Both houses seem to have been paid in lump sums. I'll leave it to the reader's imagination as to the exact details of how this happened.
The combination of the property tax screenshots and recorded document list posted ITT before made it clear enough that the main house must have been bought with a cash lump sum with no mortgage until years later, but I don't recall seeing the
public eCRV ITT so here's that for what few details it can add about the original purchase terms, plus as a nice preview of what level of detail will be seen about the listed house's outcome soon:
To be clear, when an eCRV says "cash" it's not meant in a colloquial sense and instead it comes from the
data entry portal's drop-down field that
requires disclosure of whether any of the purchase price was attributable to funding by a new mortgage lender, assumption of the seller's old mortgage, or any alternative seller-financing arrangements, and this disclosure has to be made under penalty of perjury by the neutral closing agent so it's fairly reliable with no realistic way for weasel-worded Nickisms to hide financing particulars:
As for the spare house, unfortunately it was bought earlier than when CRV's became searchable online, but from the recorded documents it's clear enough that Nick and Kayla did
not buy that one for a cash lump sum and instead they financed much of the $279K purchase price in 2009 with a single mortgage recorded on the same day as their deed :
EDIT: Apparently the free online search for recorded documents is always borked by its indexing by parcel number only, but trying some more search wordings ITT found
this post where
@Bookwork's name searches in the paywalled
Fidlar Tapestry portal confirmed that the 2009 mortgage was paid off unnecessarily quickly in 2012, which was still 3 years before Nick ever started a law practice and a decade before his Youtube peak, so a gift from mommy and daddy makes more sense than saving up whatever he was making in his wagie cagie at the time:
