Maybe Im looking at this incorrectly, however I would think that if a mortgage was taken out on the subject-to-value of the home, there will be no  built in equity.

It is a historic house that I did a full reno on, and now have about $140,000 in equity on that property.

I have over 100k in equity in the properties I rent and another 60k in equity on my owner occupied prop.  

First, are you saying you paid 5421.04 to bring the mortgage current, and thus gained the remaining 9578.96 in equity (since the owner had put 15k down) ?

I've already taken the plunge, and have acquired 3 single family homes with built-in equity that cash flow nicely.

Or, the investors own the LLC, and the LLC loans the money to you for the property.I've heard of doing loans "para pasu", which gives each lender a mortgage against the property, but all are in equal position.

I've also read that the good ones should have atleast 60% of ARV in equity.

He would buy homes with low down payments (by seller financing or assuming loans), rehab them modestly (a couple thousand), then get his down payment and rehab costs back in the down payment from the buyer and the difference in equity he carried on a note.But like others have already said, the huge cash flow and low investment is the appeal with Lonnie deals.

So i got my 10k back and have 28k in equity.

At a certain point your cash/equity will be generating 100% of the cash flow turning the property into a liability.At a opportunity value of 10% every 100K in equity draws $866 off the top of your rental income before any other deductions.Like Jason I do not invest in any property that can not produce positive cash flow on it's own merit.