A seller is selling two houses that are on the same street separately, but they must be bought by the same buyer. One is listed for 50k and one is listed for 100k. Theoretically, if I only want 1 mortgage and have a limited amount of cash, would I be able to offer 20k for one (pay in cash) and 130k for the other (get a loan)?
That I think would be up to who ever is giving you the loan. Personally I would not give a loan for $130k on a property priced at $100k unless it could be proven that the property is worth the $130k. I think most banks would agree. Don't know what a hard Money lender would do. Might be different if the place is valued at more then $130k after fixing and the extra money was going to be used to fix it up.
Just my two cents worth
Good point. The appraisal will limit what the mortgage can be, so unless I get it for under market and then lump some of the money from the cheaper house into the more expensive house to get it up to the appraised value it sounds like I'm stuck.
You need to find out Why the seller thinks they need to sell both houses to the same buyer. It's obviously not in the seller's best interest to insist on this, explain that to her somehow.
For what it's worth I was just going through this with a seller. 7 units total, a 4 unit & 3 unit right next to each other, & the only way I could get them is if I bought both as a package. You might want to see if your seller would want to carry paper on the two, or just one, whatever the need is, for a decent amount of time, to let you build a little equity in the deal & later on refi conventionally to cash him out.
Is there a specific reason you only want a mortgage on one? I mean I can see the appeal of owning one free and clear (and can think of a couple of reasons) but if it can't be done at the moment it can't be done.
Not sure who you are getting the loan from but you might want to be sure that if you pay down a chunk (or want to sell off one of them after a while) you can get a partial release to free up that piece.