Difficult housing question regarding buying a future residence in N. KY (California: insurance, mortgage)

[pudge1987]

hey all. I'm currently living in CA and am wanting to purchase a home in NW KY. I am living for free out here and working full time, but want to move to Kentucky soon. My question is, can

1. I buy a house in KY without claiming it as my primary residence immediately, and
2. Continue living in CA for a few months to pay a few mortgage payments on the KY house, and
3. then move to KY after a few months of payments?

I was told that I would have to relocate and procure a job in KY within 30 days of purchasing the home. I just wanted to buy it, make a few of the monthly payments on my CA income first and then move there. Anyone have any input or know anything about whether the info that I received was a state, county or city law or if it was a lender rule?

[tomocox]

Why must you procure a job in Kentucky? The question must be asked. As a professional Realtor, I have never heard of such a demand.

[pudge1987]

that was exactly my question. As a realtor, do you know anything about the requirement to take up primary residency in the home within 30 days of purchase? and to clarify, i don't know that he said I needed a job in Kentucky (as opposed to ohio or a surrounding area), but he implied that I would need to be working "out there." I couldn't tell if that was because obviously i would need a job out there since I had to move out there anyways (so as to fulfill the requirement to move in within 30 days of close) or if that was unrelated and non-contingent on moving out there within 30 days.

[tomocox]

There are only three possible answers that I can think of. 1st) The lender wants to be certain this loan is for the buyer's primary residence only as these have fewer issues of repayment. 2nd) Certain governmental programs are designed to encourage people to live in certain areas. 3rd) Insurance companies want that home occupied.

[The Village Idiot]

Our mortgage had the same requirement to move in to the house within 30 days. We bought a house in a different part of the state, so it's not just some sort of local ordinance. I'm pretty sure it's a policy established by the lender. We had no problem moving in within 30 days, so I didn't worry about the reason for the rule. However, if I had to guess, I'd say it's related to this:

1st) The lender wants to be certain this loan is for the buyer's primary residence only as these have fewer issues of repayment.

I just thought I'd mention this so you'd know that someone else has encountered this requirement. I think mortgage lenders are being more cautious now, given the state of the economy.

[tomocox]

Excellent example, VI!

[pudge1987]

I appreciate the input! I think that's ridiculous that they won't lend me money without residing in the home immediately. I have two incomes in California that I would paying the mortgage with for the home in KY and I was wanting to pay for the first 2-3 months of the mortgage payments prior to moving out to the KY home so I would have time to get a decent job out there and be able to start paying off the house. I guess I'll have to find a different lender then... Thanks guys!

[tomocox]

Whoa!!! I just sold a house yesterday to a couple who won't be here until July.

[The Village Idiot]

You may be able to shop around and find a more flexible lender. I'm not sure how this would be enforced, anyway. Are mortgage companies going to send out an investigator on the 30th day after closing to peek in the windows to see if there's furniture in the house?

[tomocox]

Yes, they do! Don't risk getting caught.