They don't tell you: "provided there are no outstanding liens against them," which soundls likely the case in most instances, huh?

Well, as pointed out, that ain't the case in many areas.

But, I also believe that many rehabbers will try to get rid of their marginal (or not even marginal) deals to unsuspecting beginners, and because they are rehabbers themselves, they would know what to say and how to say it to convince the less experienced investor to buy a less-than-great deal.Of course this isn't always the case. In

During the run up, they appreciated even more so than many nicer areas of my market, but they have taken bigger hits with the slow down.Steve referenced maintenance being similarly priced as upper end houses, but that is not the case in my experience.

In that article, the lawyer pokes holes in Corelogix's findings, but does not address what made the transaction in question in the article a case of bank fraud.I did find the FBI's press release about the case in question:http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2010/nh021910a.htmAlso, the actual case document is here:http://www.mortgagefraudblog.com/ee-assets/my-uploads/NATERA.pdfThe code cited in the complaint 'Bank Fraud' is here:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001344----000-.html§ 1344.

Originally posted by Ed Beck:Most banks are listing the property lower than the guy down the street to be competetive, so it is already somewhat 'discounted'.This is often not the case in my neck of the woods.

Case in point: my last flip I had three offers in less than 24 hours.

They seem to lean toward the lower end of the scale to get the property rented quickly. a case in point is my recent experience.

I'll see if I can get him to shed some light on this one.EDIT: for those who did not read the link in the OP, Brad Dornish represented the landlord in the case in question here.

Bruce, that may be the case in DC.