Sanity Check: home buying

[jbl623]

My wife and I are first time homebuyers. Some financial background:
I make 205k/year and she makes 69k(nice)/year
She has no debt, I have about 100k of student loans from law school left (I graduated in 2020). About 45k of that is a loan from a (modest) family trust, and has relatively low interest (about 2.5%). I have not had to pay any interest on the federal loan, other than my first few payments, thanks to COVID. I’ve been fairly aggressive in paying down the debt, paying about 4K/month.
We have two cars we paid cash for.
We are currently paying about $2100/month in rent. We have no other major expenses, other than debt payments of course.
She is recently pregnant, so assuming it works out (a big if due to a medical condition), we have that expense on the horizon.
My job pays well, but I wouldn’t call it stable. My group has been somewhat slow, and there’s no guarantees for associates, although i somewhat doubt I’ll be laid off this year at least.
I have about 98k in savings, she has about 50k. 55k of mine are cash right now (yike$) because we are planning to buy a home.

We have our sights on homes that are at or just below 400k. We live in Dallas. There are cheaper options, but not many without a long commute for at least one of us (45 minutes plus in traffic) or that aren’t close to gut jobs, which would be tough to pull off with a newborn and two people working full time. Of course, there’s also just not much on the market right now. Assuming we went that route, we would be able to put down about 13-16% after closing costs. Our plan would be to reassess after a year and try to get the PMI off. But that would still put our total monthly payment on the house at around $2400 with tax, insurance, etc.

Most advice we have been given is to do it. I guess I’m just trying to get as much insight as I can on this. The idea of having two major debt burdens (student loans and a mortgage) is somewhat terrifying, but we also want to get in the market as soon as we can, especially with a kid on the way and no sign of recession in our market at least.  Throwing rent money away each month and raising a newborn in a midrise is unappealing, but so is throwing away closing costs, maintenance costs, property tax, and insurance.

[PDXTabs]

We are currently paying about $2100/month in rent (not mustachian). We have no other major expenses, other than debt payments of course.
She is recently pregnant, so assuming it works out (a big if due to a medical condition), we have that expense on the horizon.
My job pays well, but I wouldn’t call it stable. My group has been somewhat slow, and there’s no guarantees for associates, although i somewhat doubt I’ll be laid off this year at least.
I have about 98k in savings, she has about 50k. 55k of mine are cash right now (yike$) because we are planning to buy a home.

We have our sights on homes that are at or just below 400k. We live in Dallas. There are cheaper options, but not many without a long commute for at least one of us (45 minutes plus in traffic) or that aren’t close to gut jobs, which would be tough to pull off with a newborn and two people working full time. Of course, there’s also just not much on the market right now. Assuming we went that route, we would be able to put down about 13-16% after closing costs. Our plan would be to reassess after a year and try to get the PMI off. But that would still put our total monthly payment on the house at around $2400 with tax, insurance, etc.

Most advice we have been given is to do it. I guess I’m just trying to get as much insight as I can on this. The idea of having two major debt burdens (student loans and a mortgage) is somewhat terrifying, but we also want to get in the market as soon as we can, especially with a kid on the way and no sign of recession in our market at least.  Throwing rent money away each month and raising a newborn in a midrise is unappealing, but so is throwing away closing costs, maintenance costs, property tax, and insurance.

Money wise, I'd say keep renting. If you really want a home to raise your kid in that's another thing. But $2100 < $2400, and that doesn't include maintenance, depreciation (yes, houses depreciate), or opportunity cost. Renting, when affordable, is not "throwing away money." Also, price out 5% or 10% down instead. You might be surprised how affordable PMI. I decided that a 5% down payment made more sense than a 20% down payment and not having that money invested.

[alsoknownasDean]

What's the state of the market in your area? Prices rising or falling?

The other thing is if you decide in a couple of years you need to move to a house, you're going to be doing all of that with a young child.

Remember that a portion of that $2400 is paying down the principal on the place.

[Villanelle]

$2400 a month is actually probably ~$2750/mo, longer term, given maintenance.  I assume you've already factored in property taxes and any HOA with that number.

[Anon-E-Mouze]

I think you're too early in your legal career to buy a house. (BTW, I've been a lawyer for 30+ years, and my career zigzagged in some very unexpected ways many times.)

You mentioned that your position isn't rock-solid stable. Also, you've only been practising law for a couple of years. You could easily end up at another firm, in-house or in a different kind of role within a few years - and that job shift could require you to move to a different city, state, or country. Even if you stayed in Dallas, changing jobs could radically change your commute. And of course, a different job could also affect your financial situation. If you get burned out (likely) and want to take a break from work, that will be hard to do with a mortgage millstone around your neck.

You also mentioned that there's a chance of complications with the pregnancy (serious enough that the pregnancy might not work out). Again, in that situation, do you really want the hassle and cost of moving into a new house (and the possibility of moving into a house purchased because a baby is on the way and suddenly that baby is not on the way ...)

Although I don't have kids, I can appreciate that an upcoming birth might trigger an impulse to nest. But you don't have to buy that nest. How big is your current apartment and does it have a layout that would work when the baby arrives? Initially, the baby won't take up much space, but there might be other elements in the apartment that make it a convenient/comfortable place to be with a newborn. (For example, what's the laundry situation? Do you have a second bath or at least a half-bath? Is there an elevator if you're on something other than the ground floor? Are you within walking distance of a park? If one or both of you needs to work from home, is there space to do that (and some sound insulation)?

If not, then maybe it's worth looking around for a rental that's better suited to a young family. There might even be some houses available to rent. You could do a bit of a market check now just to see what's likely to be available in terms of rentals, but then wait to actually make the move until after the greatest risk of complications has passed.

[Paper Chaser]

Property taxes and homeowners insurance tend to increase over time. Plus you'll have other expenses (both ongoing and infrequent) that you probably don't pay as a renter.

Not saying whether you should or shouldn't buy, but you need to plan for a lot more than just your fixed monthly mortgage payment.

I think jumping directly to owning a $400k home is a lot to bite off. I'd second the suggestion to rent a house for awhile. That will give you a better idea of what homeownership is like, and what kinds of things you want or don't want in a home.

[Dr Kidstache]

I second the recommendations to keep renting. Renting is absolutely not throwing money away. You're trading money in exchange for a place to live and someone else to bear the brunt of maintenance and hassles for you.
You've got a lot of uncertainty being early in a professional career and a pregnancy and buying a house is a long-term commitment. You didn't post a full case study of your spending but $2100/month on a $274,000 income sounds like you could even bump up to a nicer/bigger/more expensive rental comfortably on your income if that feels more "homey" to you. If you'd like to run numbers in detail to compare renting vs. buying, the NY Times has a terrific calculator: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html

[calimom]

I've lived in rental properties with three kids. Nesting is real, but you can make a home anywhere, and it doesn't need to involve purchasing something before you're really ready.

You have a nice income, and debt that could be knocked out in short order. At some point, do you and your wife plan to combine finances? There's a lot of 'my income/my debt, her income/expenses' and that. People do different things, but once you consider yourselves a financial unit, some solidity happens.

[bmjohnson35]

Based on the information you have provided, it may be prudent to rent for a while longer.  The only house we regretted buying was the one we bought when I transferred to a new position in another state/city.  Within 2 years, we were ready to leave for multiple reasons. When I got the opportunity to return to my former position, we left immediately.  We ended up renting the house for a year or so, since we couldn't get it sold.  We ultimately sold it at around a $50k loss. 

Trying to time the real estate market is like trying to time the stock market...........difficult/impossible to do.  Furthermore, the real estate market moves much slower.  It doesn't see huge drops all at once like the stock market can. It usually takes years to bottom out and years to climb back up. 

If you haven't already, I would perform a detailed SWAT analysis of renting vs. owning as it pertains to your personal situation.  Don't simply focus on the financials, include the qualitative measures as well.  You may be surprised what you discover. 

[jbl623]

Thank you all for the responses. This confirmed my feeling that we would be  jumping into an enormous risk by feeling forced to make a somewhat rushed decision in the face of several big unknowns. We are going to stick out the rental for at least another 6 months until  the lease ends and then reevaluate based on job/pregnancy status etc.

[LongtimeLurker]

Just my $0.02, but I would wait for a few reasons.

First, this being your first child, you will probably be completely unprepared for the responsibility and burden and how life changes once there is a newborn in the house. I thought I was... but I was not. Life felt like a struggle to just survive for like the first 6 months of being a parent, and the idea of making any kind of intelligent decision during that time is almost laughable.

Second, once baby arrives, the clock starts ticking on where you are going to settle down. Sure, people do withdraw kids from school, isolate them from their friends and drag them across town/across the state/across the country but its not much fun. So really, you should be planning to buy your forever home sometime in the next 5-6 years. So, maybe take that time to both pay down student loans and build up a bigger down payment.

Third, young kids really do not need much. Not much room. Not much in the way of nice schools, walkable neighborhoods, etc... They pretty much attach themselves to their parents for the first 3-4 years of life. Its not until later that you want the amenities of a nice neighborhood. So again, you have time.

Finally, given the multiple uncertainties you laid out(job, pregnancy, covid related real estate craziness), I'm not sure now is a good time to make a decision with long term ramifications.

[wageslave23]

We are currently paying about $2100/month in rent (not mustachian). We have no other major expenses, other than debt payments of course.
She is recently pregnant, so assuming it works out (a big if due to a medical condition), we have that expense on the horizon.
My job pays well, but I wouldn’t call it stable. My group has been somewhat slow, and there’s no guarantees for associates, although i somewhat doubt I’ll be laid off this year at least.
I have about 98k in savings, she has about 50k. 55k of mine are cash right now (yike$) because we are planning to buy a home.

We have our sights on homes that are at or just below 400k. We live in Dallas. There are cheaper options, but not many without a long commute for at least one of us (45 minutes plus in traffic) or that aren’t close to gut jobs, which would be tough to pull off with a newborn and two people working full time. Of course, there’s also just not much on the market right now. Assuming we went that route, we would be able to put down about 13-16% after closing costs. Our plan would be to reassess after a year and try to get the PMI off. But that would still put our total monthly payment on the house at around $2400 with tax, insurance, etc.

Most advice we have been given is to do it. I guess I’m just trying to get as much insight as I can on this. The idea of having two major debt burdens (student loans and a mortgage) is somewhat terrifying, but we also want to get in the market as soon as we can, especially with a kid on the way and no sign of recession in our market at least.  Throwing rent money away each month and raising a newborn in a midrise is unappealing, but so is throwing away closing costs, maintenance costs, property tax, and insurance.

Money wise, I'd say keep renting. If you really want a home to raise your kid in that's another thing. But $2100 < $2400, and that doesn't include maintenance, depreciation (yes, houses depreciate), or opportunity cost. Renting, when affordable, is not "throwing away money." Also, price out 5% or 10% down instead. You might be surprised how affordable PMI. I decided that a 5% down payment made more sense than a 20% down payment and not having that money invested.

Can you cite any references for houses depreciating? Yes they need maintenance, but most homes appreciate in value.

[wageslave23]

I think you're too early in your legal career to buy a house. (BTW, I've been a lawyer for 30+ years, and my career zigzagged in some very unexpected ways many times.)

You mentioned that your position isn't rock-solid stable. Also, you've only been practising law for a couple of years. You could easily end up at another firm, in-house or in a different kind of role within a few years - and that job shift could require you to move to a different city, state, or country. Even if you stayed in Dallas, changing jobs could radically change your commute. And of course, a different job could also affect your financial situation. If you get burned out (likely) and want to take a break from work, that will be hard to do with a mortgage millstone around your neck.

You also mentioned that there's a chance of complications with the pregnancy (serious enough that the pregnancy might not work out). Again, in that situation, do you really want the hassle and cost of moving into a new house (and the possibility of moving into a house purchased because a baby is on the way and suddenly that baby is not on the way ...)

Although I don't have kids, I can appreciate that an upcoming birth might trigger an impulse to nest. But you don't have to buy that nest. How big is your current apartment and does it have a layout that would work when the baby arrives? Initially, the baby won't take up much space, but there might be other elements in the apartment that make it a convenient/comfortable place to be with a newborn. (For example, what's the laundry situation? Do you have a second bath or at least a half-bath? Is there an elevator if you're on something other than the ground floor? Are you within walking distance of a park? If one or both of you needs to work from home, is there space to do that (and some sound insulation)?

If not, then maybe it's worth looking around for a rental that's better suited to a young family. There might even be some houses available to rent. You could do a bit of a market check now just to see what's likely to be available in terms of rentals, but then wait to actually make the move until after the greatest risk of complications has passed.

I own several houses and I second this answer. It's WAY too soon to buy a house. Rent a single family home for a year or two if you want.  There are large costs associated with buying and especially selling a home.  It's usually only worth buying vs renting if you know you are going to stay somewhere for at least 4 years. 

[ChpBstrd]

I looked up a 30y mortgage at today's rates and it looks like you'd be "throwing away" $13,114 in interest your first year.

I also looked up an actual $400k home in Dallas and Zillow says property tax on that home is $7,676. In my experience, these ads often understate property taxes, or they're about to go up. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/10537-Egret-Ln-Dallas-TX-75230/26838830_zpid/

Throw in maintenance and PMI and you're right at about the amount you're "wasting" on rent right now. And that's before we factor in about $20k-30k in closing costs, moving costs, paint and repairs, etc.

[PDXTabs]

We are currently paying about $2100/month in rent (not mustachian). We have no other major expenses, other than debt payments of course.
She is recently pregnant, so assuming it works out (a big if due to a medical condition), we have that expense on the horizon.
My job pays well, but I wouldn’t call it stable. My group has been somewhat slow, and there’s no guarantees for associates, although i somewhat doubt I’ll be laid off this year at least.
I have about 98k in savings, she has about 50k. 55k of mine are cash right now (yike$) because we are planning to buy a home.

We have our sights on homes that are at or just below 400k. We live in Dallas. There are cheaper options, but not many without a long commute for at least one of us (45 minutes plus in traffic) or that aren’t close to gut jobs, which would be tough to pull off with a newborn and two people working full time. Of course, there’s also just not much on the market right now. Assuming we went that route, we would be able to put down about 13-16% after closing costs. Our plan would be to reassess after a year and try to get the PMI off. But that would still put our total monthly payment on the house at around $2400 with tax, insurance, etc.

Most advice we have been given is to do it. I guess I’m just trying to get as much insight as I can on this. The idea of having two major debt burdens (student loans and a mortgage) is somewhat terrifying, but we also want to get in the market as soon as we can, especially with a kid on the way and no sign of recession in our market at least.  Throwing rent money away each month and raising a newborn in a midrise is unappealing, but so is throwing away closing costs, maintenance costs, property tax, and insurance.

Money wise, I'd say keep renting. If you really want a home to raise your kid in that's another thing. But $2100 < $2400, and that doesn't include maintenance, depreciation (yes, houses depreciate), or opportunity cost. Renting, when affordable, is not "throwing away money." Also, price out 5% or 10% down instead. You might be surprised how affordable PMI. I decided that a 5% down payment made more sense than a 20% down payment and not having that money invested.

Can you cite any references for houses depreciating? Yes they need maintenance, but most homes appreciate in value.

Sure, the IRS and my local country assessor. According to my most recent property tax statement my house lost 3.3% of its value last year while the land it sits on went up in value by 8.3%. Land tends to appreciate, but not the structure that you live in. When you buy a house you are buying two things, the structure and the land. If you buy a house to live in as a financial investment you are in essence betting that the land will appreciate in value faster than the structure depreciates. Depending on when and where you live that's not a bad bet. But if you really want to invest in land there are arguably better ways to do it including but not limited to farm land and storage companies.

[scottish]

We are currently paying about $2100/month in rent (not mustachian). We have no other major expenses, other than debt payments of course.
She is recently pregnant, so assuming it works out (a big if due to a medical condition), we have that expense on the horizon.
My job pays well, but I wouldn’t call it stable. My group has been somewhat slow, and there’s no guarantees for associates, although i somewhat doubt I’ll be laid off this year at least.
I have about 98k in savings, she has about 50k. 55k of mine are cash right now (yike$) because we are planning to buy a home.

We have our sights on homes that are at or just below 400k. We live in Dallas. There are cheaper options, but not many without a long commute for at least one of us (45 minutes plus in traffic) or that aren’t close to gut jobs, which would be tough to pull off with a newborn and two people working full time. Of course, there’s also just not much on the market right now. Assuming we went that route, we would be able to put down about 13-16% after closing costs. Our plan would be to reassess after a year and try to get the PMI off. But that would still put our total monthly payment on the house at around $2400 with tax, insurance, etc.

Most advice we have been given is to do it. I guess I’m just trying to get as much insight as I can on this. The idea of having two major debt burdens (student loans and a mortgage) is somewhat terrifying, but we also want to get in the market as soon as we can, especially with a kid on the way and no sign of recession in our market at least.  Throwing rent money away each month and raising a newborn in a midrise is unappealing, but so is throwing away closing costs, maintenance costs, property tax, and insurance.

Money wise, I'd say keep renting. If you really want a home to raise your kid in that's another thing. But $2100 < $2400, and that doesn't include maintenance, depreciation (yes, houses depreciate), or opportunity cost. Renting, when affordable, is not "throwing away money." Also, price out 5% or 10% down instead. You might be surprised how affordable PMI. I decided that a 5% down payment made more sense than a 20% down payment and not having that money invested.

Can you cite any references for houses depreciating? Yes they need maintenance, but most homes appreciate in value.

Sure, the IRS and my local country assessor. According to my most recent property tax statement my house lost 3.3% of its value last year while the land it sits on went up in value by 8.3%. Land tends to appreciate, but not the structure that you live in. When you buy a house you are buying two things, the structure and the land. If you buy a house to live in as a financial investment you are in essence betting that the land will appreciate in value faster than the structure depreciates. Depending on when and where you live that's not a bad bet. But if you really want to invest in land there are arguably better ways to do it including but not limited to farm land and storage companies.

A 3.3% depreciation suggests a lifetime of 30 years doesn't it?     Our house was made in '68 and it's still going strong...

[six-car-habit]

Sure, the IRS and my local country assessor. According to my most recent property tax statement my house lost 3.3% of its value last year while the land it sits on went up in value by 8.3%. Land tends to appreciate, but not the structure that you live in. When you buy a house you are buying two things, the structure and the land. If you buy a house to live in as a financial investment you are in essence betting that the land will appreciate in value faster than the structure depreciates. Depending on when and where you live that's not a bad bet. But if you really want to invest in land there are arguably better ways to do it including but not limited to farm land and storage companies.

  I think the question of whether land or structure appreciates faster depends on the property, the improvements, the county , and the usage.  Looking at the last 3 yrs tax statements, the assessed value of our land portion has gone up 10%.  The value of the SFH + garage that sit on the land- the 'improvements'  has gone up 30%. 

    If you wanted to buy a piece of raw land in my area, compared to a few years ago, the lot prices are still pretty close.  If you want to have a house built , or buy an existing structure, the prices are definitely higher. 

    My 10% / 30% comparison is for a  15 yr old SFH on a couple acres, within 3 hours of Portland.  If someone lived in an area of city sized lots, or the majority of the housing stock was 60+ years old, the math certainly may be different.

[wageslave23]

We are currently paying about $2100/month in rent (not mustachian). We have no other major expenses, other than debt payments of course.
She is recently pregnant, so assuming it works out (a big if due to a medical condition), we have that expense on the horizon.
My job pays well, but I wouldn’t call it stable. My group has been somewhat slow, and there’s no guarantees for associates, although i somewhat doubt I’ll be laid off this year at least.
I have about 98k in savings, she has about 50k. 55k of mine are cash right now (yike$) because we are planning to buy a home.

We have our sights on homes that are at or just below 400k. We live in Dallas. There are cheaper options, but not many without a long commute for at least one of us (45 minutes plus in traffic) or that aren’t close to gut jobs, which would be tough to pull off with a newborn and two people working full time. Of course, there’s also just not much on the market right now. Assuming we went that route, we would be able to put down about 13-16% after closing costs. Our plan would be to reassess after a year and try to get the PMI off. But that would still put our total monthly payment on the house at around $2400 with tax, insurance, etc.

Most advice we have been given is to do it. I guess I’m just trying to get as much insight as I can on this. The idea of having two major debt burdens (student loans and a mortgage) is somewhat terrifying, but we also want to get in the market as soon as we can, especially with a kid on the way and no sign of recession in our market at least.  Throwing rent money away each month and raising a newborn in a midrise is unappealing, but so is throwing away closing costs, maintenance costs, property tax, and insurance.

Money wise, I'd say keep renting. If you really want a home to raise your kid in that's another thing. But $2100 < $2400, and that doesn't include maintenance, depreciation (yes, houses depreciate), or opportunity cost. Renting, when affordable, is not "throwing away money." Also, price out 5% or 10% down instead. You might be surprised how affordable PMI. I decided that a 5% down payment made more sense than a 20% down payment and not having that money invested.

Can you cite any references for houses depreciating? Yes they need maintenance, but most homes appreciate in value.

Sure, the IRS and my local country assessor. According to my most recent property tax statement my house lost 3.3% of its value last year while the land it sits on went up in value by 8.3%. Land tends to appreciate, but not the structure that you live in. When you buy a house you are buying two things, the structure and the land. If you buy a house to live in as a financial investment you are in essence betting that the land will appreciate in value faster than the structure depreciates. Depending on when and where you live that's not a bad bet. But if you really want to invest in land there are arguably better ways to do it including but not limited to farm land and storage companies.

The local government and IRS are notoriously bad at anything related to finances. The local tax assessment has very little correlation with actual FMV. And the IRS has no idea what the value of your home is, the depreciation you get to take for tax purposes on a rental property is almost always recaptured when you sell because houses don't depreciate. Unless you live in Detroit or someplace similar.  The Schiller home price index reflects this.

[Loren Ver]

Stock are also currently on a great sale right now.  I would really consider this a great time to get into the market, even over aggressively paying down student loans that are at really low interest rates.

This paired with the wise advice above....

Loren

[ChpBstrd]

We are currently paying about $2100/month in rent (not mustachian). We have no other major expenses, other than debt payments of course.
She is recently pregnant, so assuming it works out (a big if due to a medical condition), we have that expense on the horizon.
My job pays well, but I wouldn’t call it stable. My group has been somewhat slow, and there’s no guarantees for associates, although i somewhat doubt I’ll be laid off this year at least.
I have about 98k in savings, she has about 50k. 55k of mine are cash right now (yike$) because we are planning to buy a home.

We have our sights on homes that are at or just below 400k. We live in Dallas. There are cheaper options, but not many without a long commute for at least one of us (45 minutes plus in traffic) or that aren’t close to gut jobs, which would be tough to pull off with a newborn and two people working full time. Of course, there’s also just not much on the market right now. Assuming we went that route, we would be able to put down about 13-16% after closing costs. Our plan would be to reassess after a year and try to get the PMI off. But that would still put our total monthly payment on the house at around $2400 with tax, insurance, etc.

Most advice we have been given is to do it. I guess I’m just trying to get as much insight as I can on this. The idea of having two major debt burdens (student loans and a mortgage) is somewhat terrifying, but we also want to get in the market as soon as we can, especially with a kid on the way and no sign of recession in our market at least.  Throwing rent money away each month and raising a newborn in a midrise is unappealing, but so is throwing away closing costs, maintenance costs, property tax, and insurance.

Money wise, I'd say keep renting. If you really want a home to raise your kid in that's another thing. But $2100 < $2400, and that doesn't include maintenance, depreciation (yes, houses depreciate), or opportunity cost. Renting, when affordable, is not "throwing away money." Also, price out 5% or 10% down instead. You might be surprised how affordable PMI. I decided that a 5% down payment made more sense than a 20% down payment and not having that money invested.

Can you cite any references for houses depreciating? Yes they need maintenance, but most homes appreciate in value.

Sure, the IRS and my local country assessor. According to my most recent property tax statement my house lost 3.3% of its value last year while the land it sits on went up in value by 8.3%. Land tends to appreciate, but not the structure that you live in. When you buy a house you are buying two things, the structure and the land. If you buy a house to live in as a financial investment you are in essence betting that the land will appreciate in value faster than the structure depreciates. Depending on when and where you live that's not a bad bet. But if you really want to invest in land there are arguably better ways to do it including but not limited to farm land and storage companies.

A 3.3% depreciation suggests a lifetime of 30 years doesn't it?     Our house was made in '68 and it's still going strong...

I'll bet that in the 30 years after 1968 the entire original construction cost of the house was spent on repairs and maintenance. That's at least a couple cycles of water heaters, HVAC units, flooring, paint, upgrades, remods, roofs, etc. In my experience, anyone not spending at least $4-5k a year on home repairs/remods is letting their house deteriorate, on net.

Likewise, a house that was neglected or had only the bare minimum repairs done since that time would be a teardown candidate today, because it would have very little residual value.

The land itself probably didn't depreciate unless the neighborhood had a freeway built through it, crime increased, the local industry declined, or all the neighbors let their houses deteriorate.

[PDXTabs]

A 3.3% depreciation suggests a lifetime of 30 years doesn't it?     Our house was made in '68 and it's still going strong...

I'll bet that in the 30 years after 1968 the entire original construction cost of the house was spent on repairs and maintenance. That's at least a couple cycles of water heaters, HVAC units, flooring, paint, upgrades, remods, roofs, etc. In my experience, anyone not spending at least $4-5k a year on home repairs/remods is letting their house deteriorate, on net.

Likewise, a house that was neglected or had only the bare minimum repairs done since that time would be a teardown candidate today, because it would have very little residual value.

The land itself probably didn't depreciate unless the neighborhood had a freeway built through it, crime increased, the local industry declined, or all the neighbors let their houses deteriorate.

Exactly. What does bare minimum repair 1968 house look like? 50 year old plumbing, insulation, electrical, siding, windows, building codes, original counters, original floors, etc. Probably uninsurable for earthquake coverage for a number of structural reason. Stuff wears out and building codes get better.

[Ron Scott]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html

[BradminOxt19]

I'm going to be the contrarian here and say you should buy a house.

Make $200k+ and looking to buy a $400k house?  That sounds very reasonable in my book.

Rents are rising across the nation right now, and who knows when that $2,100 can turn into $2,500 or even $3,000? 

https://www.apartmentguide.com/blog/apartment-guide-annual-rent-report/#:~:text=National%20average%20rent%20price%20trends,percent%20and%2016.7%20percent%2C%20respectively.

National average rent price trends
Nationwide rent prices for both one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments have increased significantly year-over-year at 21.3 percent and 16.7 percent, respectively.

If you rent for a short period of time, 1-3 years, you are not throwing rent away. But if you rent for a long period of time, you are absolutely throwing money away.

Say you rent for 5 years, at $2.5k per month, that is $150k you will have spent on rent, a hefty amount that could have been applied to your own mortgage, instead of paying someone else's mortgage.

So you buy a home that is within your means, which $400k on a $200k salary is definitely doable.  With the labor shortage right now, your career should be pretty stable and you should be able to find a new job easily if something happens with your current employer.

You also will have the mortgage tax deduction to reduce your high income tax.  Also, should you need to sell in the future, $500k of the capital gain on that house will be completely tax free, which you can roll into another house or investments.

Renters don't account for rising rents, moving costs, storage costs, and general unpredictability.  If you were forced to move because the landlord put the property up for sale, close to when your lease expires, you'd have to factor in significant moving costs, finding new place to live, storage costs if you can't find a suitable long term replacement rental.  All big hassles and costs as well.

Those fancy rent vs buy calculators don't factor in potential rising rent prices, moving costs, loss of mortgage interest deduction, or capital gain tax free benefits, or appreciation of the home over time.

So in short, renting for a short period is ok, but over a long term, you are far better off buying a house.

[former player]

A 3.3% depreciation suggests a lifetime of 30 years doesn't it?     Our house was made in '68 and it's still going strong...

I'll bet that in the 30 years after 1968 the entire original construction cost of the house was spent on repairs and maintenance. That's at least a couple cycles of water heaters, HVAC units, flooring, paint, upgrades, remods, roofs, etc. In my experience, anyone not spending at least $4-5k a year on home repairs/remods is letting their house deteriorate, on net.

Likewise, a house that was neglected or had only the bare minimum repairs done since that time would be a teardown candidate today, because it would have very little residual value.

The land itself probably didn't depreciate unless the neighborhood had a freeway built through it, crime increased, the local industry declined, or all the neighbors let their houses deteriorate.

Exactly. What does bare minimum repair 1968 house look like? 50 year old plumbing, insulation, electrical, siding, windows, building codes, original counters, original floors, etc. Probably uninsurable for earthquake coverage for a number of structural reason. Stuff wears out and building codes get better.

In the UK we don't have depreciation on houses because we expect them to last a bit longer.  Although I'm not sure how true that is for all new construction, in the past houses were built to last.  The idea of needing a new roof every two decades is just weird, almost all houses in the UK have a tile or slate roof which should be good for at least 100.   US roofs seem more in the vein of a thatched roof, not many of which have been built in the last 200 years here.

[chasesfish]

What is your goal with buying the house?  What's driving it?

I bought in DFW in late 2015, sold in mid-2019, and lost $60,000 or so compared to if I had just rented and left my down payment invested in something conservative.   The house appreciated just enough to cover the agent commissions and concessions, but taxes, interest, and repairs were way above replacement rent of a nice single family home in the same area. 

The City of Dallas was a challenging partner in my property, the taxes were over $15,000 when I left on a three bedroom.   Dallas is a rough place on housing, shifting foundations, freezing pipes, flat land and all the annual rain causing in the spring causing water issues, and the buildings have to survive 10 degrees at the lowest point in the winter and 110 at the highest in the summer.

When your newborn gets to four years old, housing becomes a non-financial decision in DFW.  Where do you want site control / school district?  At that point, just pay whatever the market price is for the area you want and move on.   The metroplex has seven million people, so the market is very commoditized.  You want that house?  You pay the market price.   I also wouldn't want the headache of home maintenance with new kids and being early in my career.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Dreamer40]

I would wait to buy a house until you really want a house. Forget the finances for a second and think about what you want out of life. It doesn’t sound like you’re particularly craving to settle down in a particular place in a particular home. At least not yet. I went through a similar phase about 3 years out of law school and got excited about suburban houses and building a family. Then I changed my mind. My husband and I spent our 30s traveling and living in the city without kids. We had a great time and I’m glad I didn’t jump the gun and buy a big house in the suburbs.

[Arbitrage]

Those fancy rent vs buy calculators don't factor in potential rising rent prices, moving costs, loss of mortgage interest deduction, or capital gain tax free benefits, or appreciation of the home over time.

If you use a decent buy vs. rent calculator (e.g. NY Times), it absolutely does include those things...well maybe not occasional moving costs. 

The loss of mortgage interest deduction is almost completely negligible these days with the loss of other deductions and the doubled standard deduction, except for very rich/house-poor people.  It is in the NY Times calculator, but the last time I checked it completely overestimated the benefit.  You'd be better off ignoring this deduction completely when comparing buying and renting; only about 10% of people even itemize now.

I agree with your basic premise that it usually makes sense to buy financially if you're going to stay put for the long term.  I'd put that at a minimum of 5 years, preferably 7 or more.  There are other considerations that financial, of course.

[talltexan]

I don't see anything in your post that makes it seem likely you'll still want to live in the same area five years from now. That's really essential if you're buying instead of renting.

[PDXTabs]

In the UK we don't have depreciation on houses because we expect them to last a bit longer.  Although I'm not sure how true that is for all new construction, in the past houses were built to last.  The idea of needing a new roof every two decades is just weird, almost all houses in the UK have a tile or slate roof which should be good for at least 100.   US roofs seem more in the vein of a thatched roof, not many of which have been built in the last 200 years here.

I happen to have an interest in the Edinburgh tenement market, and I don't believe you. Or rather, if I buy one of these units it will absolutely depreciate. The only question if whether the land will appreciate faster.

[former player]

In the UK we don't have depreciation on houses because we expect them to last a bit longer.  Although I'm not sure how true that is for all new construction, in the past houses were built to last.  The idea of needing a new roof every two decades is just weird, almost all houses in the UK have a tile or slate roof which should be good for at least 100.   US roofs seem more in the vein of a thatched roof, not many of which have been built in the last 200 years here.

I happen to have an interest in the Edinburgh tenement market, and I don't believe you. Or rather, if I buy one of these units it will absolutely depreciate. The only question if whether the land will appreciate faster.

Well at least some of the ones in bad condition seem to be the ones that are over 100 years old.  I still don't think you can claim depreciation?  (Loss of value on sale is something else, I think.)  And "built to last" doesn't mean "no maintenance ever".

(Look how good I've been not to mention Scottish weather!)

[Just Joe]

Think about the maintenance. Who will clean it / mow it / paint it / repair it?

If you decide to DIY that stuff, there is a period where you are buying and collecting tools at some cost. Then storing those tools for the next time which requires some space.

Also that remodel period when the honeymoon period is over - and you tire of its imperfections or poor choices made by the previous owners. Depending on how much materials cost and whether you DIY - it can get expensive. Do you want a coat of paint or a "This Old House" (PBS) level of remodel and perfection?

We prefer owning a home but I suspect we don't live in the same part of the country and thus our cost algebra is completely different. 

[PDXTabs]

In the UK we don't have depreciation on houses because we expect them to last a bit longer.  Although I'm not sure how true that is for all new construction, in the past houses were built to last.  The idea of needing a new roof every two decades is just weird, almost all houses in the UK have a tile or slate roof which should be good for at least 100.   US roofs seem more in the vein of a thatched roof, not many of which have been built in the last 200 years here.

I happen to have an interest in the Edinburgh tenement market, and I don't believe you. Or rather, if I buy one of these units it will absolutely depreciate. The only question if whether the land will appreciate faster.

Well at least some of the ones in bad condition seem to be the ones that are over 100 years old.  I still don't think you can claim depreciation?  (Loss of value on sale is something else, I think.)  And "built to last" doesn't mean "no maintenance ever".

(Look how good I've been not to mention Scottish weather!)

Oxford Languages defines depreciation as "a reduction in the value of an asset with the passage of time, due in particular to wear and tear." Investopedia defines it as "an accounting method used to allocate the cost of a tangible or physical asset over its useful life or life expectancy." How many of those 100 year old homes have original flooring (never refinished), appliances, and HVAC?

I hear you on Scottish weather. There's a reason that I don't plan to retire there.

[jbl623]

Thanks again for all the continued replies. We are leaning towards renting for the next year or so. Now I have to figure out what to do with all that lazy cash sitting in my savings account. I was thinking that I will plunk most of it in VTSAX, but I don’t know if that’s the best option given that we may buy in another year. Any other suggestions are appreciated.

[former player]

In the UK we don't have depreciation on houses because we expect them to last a bit longer.  Although I'm not sure how true that is for all new construction, in the past houses were built to last.  The idea of needing a new roof every two decades is just weird, almost all houses in the UK have a tile or slate roof which should be good for at least 100.   US roofs seem more in the vein of a thatched roof, not many of which have been built in the last 200 years here.

I happen to have an interest in the Edinburgh tenement market, and I don't believe you. Or rather, if I buy one of these units it will absolutely depreciate. The only question if whether the land will appreciate faster.

Well at least some of the ones in bad condition seem to be the ones that are over 100 years old.  I still don't think you can claim depreciation?  (Loss of value on sale is something else, I think.)  And "built to last" doesn't mean "no maintenance ever".

(Look how good I've been not to mention Scottish weather!)

Oxford Languages defines depreciation as "a reduction in the value of an asset with the passage of time, due in particular to wear and tear." Investopedia defines it as "an accounting method used to allocate the cost of a tangible or physical asset over its useful life or life expectancy." How many of those 100 year old homes have original flooring (never refinished), appliances, and HVAC?

I hear you on Scottish weather. There's a reason that I don't plan to retire there.

Well very few UK houses have HVAC (not really needed in this climate) and appliances are very often free-standing and are taken when someone moves.  Until recently floors would have had lino (kitchens and bathrooms) and carpet (anywhere else) which would have been replaced every couple of decades or so but with the fabric of the house underneath untouched - part of their role is to protect that fabric from wear and tear.

The cost of updating stuff like a gas boiler for the heating (maybe two or three thousand every twenty years?) is peanuts compared to the average cost of a house (over £250k).

I may be a victim of my circumstances here, both my sets of grandparents lived in houses that were respectively 350 (stone and tile) and 500 (timber frame and tile) years old, so the notion of a house depreciating over a period of decades doesn't really compute.  My own houses have been Victorian (150 years old), except for the current one which is only 1930s.

[LadyMaWhiskers]

I’m thinking about the pregnancy. I bought a house while pregnant, moved into it with a one month old, then downsized with a 20 month old. From the home-and-family life side of things, the second
Half of the first year life would be a good time to move to a kid-friendly place. That could just be a different rental though. For newborns, although that nesting instinct is strong, you really need so little, including space. You can’t get very far away from infants. You mostly just want to avoid a walk-up if you can, given the stroller/car seat schlep.

Aside from the stairs thing, it’s hard to know what you’ll want when you are three. So it’s reasonable to decide after you settle in a bit.

[PDXTabs]

Well very few UK houses have HVAC (not really needed in this climate) and appliances are very often free-standing and are taken when someone moves.
...
I may be a victim of my circumstances here, both my sets of grandparents lived in houses that were respectively 350 (stone and tile) and 500 (timber frame and tile) years old, so the notion of a house depreciating over a period of decades doesn't really compute.

I believe that HVAC can refer to anything heating, ventilation, or air conditioning related. Along those lines Clement Attlee called and he wants his coal fired stove back.

Are the windows in those houses original?

[former player]

Well very few UK houses have HVAC (not really needed in this climate) and appliances are very often free-standing and are taken when someone moves.
...
I may be a victim of my circumstances here, both my sets of grandparents lived in houses that were respectively 350 (stone and tile) and 500 (timber frame and tile) years old, so the notion of a house depreciating over a period of decades doesn't really compute.

I believe that HVAC can refer to anything heating, ventilation, or air conditioning related. Along those lines Clement Attlee called and he wants his coal fired stove back.

Are the windows in those houses original?

The one I know best has stone mullions all round, so to that extent yes - although they may have been part of an eighteenth century upgrade to an older cottage, in which case I concede your point.

[bill1827]

In the UK we don't have depreciation on houses because we expect them to last a bit longer.  Although I'm not sure how true that is for all new construction, in the past houses were built to last.  The idea of needing a new roof every two decades is just weird, almost all houses in the UK have a tile or slate roof which should be good for at least 100.   US roofs seem more in the vein of a thatched roof, not many of which have been built in the last 200 years here.

I happen to have an interest in the Edinburgh tenement market, and I don't believe you. Or rather, if I buy one of these units it will absolutely depreciate. The only question if whether the land will appreciate faster.

Well at least some of the ones in bad condition seem to be the ones that are over 100 years old.  I still don't think you can claim depreciation?  (Loss of value on sale is something else, I think.)  And "built to last" doesn't mean "no maintenance ever".

(Look how good I've been not to mention Scottish weather!)

Oxford Languages defines depreciation as "a reduction in the value of an asset with the passage of time, due in particular to wear and tear." Investopedia defines it as "an accounting method used to allocate the cost of a tangible or physical asset over its useful life or life expectancy." How many of those 100 year old homes have original flooring (never refinished), appliances, and HVAC?

I hear you on Scottish weather. There's a reason that I don't plan to retire there.

Well very few UK houses have HVAC (not really needed in this climate) and appliances are very often free-standing and are taken when someone moves.  Until recently floors would have had lino (kitchens and bathrooms) and carpet (anywhere else) which would have been replaced every couple of decades or so but with the fabric of the house underneath untouched - part of their role is to protect that fabric from wear and tear.

The cost of updating stuff like a gas boiler for the heating (maybe two or three thousand every twenty years?) is peanuts compared to the average cost of a house (over £250k).

I may be a victim of my circumstances here, both my sets of grandparents lived in houses that were respectively 350 (stone and tile) and 500 (timber frame and tile) years old, so the notion of a house depreciating over a period of decades doesn't really compute.  My own houses have been Victorian (150 years old), except for the current one which is only 1930s.

I think you're subject to the peculiar English delusion that house values never go down. They most certainly do; perhaps not in the wealthy, overpopulated south but there are many places outside that area where house prices have depreciated, in some cases to zero. A few years ago Stoke on Trent were giving houses away if the new owner would commit to bringing them up to an acceptable standard and live in them for a few years. (If they were in London they would be worth hundreds of thousands.) There are plenty of other areas with very low value houses.

Although, by and large, tiles, brick and stone have a very long life that does depend on them being of high quality; some low grade bricks and tiles will spall quite quickly There's also survivor bias - the old houses that are still here may have been well built or they may just have been well cared for. Jerry building has been going on for ever - the old jerry built houses mainly disappeared years ago. Modern building standards should ensure a building built to them will have a long life, if well looked after.

A couple of years ago we moved to a bungalow built of brick with a plain tile roof, of indeterminate age but the roof is probably only about 30 years old. It had/has leaks in 5 places, partly due to incompetent workmanship, but also due to age. Buildings need maintenance, however they were built.

[former player]

I think you're subject to the peculiar English delusion that house values never go down. They most certainly do; perhaps not in the wealthy, overpopulated south but there are many places outside that area where house prices have depreciated, in some cases to zero. A few years ago Stoke on Trent were giving houses away if the new owner would commit to bringing them up to an acceptable standard and live in them for a few years. (If they were in London they would be worth hundreds of thousands.) There are plenty of other areas with very low value houses.

Although, by and large, tiles, brick and stone have a very long life that does depend on them being of high quality; some low grade bricks and tiles will spall quite quickly There's also survivor bias - the old houses that are still here may have been well built or they may just have been well cared for. Jerry building has been going on for ever - the old jerry built houses mainly disappeared years ago. Modern building standards should ensure a building built to them will have a long life, if well looked after.

A couple of years ago we moved to a bungalow built of brick with a plain tile roof, of indeterminate age but the roof is probably only about 30 years old. It had/has leaks in 5 places, partly due to incompetent workmanship, but also due to age. Buildings need maintenance, however they were built.

Sorry about your roof, that's bad luck.

I'm sure there is a survivorship bias.  And I agree that all buildings need maintenance - but my understanding is that loss of value/utility from a lack of maintenance is usually called "dilapidations" rather than "depreciation" (those cheaply built northern terraces were quite probably never intended for private ownership when built, were tenanted for a century or more and never given the maintenance and investment that the equivalent cheaply built property in say Downing Street SW1 has been).

"Depreciation" is usually an accounting/tax matter and seems to be relevant to property ownership and taxes in the USA where it can be used to write down the building costs of a house but I think not usually in the UK - perhaps losses to offset capital gains tax might be the nearest equivalent?

[Seamster]

Don't do it.  The RE market is propped up with fake cash.  The Fed says they're going to raise rates this year but they can't do that without crashing the stock market, something they have proven they are not willing to do.  So, they're going to keep printing money, making that house go up even higher in price.  But the game has been going on since 2000 and nothing can go up forever.

Don't buy a $400k house.  Ever.  But if you must, buy it for $180k after the market crashes.  Might be in a year or 2. 

[Chraurelius]

No one has mentioned how hellish it is to sell a house with a small child, if things don't work out.  This is a horrible job, though just actually moving is awful.  If you're comfortable where you are, stay there, and think very carefully about moving.  Maybe things have changed, but I, the wife, was the one doing the vast majority of work in our moves.

Also, no one is really talking about house maintenance.  I have owned a 1948 house for 20 years, and when I bought it, the house was in good shape, and had been updated over the years.  Since then I've replaced everything in the house except for the foundation and walls.  I spent $15,000 in 2007 for new HVAC and hot water heater.  The roof was replaced, the wiring and some plumbing redone, all new flooring, painting inside and out, a kitchen redo, and multiple new appliances.  Further, it's not only the money, but the frustration of dealing with repair people and contractors, probably why DIY repair is so popular around here.

As a lawyer working long hours, how much of all this work do you expect to do?  Frankly, moving some furniture and a pile of boxes is the easy part;  purging, packing, unpacking, decorating, and simple things like changing your address take days of work.  I certainly wish I'd never gotten a house, or moved, but that's what middle class people do. 

Add in the pandemic craziness, and staying put sounds so much cheaper and a lot more fun.

[Seamster]

Also, no one is really talking about house maintenance.  I have owned a 1948 house for 20 years, and when I bought it, the house was in good shape, and had been updated over the years.  Since then I've replaced everything in the house except for the foundation and walls.  I spent $15,000 in 2007 for new HVAC and hot water heater.  The roof was replaced, the wiring and some plumbing redone, all new flooring, painting inside and out, a kitchen redo, and multiple new appliances.  Further, it's not only the money, but the frustration of dealing with repair people and contractors, probably why DIY repair is so popular around here.

Amen to that.  I won't go into details but the guy at work is selling his house for $180k and moving into a $470k house: and he's getting it FREE, because his father-in-law is paying for it and also moving in with them.

What's funny is that they're monthly payment NOW is like $1200 for everything.  After they move, even though dad put $470k down, after the higher taxes, insurance, HOA, etc., they're going to be spending $1600/mo.  I'm not saying I wouldn't take the free house, but imagine if he were paying that mortgage.  No way could he afford it. 

[beekayworld]

In the UK we don't have depreciation on houses because we expect them to last a bit longer.  Although I'm not sure how true that is for all new construction, in the past houses were built to last.  The idea of needing a new roof every two decades is just weird, almost all houses in the UK have a tile or slate roof which should be good for at least 100.   US roofs seem more in the vein of a thatched roof, not many of which have been built in the last 200 years here.

You don't have the extreme weather that we have in the U.S. I had to replace a roof in Dallas due to a hailstorm. Tornados can hit a large swath of the U.S. as well as other extreme weather conditions.

"British Winters Ain't Got Nothing on the American Midwest":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvOAwgqUDwE

"British Heat Waves Ain't Got Nothing on America":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxKHrqL1zJ0

 "5 Deadly Natural Phenomena America Has that Britain Doesn't"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-ArVK2mLc

[former player]

In the UK we don't have depreciation on houses because we expect them to last a bit longer.  Although I'm not sure how true that is for all new construction, in the past houses were built to last.  The idea of needing a new roof every two decades is just weird, almost all houses in the UK have a tile or slate roof which should be good for at least 100.   US roofs seem more in the vein of a thatched roof, not many of which have been built in the last 200 years here.

You don't have the extreme weather that we have in the U.S. I had to replace a roof in Dallas due to a hailstorm. Tornados can hit a large swath of the U.S. as well as other extreme weather conditions.

"British Winters Ain't Got Nothing on the American Midwest":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvOAwgqUDwE

"British Heat Waves Ain't Got Nothing on America":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxKHrqL1zJ0

 "5 Deadly Natural Phenomena America Has that Britain Doesn't"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-ArVK2mLc

Fair point, but also the problem isn't the different weather, it's that you don't build to cope with the conditions you have, while on the whole we do.

[KarefulKactus15]

Rent isn't throwing away money. Many calculators show that money invested in a basic s&p 500 over a 50 year time horizon blows away the wealth gain you get with a house.

This is true in my case.  They don't sell a house small enough for my liking. So I rent a place that cost about 40% monthly of my equivalent cost if I owned a place.  Even with equity build up as I pay down the debt, every calculation I do comes out with renting as the financial win.    So don't get stuck on the "throwing money away" thing.   

The only reason I might* buy a house later is my business is growing and becoming challenging the run from an apartment, so a big yard to park equipment and a garage etc etc would be useful.(but that's a business decision compared to the cost of securing storage space)  But that would only be a stepping stone till I can justify a 10k sq ft or so commercial /industrial spot.

[Laura33]

The idea of having two major debt burdens (student loans and a mortgage) is somewhat terrifying, but we also want to get in the market as soon as we can, especially with a kid on the way and no sign of recession in our market at least.

The first is a legitimate and serious concern.  Pay off the student loans first.  You never know what is going to happen once you have kids -- you could get laid off, one of you could decide to stay home, your kid could have special needs, etc.  The best gift you can give yourself is the financial freedom to handle whatever comes your way.  And six-figure debt that isn't dischargable in bankruptcy isn't it (much less two six-figure debts, one of which isn't dischargeable, the other of which could leave you with no place to live).

The latter is sheer hubris.  No one can predict the next recession in the housing market.  There are people with advanced degrees who make a lot of money off of trying to predict things like this, and even they can't do it.  So why would you think you have better insight than they do?  Do not try to time the housing market any more than you try to time the stock market.

I will tell you what I've told many others on this site:  the way to get ahead is to avoid increasing your expenses until you actually need to do so.  You are currently looking to buy a house now because of a series of events that you think will happen over the next few years -- you will have a child, and that child will be healthy; you will both want to continue your jobs; your jobs will want you both to continue; and the housing market will continue to go up, making it even less affordable if you wait a couple more years to buy.  None of those are at all certain.

Believe me, I understand the need to nest and feel settled when you're expecting a child.  It is very natural and protective.  But being driven by those emotional pulls can lead to some poor financial choices.  You are much better off if you can maintain the financial freedom to adjust to whatever life throws at you.

Sincerely,

Lawyer who built her dream house to start a family and live in forever, then had multiple miscarriages; then whose husband's plant shut down 2 years later in the dot-com crash, right when she was finally pregnant with first child; who then had to move out of state and carry two mortgages for a year with an infant and while telecommuting very part-time and making the least money since graduating law school; and who was finally able to sell the dream house 13 months later at a six-figure loss.