Germain Act, with the relevant text bolded and underlined.

It's when an option becomes convoluted and takes on the flavor of a sham transaction or bridges on a prohibited transaction that a lender may disqualify amounts or loans funding such transactions.Having been around hundreds of banks I can assure you that loan officers are not attorneys and some may not spot or understand such contracts, doesn't mean that they are a prudent way of doing business.

Thanks.I did a quick search, and did see this at the top of the Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations page (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/Statutes.html, in bold print no less: "...Searching by chapter titles for the desired subject matter is not a dependable method for finding all applicable law unless you know the book well, for the specific item you are looking for may not be in the chapter you select."

Where else can you so easily associate with millionaires, lenders, real estate professionals, developers, gurus and specialists of so many flavors.

Originally posted by Tod Radford:I heard a quote this morning from an organic chemist:"Dilution is the Solution to the Pollution" let's hope so...Sound like Johnnie Cochran is making some bold predictions!

It means don't waste your time with the flavor of the month.

I follow your logic though... and my own philosophy is that cahs flow has a "flavor and color" -- and it's possible to get "enough" cash flow and still have properties / experiences / tenants that provide you a great "joy to headache" ratio!

There is a box you can check, however, almost all banks cover their bases by adding the no asssignment clause in their addendums in bold letters so that the buyer could not argue that it was checked off by mistake or that it was an attempt to conceal the no assignment inside the contract.

It would be a bold move for sure.

Let me quote my own quote with added bolding for clarification.