Pay off mortage or keep 2nd house?


J

jenniferdouvale

Hi,
I have two houses. The one I live in and the one I keep as investment.
I'm 35 and I own both houses in Belfast for the last few years. The
way things have gone, I could sell house #2 and make enough profit to
pay off my mortage on house 1. (About 170k). Would I be better keeping
house 2 or sell it and put the money I'd pay in a mortgage into long
term savings? That would be about £12,000/year.

thanks,
Jen
 
Ad

Advertisements

E

Eric Jones

Hi,
I have two houses. The one I live in and the one I keep as investment.
I'm 35 and I own both houses in Belfast for the last few years. The
way things have gone, I could sell house #2 and make enough profit to
pay off my mortage on house 1. (About 170k). Would I be better keeping
house 2 or sell it and put the money I'd pay in a mortgage into long
term savings? That would be about £12,000/year.

thanks,
Jen

Have you taken into account any possible Capital gains tax charge on the
sale of the second house, and if so will this still leave you enough to pay
off the mortgage on house 1 ?
 
J

Jonathan Bryce

Hi,
I have two houses. The one I live in and the one I keep as investment.
I'm 35 and I own both houses in Belfast for the last few years. The
way things have gone, I could sell house #2 and make enough profit to
pay off my mortage on house 1. (About 170k). Would I be better keeping
house 2 or sell it and put the money I'd pay in a mortgage into long
term savings? That would be about £12,000/year.
Sell.

The property market is overpriced, and Belfast is more overpriced than most
places.
 
R

RobertL

Hi,
I have two houses. The one I live in and the one I keep as investment.
I'm 35 and I own both houses in Belfast for the last few years. The
way things have gone, I could sell house #2 and make enough profit to
pay off my mortage on house 1. (About 170k). Would I be better keeping
house 2 or sell it and put the money I'd pay in a mortgage into long
term savings? That would be about £12,000/year.

thanks,
Jen
presumably only one of these houses is you 'primary residence' and
therfore exempt from Capital gains tax. I you wish to sell the other
one, you shoul dconsider moving in to it for a bit (six months toa
year perhaps) before selling so that the last three years of ownership
also qualify for CGT relief. if you have been letting it then there
will be some other CGT advantages if you also live in the house for a
period.



R
 
J

jenniferdouvale

Hi,
I have two houses. The one I live in and the one I keep as investment.
I'm 35 and I own both houses in Belfast for the last few years. The
way things have gone, I could sell house #2 and make enough profit to
pay off my mortage on house 1. (About 170k). Would I be better keeping
house 2 or sell it and put the money I'd pay in a mortgage into long
term savings? That would be about £12,000/year.

thanks,
Jen

Have you taken into account any possible Capital gains tax charge on the
sale of the second house, and if so will this still leave you enough to pay
off the mortgage on house 1 ?

The 2nd house, I will own it 3 years in February. So, I'm ok with CGT
til then? House I live in, I own about 18 months.
Are there ways around CGT after 3 years??
 
E

Eric Jones

Hi,
I have two houses. The one I live in and the one I keep as investment.
I'm 35 and I own both houses in Belfast for the last few years. The
way things have gone, I could sell house #2 and make enough profit to
pay off my mortage on house 1. (About 170k). Would I be better keeping
house 2 or sell it and put the money I'd pay in a mortgage into long
term savings? That would be about £12,000/year.

thanks,
Jen

Have you taken into account any possible Capital gains tax charge on the
sale of the second house, and if so will this still leave you enough to
pay
off the mortgage on house 1 ?

The 2nd house, I will own it 3 years in February. So, I'm ok with CGT
til then? House I live in, I own about 18 months.
Are there ways around CGT after 3 years??

Not if you make sufficient profit.
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald Raygun

The 2nd house, I will own it 3 years in February. So, I'm ok with CGT
til then?
Only if it will have been your main home at any point during your
ownership of it.
House I live in, I own about 18 months.
Are there ways around CGT after 3 years??
I understand that within 2 years of changing the number of homes
you have (note the difference in meaning between "house" and "home",
a "home" is somewhere you *can* live, so for example if it is
unfurnished or rented out, you can't realistically live in it) you
have the right to nominate which of them you wish to treat as your
main home (even if you don't usually live there). As you have bought
house 1 only 18 months ago, there is still time to make such a
nomination, by saying that you wish to treat house 2 as your main
home. Doing so would of course mean house 1 loses main home
status, but you can always change your nomination back after a short
time, thus ensuring that when you eventually sell house 1, you will
only have a very small amount of CGT to pay.
 
J

John Boyle

In message said:
The 2nd house, I will own it 3 years in February. So, I'm ok with CGT
til then? House I live in, I own about 18 months.
Are there ways around CGT after 3 years??
I assume you mean that the mortgages will be repaid in 3years and 18
months. (These days a mortgagee doesnt own the property, you do).

The existence of any borrowing secured on a property is irrelevant for
the purposes of CGT.
 
T

Tim

(e-mail address removed) wrote
"John Boyle" wrote
I assume you mean that the mortgages
will be repaid in 3years and 18 months...
I took it to mean that she has owned the 2nd house for 2 years and
7 months already, and so will have owned it for 3 years in February
(and she has already owned the house that she lives in for 18 months).

I didn't think she was saying anything about mortgage terms...
 
R

Ronald Raygun

John said:
I assume you mean that the mortgages will be repaid in 3years and 18
months.
I think there is a bit of a language problem here. At first I thought
that's what she meant too, as in "I will own it (3 years in February)",
but then I decided she must have meant "(I will own it 3 years) in
February", i.e. that this coming February will be the 3rd anniversary
of her acquiring ownership of house 2. Similarly I reckon she meant
that she acquired house 1 18 months ago, not that 18 months from now
(the mortgage loan on) it will be paid off.

Note her earlier remark "I'm 35 and I own both houses in Belfast for
the last few years.".
(These days a mortgagee doesnt own the property, you do).
"These days"? When was it ever not so?
I must be too young to remember, old bean.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

John Boyle

I took it to mean that she has owned the 2nd house for 2 years and
7 months already, and so will have owned it for 3 years in February
(and she has already owned the house that she lives in for 18 months).

I didn't think she was saying anything about mortgage terms...
You are right, I dont see how i read that way now!
 
J

John Boyle

Ronald said:
I think there is a bit of a language problem here. At first I thought
that's what she meant too, as in "I will own it (3 years in February)",
but then I decided she must have meant "(I will own it 3 years) in
February", i.e. that this coming February will be the 3rd anniversary
of her acquiring ownership of house 2. Similarly I reckon she meant
that she acquired house 1 18 months ago, not that 18 months from now
(the mortgage loan on) it will be paid off.

Note her earlier remark "I'm 35 and I own both houses in Belfast for
the last few years.".
Yes, you are right.
"These days"? When was it ever not so?
By s85 & s87 of The Law of Property Act 1925 a legal mortgage could be
taken in two ways, one was by giving the mortgagee a 3000 year lease. In
effect, this gave ownership to the mortgagee. The other was a charge
expressed by way of legal mortgage. Banks used to use the first, but now
generally use the latter method.
I must be too young to remember, old bean.
Well I am too young to have experienced it or done it, but not know
about it!
 
R

Ronald Raygun

John said:
By s85 & s87 of The Law of Property Act 1925 a legal mortgage could be
taken in two ways, one was by giving the mortgagee a 3000 year lease. In
effect, this gave ownership to the mortgagee.
In effect? Hmmm. But a lease is still just a lease and does not
convey ownership, so in effect a mortgagee never did own the property
[notwithstanding that non-freehold property in E&W never really changes
ownership in any case, but involves no more than signing over a lease,
and (by those standards) a fairly short-term lease at that - and how did
you grant a 3000 year lease when you only had a 90 year lease to begin
with? Did you have to refer back to the freeholder every time, or what?
Or are mortgages on leasehold property so newfangled that this style of
mortgages was never actually used for them?].

By what right, then, did the mortgagor occupy the house? By a
sub-lease-back, or some kind of licence? It can't really have been by
a right reserved as owner prior to granting the lease, can it?
The other was a charge
expressed by way of legal mortgage. Banks used to use the first, but now
generally use the latter method.
I must be too young to remember, old bean.
Well I am too young to have experienced it or done it, but not [to] know
about it!
And not old enough to have forgotten...
 
J

John Boyle

Ronald said:
By s85 & s87 of The Law of Property Act 1925 a legal mortgage could be
taken in two ways, one was by giving the mortgagee a 3000 year lease. In
effect, this gave ownership to the mortgagee.
In effect? Hmmm. But a lease is still just a lease and does not
convey ownership, so in effect a mortgagee never did own the property
[notwithstanding that non-freehold property in E&W never really changes
ownership in any case, but involves no more than signing over a lease,
and (by those standards) a fairly short-term lease at that - and how did
you grant a 3000 year lease when you only had a 90 year lease to begin
with?
Then a 89 year 355 day lease would have been taken.
Did you have to refer back to the freeholder every time, or what?
Yes.
Or are mortgages on leasehold property so newfangled that this style of
mortgages was never actually used for them?].
No.

By what right, then, did the mortgagor occupy the house?
The deed allowed it.
By a
sub-lease-back, or some kind of licence?
I dont know.
It can't really have been by
a right reserved as owner prior to granting the lease, can it
I dont know.
?
The other was a charge
expressed by way of legal mortgage. Banks used to use the first, but now
generally use the latter method.
I must be too young to remember, old bean.
Well I am too young to have experienced it or done it, but not [to] know
about it!
And not old enough to have forgotten...
Who are you?
 
R

Ronald Raygun

John said:
Who are you?
What do you mean, who am I? You know fine well that I'm R.., er, R..,
R.., erm, ... Let me get back to you on that.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

John Boyle

Ronald said:
What do you mean, who am I? You know fine well that I'm R.., er, R..,
R.., erm, ... Let me get back to you on that.
if you figure it out after my Horlicks time, then leave it till
tomorrow.
 
Ad

Advertisements

H

HeyWard Boyce

In effect? Hmmm. But a lease is still just a lease and does not
convey ownership,
Fukk off.
--
"It's a fuckin' lie. I didn't take a goddammand cent for my
pro-developer votes whilst serving the fine community on My Marco Island
and, Sir, I resent that you say that I was wily enough to have done so!
Anyone have a job for a forcefully retired, ex-Navy dickhead with no
balls or brains?"
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top