TrevorK
06-02-2004, 10:08 AM
OK, here goes. I want to buy a house, and my grandmother has offered me her house below market value. She got it appraised by our neighbour (realtor) and told him she was selling it to me. He told her if he was listing it, he'd recommend listing @ 197,500 and he guarenteed 192,500 (City appraisal is 186,000). She told me I can have it for 180,000.
Now, I can take this or a house that's listed on the market (And most likely pay market value) for 150,000-155,000. Houses in this city go for 2000-3000 under list price because of very high demand.
Specs on grandmothers house:
1600sq ft bungalow, double attached garage, rv parking, yard, fireplace, finished basement (With kitchen - could rent out entire basement) 2 houses down from ravine.
Specs on potential 150-155K house (One that I looked at):
1100sq ft bungalow, double detached garage, yard, finished basement (Just bedrooms), normal neighbourhood.
Both are in the same condition maintenance wise. I would assume I'd be moving out of either 10-15 years down the road (As I'd want to raise kids in a different neighbourhood than I can afford now).
I can afford either as I have around 60,000 to put down on the house (And make more than enough to live on my own in either without friends), and I'll be renting out a room or two to friends (Probably get more in rent if I rented out my grandmothers basement since it has a kitchen). I'm not partial to either - both would satisfy me. Both will also be paid off within 10 years (Which means that in interest there shouldn't be more than a 10K difference between the two)
What I'm looking for are logical reasons as to which would be the better deal for me, and make the most sense financially. I ask you - as you have no emotions around the issue, just logic and reason/experience.
Which house should I choose - the one with a smaller mortgage at market value, or the one with a larger mortgage ~8-10% below market value?
Now, I can take this or a house that's listed on the market (And most likely pay market value) for 150,000-155,000. Houses in this city go for 2000-3000 under list price because of very high demand.
Specs on grandmothers house:
1600sq ft bungalow, double attached garage, rv parking, yard, fireplace, finished basement (With kitchen - could rent out entire basement) 2 houses down from ravine.
Specs on potential 150-155K house (One that I looked at):
1100sq ft bungalow, double detached garage, yard, finished basement (Just bedrooms), normal neighbourhood.
Both are in the same condition maintenance wise. I would assume I'd be moving out of either 10-15 years down the road (As I'd want to raise kids in a different neighbourhood than I can afford now).
I can afford either as I have around 60,000 to put down on the house (And make more than enough to live on my own in either without friends), and I'll be renting out a room or two to friends (Probably get more in rent if I rented out my grandmothers basement since it has a kitchen). I'm not partial to either - both would satisfy me. Both will also be paid off within 10 years (Which means that in interest there shouldn't be more than a 10K difference between the two)
What I'm looking for are logical reasons as to which would be the better deal for me, and make the most sense financially. I ask you - as you have no emotions around the issue, just logic and reason/experience.
Which house should I choose - the one with a smaller mortgage at market value, or the one with a larger mortgage ~8-10% below market value?