Tweet
Use of the house?
Hey guys and gals,
Need some advice.
As many are aware, I've been crunching numbers based on estimated costs to run two households. Turns out that I as a payor will be running in the red by hundreds of dollars every month.
My friend and I were brainstorming for ideas and came up with the following scenario and I'd like to get yer opinions on it.
Base our combined incomes, running two homes just does not add up.
So, I had proposed that my spouse stays in the current house, we keep our vested 'equity' in the house, thus giving her and the kids a home that is substantially less to mortgage. I estimated she would save about a few hundred dollars a month on mortage/taxes.
The furniture stays, with the exception of a few items I would need. Any repairs are to the house are shared.
Once a year, if either of us decides they want the equity from the house, we put the house up for sale.
Now this has some advantages in that the kids are not uprooted, they stay with familiar friends, have a familiar baby sitter ... the only thing to change is me going into a small one bedroom apartment.
Of course their are advantages for me as well, I can live in accomodations that are now withing my means and reduce being in the red.
I know that my equity will be tied up but at least I know the kids have a good home and are in familiar surroundings ... it also has the added advantage that should my spouse and I reconcile (praying for that one), then it would simply be a matter of me moving back in.
With the state I'm in, I'd like to get some HONEST opinions and any potential drawbacks - defacto in that they are now residing in the residence and we can I can no longer ask to have the house sold to claim our equity in the future if it does not pan out?
She had asked me to run it by my lawyer to run by her lawyer ... it seems like a fair idea that helps us out both financially, offers environmental stability and familiarity for the kids AND I know where to find em!
Thanks all
Hubby
Need some advice.
As many are aware, I've been crunching numbers based on estimated costs to run two households. Turns out that I as a payor will be running in the red by hundreds of dollars every month.
My friend and I were brainstorming for ideas and came up with the following scenario and I'd like to get yer opinions on it.
Base our combined incomes, running two homes just does not add up.
So, I had proposed that my spouse stays in the current house, we keep our vested 'equity' in the house, thus giving her and the kids a home that is substantially less to mortgage. I estimated she would save about a few hundred dollars a month on mortage/taxes.
The furniture stays, with the exception of a few items I would need. Any repairs are to the house are shared.
Once a year, if either of us decides they want the equity from the house, we put the house up for sale.
Now this has some advantages in that the kids are not uprooted, they stay with familiar friends, have a familiar baby sitter ... the only thing to change is me going into a small one bedroom apartment.
Of course their are advantages for me as well, I can live in accomodations that are now withing my means and reduce being in the red.
I know that my equity will be tied up but at least I know the kids have a good home and are in familiar surroundings ... it also has the added advantage that should my spouse and I reconcile (praying for that one), then it would simply be a matter of me moving back in.
With the state I'm in, I'd like to get some HONEST opinions and any potential drawbacks - defacto in that they are now residing in the residence and we can I can no longer ask to have the house sold to claim our equity in the future if it does not pan out?
She had asked me to run it by my lawyer to run by her lawyer ... it seems like a fair idea that helps us out both financially, offers environmental stability and familiarity for the kids AND I know where to find em!
Thanks all
Hubby