All Forum Posts by: Ken M.
Ken M. has started 116 posts and replied 1568 times.
Quote from @AJ Satcher:
Hey BP!
So I am currently within due diligence period on a property and my inspector identified that majority of the home's siding is asbestos siding - pretty much everywhere except the front face siding. I don't own any properties with asbestos siding and I have my concerns, so I hired an asbestos professional to go check it out, grab some samples and conduct testing.
Still waiting to hear back from the Asbestos testing but I wanted to know if anyone here has experience, knowledge and or own any properties with asbestos siding? Do you completely avoid properties with this material siding or is it not as big of a concern?
My concern comes from the fact that asbestos is a carcinogen and I've heard terrible things about people inhaling it when its in a disturbed state.
.
Just for future readers: I grew in a house with asbestos siding. It did no harm
Here's why
"The primary health risk associated with asbestos siding arises only when the material is disturbed, such as through sawing, sanding, drilling, demolition, or significant damage from pressure washing or impact.
When intact and undisturbed, the asbestos fibers are bound within the cement matrix and are not easily released into the air, making the siding generally safe to leave in place."
Most asbestos harm came from mining the product for years or installing it for years in a poorly ventilated area like in ships.
It takes decades to harm you as a fiber floating in an enclosed space. You would need to live in the enclosed space with the floating, disturbed fibers. Some "pop corn" ceilings are mined in areas where there is asbestos. When you spray water on "pop corn", you can scrape it off the ceiling. But, you're better off just leaving it alone. Have the windows open and wear a mask if you do plan to scrape, but it is not like smelling fentanyl or cocaine, which actually does harm. Simply buy protective cover at Home Depot and wash your clothes afterwards. That's nothing exotic. Just as children should not eat lead paint (I'm not sure how you bite a wall) they should not ingest asbestos siding or "pop corn" either None, of this information is compliant with any current cities asbestos disposal laws. But then Bear wrestling matches are prohibited, too.
Quote from @Ken M.:
The Justice Department on Thursday charged eight people with wire fraud for their roles in Minnesota’s Housing Stabilization program.
“Today we announce the first wave of charges in a massive fraud in Minnesota’s housing stabilization program,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson. “I want to be clear on the scope of the crisis. What we see are schemes stacked upon schemes, draining resources meant for those in need. It feels never ending. I have spent my career as a fraud prosecutor and the depth of the fraud in Minnesota takes my breath away. The fraud must be stopped.”
Here are the defendants:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/doj-charges-8-peopl...
“As set forth in the charging documents, the defendants devised and carried out schemes to defraud federally funded health care benefits collected within Minnesota’s Housing Stability Services Program. The HSS Program dates back to July 2022, when Minnesota became the first state in the country to offer Medicaid coverage for Housing Stabilization Services. The Program was designed to help people with disabilities, including seniors and people with mental illnesses and substance use disorders, find and maintain housing. Rather than provide such help, the defendants obtained and misappropriated millions of dollars in program funds that were intended as reimbursements for services provided to those people,” the Justice Department said.
There seems to be an honesty problem in Minneapolis. Why?
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
So, in your world, I should have said
"always record, unless you've done something stupid that you don't realize is stupid, and can't know that is stupid, because you weren't smart enough, or you were too cheap to pay for my training and the list of stupid things includes, but is not limited to, not bringing the loan current when you buy a property Subject To ? There are plenty of stupid things to do using Subject To, and this is only one."
Okay, consider it corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment. Now, everyone whoever reads Bigger Pockets will know.
Actually, it's details like this that makes training "one on one" for a full year, valuable. People misunderstand and there are nuances. Each deal is different with creative finance. If I'm involved from the beginning, it goes well. If I or anyone, has to step in to solve a problem, it gets more difficult and tedious and dangerous.
No, Ken. Your setting up a straw man about me doesn't work.
I said to always record, as that if there were problems with one's purchase, a refusal to record was not going to save the buyer, and in fact might cause problems. If there were problems and one did record, one got a seat at the table and could protect one's interests.
If there were no problems with one's purchase, recording protected one's interests, and if one didn't record, the bank could foreclose your interests without you having advanced notice. Additionally, the seller could notify the bank of your existence and then you are brought in, late, kicking, and screaming, to defend your interests.
Then, in the latter scenario, the bank beats you over the head with the fact that you refused to record, which delays matters and costs you money -- even if you win.
You already posted that the second scenario happened to you, so there was no advantage to not recording. It didn't save you from anything.
As a lawyer, Ken, I will give you a piece of legal advice which is particularly true when equitable interests are involved: If one's business model depends on concealing fact, it is wrong.
Therefore one records.
I respectfully disagree. If one knows there is a rattle snake in the trail, one changes course. The matter at hand is to either bring the loan current and record OR to get out of the deal before you wind up in court.
Now, you haven't said you practice law in Arizona or where ever he said the property was, I forget, but unless you litigate and make money doing so, a reputable attorney would never tell his client to take that kind of risk.
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
If you can't distinguish between actions in investing that are taken when proper procedures are followed, versus actions to avoid disaster when proper procedures aren't followed, you will have an interesting experience.
Advice to avoid disaster is almost always different than advice that is considered "the norm".
Sing and dance all you want, Ken, but you told the poster in the other thread to not record, and I pointed out that he should record, and recording would not harm him. If he was going to have trouble, he would not avoid it by not recording.
In this thread you say to always record.
I bet you make your martinis extra strong.
So, in your world, I should have said
"always record, unless you've done something stupid that you don't realize is stupid, because you weren't smart enough, or you were too cheap to pay for my training and the list of stupid things includes not bringing the loan current when you buy a property Subject To" ?
Okay, consider it corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Ken: "Okay, consider it corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment."
"I'm sorry for you (and for your clients) about your ignorance that a separate lease with a separate option is not the same legally, as a Lease Option in the same document. But it is not my job to train you.
AGAIN - Please finally answer so we can move on (Request Number 5)
Please provide the Statute you reference.
You provided a link to the ENTIRE Landlord/Tenant ACT which has nothing in it about buying properties. As though somehow we are supposed to find something.
A statute has ten or fifteen lines. It's a simple, sometimes "clear" statement with a citation number.
Please provide the specific citation number you claim exists so we can see it.
Yes @James Hamling: You are manipulative, we agree on that
But you made some serious accusations, and I am simply asking you to support your libelous and intentionally defamatory statements.
A statute has ten or fifteen lines. It's a simple, sometimes "clear" statement with a citation number.
Please provide the specific citation number you claim exists so we can see it.
or, stop being libelous and no, ignoring the issue won't make it go away. That is so 4th grade.
.
@James Hamling: Actually I thought you were better than this, but maybe not.
You never see any of the Pros on BP, and there are many, acting like you're acting.
I gave a clear, concise explanation of things, of the illegality/not-legal actions of your scheme.
Clear enough where @Don Konipol readily gave a recap of it.
After your reply that it's only illegal/not-legal actions in MN, and allowed in AZ, I gave a link to the laws of AZ, on an official AZ site, and I detailed how your incorrect, that it is equally not legal actions in AZ.
Than you, Ken, respond with Gaslighting and Trolling. Repetitively.
Gaslighting to the extent of responding to the link to AZ law on this, demanding I cite AZ law on it, lol.
It's sad because I agree and appreciate a fair bit of what you speak on Sub2, but this fundamental charter flaw of yours Ken, to Gaslight vs debate, it's beyond repair.
So I sentence you to silence hence forth. You're dead to me.
No, you actually obfuscated, demeaned, libeled and avoided, but you didn't provide a reference to support your alleged violation. As though since you believed it to be true, it must be true.
I've actually litigated the issue in front of a real judge and you called him a liar.
Your comment: "I gave a link to the laws of AZ, on an official AZ site"
For the record, you linked to a 50 page document of the Landlord/Tennant laws which neither supports your assertion nor provide clarity on the issue.
@Don Konipol is capable of speaking for himself and he wisely is just having fun watching the show. Don't drag him into it unless he wants to join the party.
So, once again for the eighth time, please provide the specific citation of law so we can see what you are "referencing".
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
If you can't distinguish between actions in investing that are taken when proper procedures are followed, versus actions to avoid disaster when proper procedures aren't followed, you will have an interesting experience.
Advice to avoid disaster is almost always different than advice that is considered "the norm".
Sing and dance all you want, Ken, but you told the poster in the other thread to not record, and I pointed out that he should record, and recording would not harm him. If he was going to have trouble, he would not avoid it by not recording.
In this thread you say to always record.
I bet you make your martinis extra strong.
So, in your world, I should have said
"always record, unless you've done something stupid that you don't realize is stupid, because you weren't smart enough, or you were too cheap to pay for my training and the list of stupid things includes not bringing the loan current when you buy a property Subject To" ?
Okay, consider it corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Ken: "Okay, consider it corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment."
"I'm sorry for you (and for your clients) about your ignorance that a separate lease with a separate option is not the same legally, as a Lease Option in the same document. But it is not my job to train you.
AGAIN - Please finally answer so we can move on (Request Number 5)
Please provide the Statute you reference.
You provided a link to the ENTIRE Landlord/Tenant ACT which has nothing in it about buying properties. As though somehow we are supposed to find something.
A statute has ten or fifteen lines. It's a simple, sometimes "clear" statement with a citation number.
Please provide the specific citation number you claim exists so we can see it.
Yes @James Hamling: You are manipulative, we agree on that
But you made some serious accusations, and I am simply asking you to support your libelous and intentionally defamatory statements.
A statute has ten or fifteen lines. It's a simple, sometimes "clear" statement with a citation number.
Please provide the specific citation number you claim exists so we can see it.
or, stop being libelous and no, ignoring the issue won't make it go away. That is so 4th grade.
.
@James Hamling: Actually I thought you were better than this, but maybe not.
You never see any of the Pros on BP, and there are many, acting like you're acting.
Quote from @Frankie Vozzi:
Hey BiggerPockets fam!
I’ve noticed a lot of investors overlook their DTI (Debt-to-Income Ratio) when trying to scale.
Quick refresher:
DTI = total monthly debt ÷ gross monthly income
Lenders use it to gauge how much more debt you can take on
Under 43% is usually the sweet spot for approval
Why it matters:
A lower DTI = stronger borrowing power! That means easier access to mortgages, better loan terms, and more opportunities to grow your portfolio. If you're working on keeping your DTI healthy by reducing debt, boosting income, or restructuring loans you'll be a much more attractive candidate for financing.
If you’d like to see how your numbers stack up with today’s loan programs, or just want to share your thoughts, let’s chat!
It might be helpful to list what goes into Front End debt and Back End debt, so that people see what affects their ability to borrow money. There are thousands on new viewers every week.
Swim with exotic fish
Eat Watercress & Sea Cucumber sandwiches
See sunken treasure
All yours for a paltry sum. New ownership needed for exotic Short Term Rental. Previous owners disappeared with last hurricane.
Includes Airstip. Project is 20 miles by 20 miles and country of Costa Rica reserves rights to volcanic ejectments. Property is conveniently located 50 miles east of Cocos Island National Park Costa Rica and 100 miles west of Puerto Armuelles, at 6.245872, -85.785435 Owner will consider an exchange with dry land.
Click on image for enlargement
And not far away, Cocos Island has featured heavily in many tales of pirate lore and buried treasure. The first claims of treasure buried on the island came from a woman named Mary Welch, who claimed that 350 tons of gold (about $16 billion in today's money) raided from Spanish galleons had been buried on the island by Captain Bennett Graham, a naval officer who had become a pirate in 1818. She had been a member of a pirate crew led by Captain Graham,
Quote from @Matthew Irish-Jones:
@Remington Lyman this is why I constantly miss spell words and use horrible grammar.
First off I have horrible grammar and spelling as it is. Secondly it proves these responses are from my noggin not AI.
Not sure how BP can get in front of this, since some people are taking their actual responses and having AI correct grammar and spelling so it is their thought but improved by AI.
It seems like the entire internet will be AI bots and posts soon enough.
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
If you can't distinguish between actions in investing that are taken when proper procedures are followed, versus actions to avoid disaster when proper procedures aren't followed, you will have an interesting experience.
Advice to avoid disaster is almost always different than advice that is considered "the norm".
Sing and dance all you want, Ken, but you told the poster in the other thread to not record, and I pointed out that he should record, and recording would not harm him. If he was going to have trouble, he would not avoid it by not recording.
In this thread you say to always record.
I bet you make your martinis extra strong.
So, in your world, I should have said
"always record, unless you've done something stupid that you don't realize is stupid, because you weren't smart enough, or you were too cheap to pay for my training and the list of stupid things includes not bringing the loan current when you buy a property Subject To" ?
Okay, consider it corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Ken: "Okay, consider it corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment."
"I'm sorry for you (and for your clients) about your ignorance that a separate lease with a separate option is not the same legally, as a Lease Option in the same document. But it is not my job to train you.
AGAIN - Please finally answer so we can move on (Request Number 5)
Please provide the Statute you reference.
You provided a link to the ENTIRE Landlord/Tenant ACT which has nothing in it about buying properties. As though somehow we are supposed to find something.
A statute has ten or fifteen lines. It's a simple, sometimes "clear" statement with a citation number.
Please provide the specific citation number you claim exists so we can see it.
Yes @James Hamling: You are manipulative, we agree on that
But you made some serious accusations, and I am simply asking you to support your libelous and intentionally defamatory statements.
A statute has ten or fifteen lines. It's a simple, sometimes "clear" statement with a citation number.
Please provide the specific citation number you claim exists so we can see it.
or, stop being libelous and no, ignoring the issue won't make it go away. That is so 4th grade.
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
If you can't distinguish between actions in investing that are taken when proper procedures are followed, versus actions to avoid disaster when proper procedures aren't followed, you will have an interesting experience.
Advice to avoid disaster is almost always different than advice that is considered "the norm".
Sing and dance all you want, Ken, but you told the poster in the other thread to not record, and I pointed out that he should record, and recording would not harm him. If he was going to have trouble, he would not avoid it by not recording.
In this thread you say to always record.
I bet you make your martinis extra strong.
So, in your world, I should have said
"always record, unless you've done something stupid that you don't realize is stupid, because you weren't smart enough, or you were too cheap to pay for my training and the list of stupid things includes not bringing the loan current when you buy a property Subject To" ?
Okay, consider it corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Ken: "Okay, consider it corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment."
"I'm sorry for you (and for your clients) about your ignorance that a separate lease with a separate option is not the same legally, as a Lease Option in the same document. But it is not my job to train you.
AGAIN - Please finally answer so we can move on (Request Number 5)
Please provide the Statute you reference.
You provided a link to the ENTIRE Landlord/Tenant ACT which has nothing in it about buying properties. As though somehow we are supposed to find something.
A statute has ten or fifteen lines. It's a simple, sometimes "clear" statement with a citation number.
Please provide the specific citation number you claim exists so we can see it.