Well, Dan, you apparently read the $60,000 vacation loan in the original post as a vacation home loan, and, given its dollar amount, that makes sense. Obviously, I read it literally, as a loan that financed a vacation (I must have been thinking about a long stay at Disney World). If the word "home" is assumed, I'd agree. The $60,000 loan is the one that gets to be the only one fitting the (c)(2) "pigeonhole" as long as it's a residence of the EO. That would mean that the $400,000 loan would have to be obtained from some other source unless the EO pays off the $60,000 loan first (through refinancing elsewhere or selling the vacation home).
John S. Burnett
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8