to get real estate on the cheap, because they produce assets that need to be liquidated for cash quickly.

You can't both expect to sell for top-dollar, and expect to sell quickly. If you want to sell real-estate at top-dollar, you you need to be able to wait for the right buyer. If you want to sell it instantly, you need to accept the fact that someone else is going to arbitrage it.

You seriously need a lawyer. Sorry for your loss.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago*

Everything but the house is already taken care of, I don't want to sell the house, personally I want to keep it and I don't expect it to sell. My siblings think it is worth more than it is and want a ridiculous amount from me to buy them out, I will let it sit on the market, and after the county worker comes out to inspect the house and they realize they have to put 2-3k each into it to be able to sell, and pay 1/3 of the mortgage each until it is sold which could take upto a year or more.. they will consider my much lower offer. My goal is to maximize returns and minimize risk.

I already have a lawyer, I don't know if you read that answer or if it was in the OP. After speaking with my friend's grandfather who is a financial adviser I feel a lot better about it. Plain and simply I will wait until the house doesn't sell for 180, and offer the equivelent of 150 or 160, if they take it, great I'll have 40k+ left over.. if not then it's not worth 180 to me, I'll let it sell for whatever and walk away from it. It needs too much work and is too risky, also I would not have enough money left over to feel secure with the house and be able to do the work that needs done..

[–]otherwiseyep 1 point2 points ago

In all seriousness, is the house worth burning those bridges?

For the sake of all that is good, separate the house from what you want. If you seriously want and can afford the house, have a meeting with your siblings, and offer to pay 5% more than the best offer it gets in the next 90 days, or whatever. Just make it so your offer is no different from any other open-market offer.

If you have represented the situation clearly, then your siblings cannot possibly claim any leg to stand on if you are willing to beat open-market offers on equivalent terms. If one of them wants to pay more for it than you are willing to pay, let them have it, and then offer to buy it back at a lower price when they cannot re-sell.

Just put the house on the market and buy it, if you want it. Sit down with your family and see how long they want to keep it on the market: 30 days, 90 days, 180 days, whatever. Then just put it on the market and beat the best offer.

Best to you.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

Well that is my plan, to offer slightly more than the best offer they get after a few months. They can't really refuse that unless they are willing to pay for everything to be fixed and continue paying the mortgage, and the longer it sits on the market, the longer I get to live in it only paying 1/3 of the mortgage and utilities, as they do if they choose.. so it's a win for everyone. They get to walk away with a higher price then they can get otherwise, and I get it for the cheapest price possible.

[–]otherwiseyep 1 point2 points ago

Whoa, sorry, your living in it puts a totally different spin on things. Sorry if I missed that detail the first time around.

If you are living in the home and don't want to leave, then I don't agree with the "put it on the market" methodology. The simple fact that the occupant (you) doesn't want to sell, drastically alters the value of a piece of real estate in uncountable ways.

I am not taking sides, but it is patently unfair and wrong to determine fair-market value based on offers with a reluctant seller. You can't call market-offers "fair" is the occupant isn't trying to sell. Ordinary home-sellers polish windows, bake bread, scrub floors, fertilize lawns, etc, etc, to make their home as attractive and as valuable as possible to potential buyers. The occupant (you) has a massive influence and ability to affect the desirability of the home, plus a whole lot of ways to make the sale more difficult.

Again, I'm not taking sides, but it's patently unfair for you to ask your siblings to accept your offers/appraisals on a home that you live in and want to keep. As a real-life RE investor, I can tell you that a home occupied by someone who wants to stay is often worth half or less than "fair-market arm's-length" value.

Blood is thicker than water, and family will mean more than you think or can count in your life. Set keeping the home aside and instead focus on keeping the family intact. Move out, turn over the home to the executor, liquidate it, and have a memorial party. If you can afford to buy it from the estate, go ahead and do so, if you want.

But seriously, don't put yourself in a place where your interests are different from your family. You will regret that a million times over, if you are lucky enough to live that long.

[–]bawzonurjaw[S] 0 points1 point ago

There is no bridges to burn in the first place, my mother put my father in the grave, my brother and sister didn't see him for years before he died and he was still paying for their school and buying them cars by giving my mother checks and they couldn't even call him. In my opinion they deserve nothing(I have never brought any of this up to them, because theres no point)

I'll either get the house for 22k a sibling or less, or sell the house. That's the plan. How I get it for 22k a sibling or less, I don't care. I can appreciate the point you are trying to make but you don't really know my situation so I feel it doesn't apply. The house is as clean as it can be, I am OCD when it comes to that(I bought a $230 shampooer to get my fathers blood out of his carpet, that saved us hundreds of dollars right there, not having to replace it), that's why no one cares that I continue to live here. It just needs a few costly repairs that no one wants to pay for so it might not even make it to the market. They want me to buy it from them before I put it on thte market, and don't want to put it on the market becuase they know it won't sell, but they want too much for it.. it's all a one-sided negotiation, so far.. once they start to realize they have to pay a realitor, an appraiser, an inspecter, and repairs, all totalling well over 10 thousand dollars, they will take a lower offer. Plus I get to live in my fathers house, until it sells which might take a while. The longer it takes to sell, the more likely they are to take my offer. I stood by my father and tried to help him for his final years and they stopped talking to him all together which made the problem worse, he is probably rolling in his grave right now because my brother and sister are trying to sell his house, and all of his possessions(which I am going to buy most of.)

[–]otherwiseyep 1 point2 points ago

I am sorry that your family has fallen out, but I have to stop you at this statement:

There is no bridges to burn in the first place...

That's an incredibly dangerous, reckless, and wrong view to take unless you are on death's doorstep, and a sad one if you are.

Thinking that there are no bridges left to burn is a great way to set oneself up for a lifetime of pointless and needless lawsuits, grudges, recriminations, questionable ownership, etc, etc.

Are you and all your siblings over 30? I fear that you may be too young to recognize how young you are. Real adulthood in the western world is rare prior to age ~25 or so, and "wise" adulthood usually takes hold around age 35~40. By that I mean, until a person has been legitimately and entirely independent for a few years, they are still something of a child.

This isn't some pejorative or accusatory "young people are dumb" sentiment, on the contrary, young people in the developed world are smarter than they have every been, precisely because real, independent, self-sufficient "adulthood" now begins in the mid-20s, not in the mid-teens. Almost every high-school sophomore in a decent school-system now knows more than their parents do, on the topics of history, mathematics, science, technology, etc, etc. By the time they have a bachelor's degree, they often know more than people who had master's or PhD's when their parents were the same age.

We have intensified and extended childhood, which is mostly a good thing: people entering the workforce in 2012 are immeasurably better-prepared and more-capable than people entering the workforce were in 1912. But in 1912, those people might have been 10 or 12 years old. Young people in the developed world today are vastly smarter and more skilled than their grandparents were, but they are also much likelier to be living an extended childhood.

That's not a bad thing, but it is a thing. None of us would want a 12-year-old to be the executor of our will, not even if she were a genius.

Leaving home, striking out on your own, learning to live by your wits, efforts, and abilities... that is a re-birth of sorts. School and College and summer jobs become a sort of extended or second gestation compared to the necessity to be a grownup in your own right. In a world without A's for effort; where there is nobody to listen to you argue why you are right, even if you are; where a brilliant thesis and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts; where proving philosophically that the necessity to pay for habitation is arbitrary and artificial will get you a smiling nod if you can pay the rent or booted out if you can't... In that world, the new adult is a child.

The hard part is convincing young people to listen to the wisdom of their elders, when those same young people are demonstrably smarter than their elders. Older people have been lamenting the impetuousness of youth for thousands of years, and youths have been lamenting the suffocating conservatism of their elders for just as long. This is the nature of expanding technology and aspirational parenting-- parents succeed in producing kids who are smarter than themselves, and then lament that their kids won't listen to them.

This is all a good and natural part of overall human development. It is right and hopeful that each generation will be smarter and better than the previous, and that is mostly true. It's also right and good that parents should worry for their kids, and also that kids should independently test the boundaries of their parents' wisdom. That's all part and parcel of the extended rearing process of high-school, college, etc...

We don't simply abandon kids to fend for themselves once they reach reproductive age, as most mammals do. We pass on accumulated knowledge, wealth, wisdom. We endeavor to make our kids better than ourselves.

Back to the point, the "problem" is when our kids are burdened with decisions that they are not equipped to make. Dolphins and monkeys don't have the problem of distributing estates.

A 25-year-old college graduate is not well-equipped to understand the consequences and implications of decisions with 60-year consequences. Such a person has really only been an independent "adult" for maybe a year or two. Being 12 years old is literally half a lifetime away for them, back in 2000, while their next half-lifetime will be in 2037. It's not a reasonable burden to put on someone who is only a year or two removed from effective childhood to ask them to make decisions with decades-long consequences. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens.

My advice, when confronted with decisions that are on a much bigger scale than you are accustomed to, is to be conservative, and to allow a generous margin for error. Assume that you are stupid, and that your assumptions are wrong, and that what you know is not really applicable, and that the stakes and risks are higher than you have ever thought of, and that any decision you make will be sub-optimal.

Be conservative. There are no "moral victories". You have a lifetime to prove how smart you are, don't go for broke on your first bet. And you have no idea how family stuff will play out between now and 2052-- that is a far bigger bridge than you think it is, and you will regret burning it if you do.