Take a look at the proposal they sent you in the Terms and Conditions to see if they limited their liability to the cost of the investigation. 

To keep legislators from intervening; to prevent legislation investors will find undesirable.With so many people out there "doing it wrong" and "learning from their mistakes", a point is reached where legislators must step in to protect those who are being hurt: lenders and other money investors as well as tenants and property owners / buyers.Want to curb further tenant-friendly ordinances and other legislation which hurts investors? 

The funny thing is that I don't think this was ever listed on the market and I was told that the present owner never proposed anything to build to the anchor tenant.

Here's a breakdown of the numbers-80,000 cash purchase5,000 closing costs50,000 reno's, holding costs, interest175,000 (conservative) ARVMy question is, what should I be proposing to my investors? 

Unfortunately, none of the proposed options did not interest me.

I talked to my investor today and I am putting together a proposal.

Most of the scenarios proposed to us by potential clients for such joint ventures would likely create a benefit between the parties and not pass scrutiny in an audit.There are many ways to safely and productively grow your IRA investing in non-traditional assets such as real estate in a standalone fashion,  There is no need to take unnecessary and foolish risks with your retirement savings.

Though the tenant has yet to make a specific mathematical proposal, he has left almost a $1k past due with the water dept as the lease comes to a close and has proposed that this is the amount for making it right.

So after you claim the house, you can put upgrades that you've done to it and Zillow will update their price - although it still might not hit your proposed selling price. https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/zillow-faces-lawsuit-over-zestimate-tool-that-calculates-a-houses-worth/2017/05/09/b22d0318-3410-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?

The Bankruptcy court analyzed the Alaska statute and found that there was very clear legislative intent by the Alaska legislature and that indeed the purpose of the statute was to seize all control of the determination of transfers.