It cannot rationally be said that I have the lawful power to retain income which the law specifies to be the property of another person.

I have doors in Memphis and Detroit and I only target properties with a rent to price ration of 1% or better.

I am just trying to find a rational for the first title company's refusal to insure the transaction as an investment while all the evidence of not being an owner occupied property had been provided to them.  

. - Am I caught in a loop and not taking action out of fear, or does this rational make sense to someone more experienced?

They spent the past 3 days rationalizing that this was a great excuse and thinking about how well the conversation will go for them for it to all collapse in an instant.

My network of friends that does this often all fall under the thought process of put the documents in place, but we all prefer to work things out with people when there's an issue and avoid court, so I've discussed many different weird stories with my friends but I can't quote a case.Sorry I still don't understand the rational for having a mortgage in addition to an option.I believe your scenario is a red herring because you're not lending money to repair a roof, you're paying money to purchase an option and if you're going out 10 years it sounds a lot like the MV Realty business plan using an option instead of a listing agreement.

For someone investing larger sums of capital this would be the rational thing to do.The investments are great, and I have joined 4 other deals with other syndicators since then.

Am I just rationalizing a bad investment strategy here? 

I am looking for a basic Back of Napkin version that doesn't get too deep into the weeds initially  Yes it has a back of the napkin version, but here is one too....GPR x Vacancy/ Collections Loss (%) x Expense ration (ie: 40-50%) = NOI / Cap Rate

I can understand your anger and frustration, but this is the time for a methodical, rational approach and follow each step of the law...not rants, threats and anger.