The sale of the home is considered to be for health reasons if the taxpayer's primary reason for selling the home is to obtain medical attention (diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or treatment), or to obtain medical or personal care for a qualified individual suffering from a disease, illness, or injury.Unforeseen circumstances may include: an involuntary conversion (destruction or condemnation of home), unemployment, the inability to pay basic living expenses, or a change in living arrangement such as a divorce or legal separation or multiple births resulting from the same pregnancy, and other reasons to the extent provided in regulationsThe taxpayer's exclusion would have been disallowed because of the "more than one home sold during a 2-year period" rule, except that the taxpayer sold the home due to and of the three reasons listed above.The taxpayer otherwise qualifies for the sale of home exclusion, but there was a period of nonqualified use during which the home was not used as a principal residence (effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2008).Example: John bought his first home in 2003.

Alternatively, you could arrange an earn-out whereby you retain 80% - 90% of his portion of the the cash-flow-before-taxes (CFBT) until he has earned out your half of the property {this could be done even if there is an existing mortgage in-place}.Be warned that if you have a mortgage and your names are both on it, the lender (especially a bank) may force the remaining partner to refinance (rather than simply issue a "release" of the other partner from the mortgage).There are others here like Jon Holdman, and @Bill Gulley, who have deep experience and better know the financing options available to you in the U.S.A.Whatever you do going forward, spend a little time with a real estate / partnership attorney and get things in writing.

What you are trying to do has liability to a brokerage and a head broker will not want new agents working with this type of arrangement.

You certainly won't find a 50/50 split of profits just for finding the deal... with the other side taking on the cost and risk, that's not a good arrangement for them.

She was a long term tenant with a good history when she requested the arrangement so it was easier to say yes.

In summary Rick you can 1) borrow from mom if you understand the possible consequences and risks of that arrangement 2) borrow from the bank as you appear to have the resources to do so without assistance 3) find a property you can buy all cash with your own funds now or save up and buy a larger property all cash later or 4) continue to seek input from other investors on alternative strategies.

Thanks Brett Synicky, I definitely will let you know how I arrange it.

I agree with all of you I will just go ahead and pay what I would have paid the other landscaper. no more no less.I will also at this point forward separate any types of further arrangements.something just seems very insincere about waiting 5 months to ask me for back pay.If I had worked out an arrangement I would have done some quality control, inspections we would have talked about expectations and I would have held him accountable but it was my error and now I will have to pay. but I will no longer use him.

I am not interested in an "interest only" arrangement.

Such arrangements can take you from a non-judicial foreclosure into a judicial foreclosure, from your eviction court to a foreclosure, or from doing an eviction and then making allowances for improvements made, it can also go the other way if the work is not professionally finished as a damage, or code violations.