In theory (and law) the home owner is entitled to receive anything over what is owed to the bank plus legal fees.

You usually get more bang for your buck on commercial properties than you do on residential because of the cap rate.

If I could trun back the hands of time and was single I would go for the best bang for my buck cash flow wise and get a 4 plex.

So in theory, if you successfully lower your property tax, that decrease in is spread around as a increase to every other property. 

To prove my "theory" is that 6-7 yrs ago you weren't buying a deal a day when your phone was ringing daily or you would own every large apartment in Houston.

Those ozone20000 machines look promising and actually appear to have a lot more bang for your buck as far as ozone output .

The reason the deal interested me is the seller wants to stay on as a tenant in the two story section for 24 months, which, in theory would allow us the time to retrofit the other 50,000 sq ft to conditioned self storage and hopefully our mortgage is covered.I understand the situation will vary based on rents, occupancy levels etc.

@Jonathan Killam this is definitely a good idea in theory, and we actually have had a few cases like this where we come up with a payment agreement, but we do it as a formal stipulation agreement documented in court during the eviction hearing so that it is formally documented.

The theory of getting a signed lease to cover the mortgage is a solid one.

Hi guys,I'm new to the whole real estate thing but I would like to hear your opinion about being a partner with a friend that is much more experienced that has been doing flips and renting for about 10 years. we were thinking to take a loan that is 4 times higher than our down payment. for instance our down payment will be 400k $ and the overall loan will be 1.6 milion $. to be fair i'm not talking about a specific deal rather than one that is in theory. would that be too risky?