Can you buy a house and then rent it out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a nice neighbor you are! How did you know which mortgage company to call?

+1

That just seems like such a crappy thing to do.

Um, the crappy thing to do was to use fraudulent means to impose a rental property on a community. I'm applaud the pp's due diligence and reaction, and I am appalled that you scolded her for doing it.

So, before you go off on OP's "typical DC response" I would content that in fact, it was the investor who acted badly. Shame on you for blaming the victim here.

While in theory you are being ethical it is hard to agree with someone who is simultaneously being a busybody and a snob.

[Anonymous]

I live in a condo building. While I don't love the idea of renters, I really can't complain as most of them are really wonderful people - some of whom have taken better care of the building than owners. So quit your judging.

OP, as others noted, this is tricky. It's been done, but still - very tricky. You have to affirm to the seller via contract and the lender that you will live there. Doing something other than that is fraud and people get in a lot of trouble for mortgage fraud.

[Anonymous]

I had a condo for numerous years that I refinanced and then six months later moved and now rent it out.

Did I commit mortgage fraud by moving so soon after re-financing? I refinanced with the same mortgage company I had for years already. If so, what could the consequences be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooh 22:40 you sound like a dirty nimby. 'imposing a rental on a community'?

We imposed a lovely family on a community at our rental. It's not your business how a mortgage is obtained as long as an area is zoned as residential.

Go bother people who are actually wrecking others lives with real crimes.

+1. From the "typical DC MYOB" poster.

I just have bigger fish to fry in my life than sitting at my freaking window watching neighbors and reporting them for stupid crap.

Get. Lives.

People who live in a commmunity where residents are owner-occupiers have a right to be annoyed by the imposition of a rental. So, to your "get lives" comment, I say: "Play by the rules."

Because at the end of the day, THIS is the "typical DC response" -- behaving like you don't think the rules apply to you.

I'd rat out the new neighbor who did this too. In a heartbeat. After all, it's not like they live next door and I have a relationship with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a nice neighbor you are! How did you know which mortgage company to call?

+1

That just seems like such a crappy thing to do.

Um, the crappy thing to do was to use fraudulent means to impose a rental property on a community. I'm applaud the pp's due diligence and reaction, and I am appalled that you scolded her for doing it.

So, before you go off on OP's "typical DC response" I would content that in fact, it was the investor who acted badly. Shame on you for blaming the victim here.

While in theory you are being ethical it is hard to agree with someone who is simultaneously being a busybody and a snob.

You sound like a typical DC asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a condo for numerous years that I refinanced and then six months later moved and now rent it out.

Did I commit mortgage fraud by moving so soon after re-financing? I refinanced with the same mortgage company I had for years already. If so, what could the consequences be?

Yes, you did. They could call the note. As in, demand payment for it in full. I guess they could also make a criminal complaint for lying on mortgage documents.

[Anonymous]

They won't care unless you stop paying

[Anonymous]

The "community" has no say at all in how many renters are imposed on it, unless HOA documents specifically regulate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a nice neighbor you are! How did you know which mortgage company to call?

+1

That just seems like such a crappy thing to do.

Um, the crappy thing to do was to use fraudulent means to impose a rental property on a community. I'm applaud the pp's due diligence and reaction, and I am appalled that you scolded her for doing it.

So, before you go off on OP's "typical DC response" I would content that in fact, it was the investor who acted badly. Shame on you for blaming the victim here.

How is she a victim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a nice neighbor you are! How did you know which mortgage company to call?

+1

That just seems like such a crappy thing to do.

Um, the crappy thing to do was to use fraudulent means to impose a rental property on a community. I'm applaud the pp's due diligence and reaction, and I am appalled that you scolded her for doing it.

So, before you go off on OP's "typical DC response" I would content that in fact, it was the investor who acted badly. Shame on you for blaming the victim here.

How is she a victim?

How do you know pp is a "she?"

But, to answer your question, pp is the victim because s/he is negatively impacted by having a renter move in next door, especially if this is an uncommon thing in his/her neighborhood. Renters generally don't care for property as well as homeowners. So if the rental was enabled by fraudulent behavior, yeah, pp is the victim.

Only a typical DC asshole would defend the neighbor for behaving this way. Those are the types who try to turn it around and call the victim names like "snob" and "busybody."

This would be the same type of person who would drive a BMW and yell at the grandma for entering the crosswalk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a condo for numerous years that I refinanced and then six months later moved and now rent it out.

Did I commit mortgage fraud by moving so soon after re-financing? I refinanced with the same mortgage company I had for years already. If so, what could the consequences be?

Yes, you did. They could call the note. As in, demand payment for it in full. I guess they could also make a criminal complaint for lying on mortgage documents.

They could. But they won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a nice neighbor you are! How did you know which mortgage company to call?

+1

That just seems like such a crappy thing to do.

Um, the crappy thing to do was to use fraudulent means to impose a rental property on a community. I'm applaud the pp's due diligence and reaction, and I am appalled that you scolded her for doing it.

So, before you go off on OP's "typical DC response" I would content that in fact, it was the investor who acted badly. Shame on you for blaming the victim here.

How is she a victim?

How do you know pp is a "she?"

But, to answer your question, pp is the victim because s/he is negatively impacted by having a renter move in next door, especially if this is an uncommon thing in his/her neighborhood. Renters generally don't care for property as well as homeowners. So if the rental was enabled by fraudulent behavior, yeah, pp is the victim.

Only a typical DC asshole would defend the neighbor for behaving this way. Those are the types who try to turn it around and call the victim names like "snob" and "busybody."

This would be the same type of person who would drive a BMW and yell at the grandma for entering the crosswalk.

There is no entitlement to NOT live next to renters. People should not have expectations that this will not happen. If they are so against renters, they should buy in coops and other restrictive places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a nice neighbor you are! How did you know which mortgage company to call?

+1

That just seems like such a crappy thing to do.

Um, the crappy thing to do was to use fraudulent means to impose a rental property on a community. I'm applaud the pp's due diligence and reaction, and I am appalled that you scolded her for doing it.

So, before you go off on OP's "typical DC response" I would content that in fact, it was the investor who acted badly. Shame on you for blaming the victim here.

How is she a victim?

How do you know pp is a "she?"

But, to answer your question, pp is the victim because s/he is negatively impacted by having a renter move in next door, especially if this is an uncommon thing in his/her neighborhood. Renters generally don't care for property as well as homeowners. So if the rental was enabled by fraudulent behavior, yeah, pp is the victim.

Only a typical DC asshole would defend the neighbor for behaving this way. Those are the types who try to turn it around and call the victim names like "snob" and "busybody."

This would be the same type of person who would drive a BMW and yell at the grandma for entering the crosswalk.

There is no entitlement to NOT live next to renters. People should not have expectations that this will not happen. If they are so against renters, they should buy in coops and other restrictive places.

People SHOULD have an expectations that others play by the rules. Are you a typical DC asshole who doesn't think the rules apply to her?

[Anonymous]

And another thing, mortgage companies themselves know renters are higher risk, which i why rates are higher. So when someone defrauds the mortgage company this way, we all pay more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Real estate attorney here. The loan docs are actually not vague as to what is owner occupied. Intent is irrelevant. Instead it says that you will move with 60 days and reside there as your primary residence for 12 months.

You would have to buy as an investment property.

Same regs in every state?