1. What if we claimed it's for a bed and breakfast? >>> A B&B is a business and requires zoning approval, business permits, inspections, business insurance, and tax considerations on a federal, state, and local levels. The purchase of the home for use as a B&B is a purchase of investment property and also requires zoning approval, business permits, inspections, business insurance, and tax considerations on a federal and state levels. 2. Or would it be better to say it's for 100% personal use to treat it as a primary residence for better interest rates? >>> You can only have one primary residence. Claiming both homes as a primary residence would be FRAUD. Your homeowner's insurance company would also consider this FRAUD. Be aware too that insurance companies share information on homes insured including past claims and homeowners. This would give your insurance company grounds to claim fraud and not cover any claim on either home. 3. Maybe a mortgage broker would give us a break if we do 2 mortgages at the same time? >>> Doesn't hurt to ask. I would expect though that since one is for a principal resident and one is for a rental investment property with differing interest rates it will not be discounted. 4. A friend suggested we officially rent out our own house with a fake lease and move into the other house as our primary home, but that sounds too fishy to me, doesn't it? >>> You would be committing FRAUD against the bank, insurance company, and IRS. 5. We were otherwise thinking of constructing a guest house on our own property (lots are large - it's a rural area). >>> Check your local zoning laws to see if you can and what restrictions there may be. Many areas do not allow more than one home unit on a property regardless of the size of the property. We live rural on 10 acres and it is not allowed. 6. The property doesn't have to be joined officially, in case we in the future want to sell it again. >>> Once officially joined it is doubtful that they would separate the properties. Without the properties being officially joined you can not get a single loan to cover both. The bank will easily determine this when a title search is done. 7. We would use the house for a combination of extended family visits and short term vacation rentals for a few years (we are expecting our income to go up substantially in a few years, so we wouldn't have to rent it out later). >>> If the house is rented it is an investment property with rental income. It may be converted to personal property but when you sell the home you will have to claim recapture of the depreciation taken while a rental. 8. (From another poster) If you were just short term renting it out I don't see why that's fraud it financed with a home loan. All these folks that are renting out houses or vacation properties don't have busniess loans, they have home loans. >>> The may or may not have a home loan but once they rented it out it becomes a rental investment property and they claim it as a rental investment property to the IRS and insurance company. Saying it is a 2nd home and not a rental (and not claiming it as a rental investment property) is FRAUD. There are some very helpful folks here offering some good advice to help you find a mortgage product and keep you from getting into legal trouble. Buying a home (whether your principal residence or an rental investment property) will involve your mortgage lender, credit bureau, lawyer, title company, insurance company, and eventually the IRS since it gets copies of your mortgage interest. I suggest you talk to a mortgage lender to see what options they suggest and then talk to a tax adviser about owning a rental investment property. IF you would actually go talk to a tax adviser you might find out that it's to your ADVANTAGE to claim it as a rental property! Gosh, YOU SHOULD really go see the thread "Principal Residence" on the Household Finances Forum ... it sounds just like what your asking about!

Most RE attorneys will not facilitate a "Subject To" closing, because they feel like they are helping to facilitate a civil crime. The current mortgage has a Due On Sale Clause which means that if the deed is transferred, the current mortgage must be paid in full. This clause was added in the 80's when interest rates skyrocketed and people found it beneficial to take a note subject to, at the current interest rate, as opposed to getting a new loan at the current, high interest rate. I know an investor that does Subject To deals all the time, and the lenders have never called the note due. But there is always that chance. He only is in posession of the home for a very short time, as he immediately rehabs and sells them. Unlike you would be. Another thing to think about... what is going to happen when you go to buy your next home and the lender finds that you have another mortgage? You will probably not qualify. And if you do, it might be considered a second home, which raises other issues. I personally would not do it... too much risk. If you do go through with it, set up a banking account in your name where the drsfts for the mortgage payments will be coming from, so the bank does not see the change. You will also have to figure out how to fool the banks as far as the insurance policy changing names, but the house was never sold. This is a major way that the bank will know that the home has changed hands. As you can see, even if no one has ever been prosecuted for doing this kind of thing, it is shady at best.

The comments here are very interesting, but there is not a lot of actual good advice. I built a concrete fence last year on the property line, so i actually do know the legal ins and outs about it. By-law officers showed up many times to check on things during construction. The first thing to note that is very important is that the neighbor building the fence, can apply to the city for a "right of access" permit at which point these is nothing that you can do to stop them accessing your property, depending on the city it usually costs about $250. these permits are very common and are normally issued for construction and maintenance purposes. however, that simply gives them the allowance to access a per-determined part your property and other specified things, like: to dig the trench. it does not allow ANY of the concrete to be on your property. the concrete can touch the property line, but cannot go over it. legally when completed they have to return your property to a similar or better state to how they found it, That's the Law. However, the real world is far more messy. There are a few things to consider here, ----------------------------------- The first to consider is the concrete footers, they are generally 5 feet below ground (where it freezes) and are needed to stabilize the concrete above them, they usually stick out 6 inches on both sides Now your can definitely stop them from putting any footers onto your side. BUT not having footers on your side can over time destabilize the wall, and make it move / lean / fall over / etc.. in the direction of the missing footer. remember ground is not rock, and it moves and shifts with time. So even knowing that you can stop the footer from being on your side of the property line, there is a very big question about what to do 5 years later when it starts shifting / leaning much more into your property... Personally i recommend, Negotiate! there are things that you can get out of this. ------------------------------------ Next is Fit and Finnish, the concrete that sticks out of the ground should be rendered to make it look nice. this will cost money, and so long as your neighbor doesn't do it on his side in the first month of two, he legally doesn't have to do it to your side, at all. this is considered the equivalent to him painting his side of the fence. ------------------------------------ Next is drainage, any concrete structure should be surrounded by a drainage pipe to help move water around the structure and stop water pressure underground from pushing on the structure causing it to move / fail. Again this will cost money, and legally does NOT have to be done. ------------------------------------ In Conclusion : obviously your neighbor can simply use the right of access permit like a big club to get what he wants. but at the end of the day, your neighbor will want you to be happy with the end results to avoid future problems. so Negotiate! let him build his concrete foundation, AND have the footers on your side underground. BUT mandate that he has to have your side nicely rendered, and place a drainage pipe on your side to make sure water will properly drain around this structure. ALSO mandate that you get to pick the look of the fence to sit above this concrete foundation. ----------------------------------- The last thing anyone want to to have to fight about how to fix anything in 5 to 10 years Here is a picture of my steal reinforced concrete fence. (it looks the same on all sides) (capping stones are waiting to go on the top, Covid-19 has delayed getting them on for months.)

Ipls8xx - you state that " No surveyor or government official has authority over land boundaries." That's far too blanket a statement. It may be true where you live, but not where I live. Here, a survey conducted by a licensed surveyor is registered with the government and regarded as being considerably more than just an opinion: in the absence of a competing survey, it is considered definitive. The actual surveys where I live are based on objective data measurements (GNSS, etc), not on usage, so I'm not sure that previous owner history or the existence of fences is particularly relevant. Of course, historical surveys are known to contain errors in measurement. The methods and equipment in use 80 or 100 years ago were not nearly as accurate as modern techniques, so there are disputes over where the boundaries actually lie. If there are two surveys showing different boundaries arising out of these historic errors or inconsistencies, or if there is a single survey highlighting an area of conflict, then in such cases, there is specific legislation in place allowing the government here to decide on the correct property boundaries. So yes, governments, or at least some of them, do have authority over land boundaries. This is a different issue than "adverse possession," in which the real boundaries, as defined by an objective survey,have been encroached upon by the neighbor. That's more an issue of whether the neighbor has in fact acquired part of someone else's land simply by long-term occupation, and it's up to the courts to rule on that (assuming, of course, there is such a thing as adverse possession in the jurisdiction - it doesn't exist everywhere). If the court rules in favor of the encroacher, then the land is transferred, the boundaries change and the new survey, done by a licensed surveyor, will reflect the new boundary lines.