If not, maybe it will elevate to the level you can take them to small claims court.

I have been digging through the guidance and am wondering if anyone has ever taken advantage of the following clause regarding 203k improvement types from the HUD SFH Handbook 4000.1, pg 374:- "reconstructing a Structure that has been or will be demolished, provided the complete existing foundation system is not affected and will still be used;"- "repairing, reconstructing or elevating an existing foundation where the Structure will not be demolished;"Guidance link: https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/OCHCO/documents/4000.1hsgh.pdfHas anyone ever built a new home on top of an existing foundation using a 203k loan?

The Minut alerts themselves seem to admit of ambiguity: declaring "elevated risk" of cigarette smoke. 

Does anyone have a referral for a SB 721 inspector (elevated walkway inspection law) in the So.

Practice your personal elevator pitch in the mirror out loud until you feel comfortable saying it. 

It's a 70s vintage deal, 400+ units, with a lot of nearby competition, so certainly there is some risk elevation from the asset/market, but that's the least of the problem here, in my opinion.If the numbers on CoStar are correct, the property was purchased at the very top of the market for $47M, with a $39.4M bridge loan (that would likely mature this year). 

On thing to keep in mind are potentially elevated maintenance and landscaping costs, as the weather an be extreme ranging from intense rain to snow flurries on the beach. 

For buyers or their brokers with well capitalized investors, inquiring directly for verification of a property whether it has an assumable note is good practice while interest rates remain elevated. 

Before the work, our house elevation was +0.5  readings the highest,  - 2.5  in several other low spots. 

I really just want to add 2 piers tat would be the size of medium size tree trunks and elevate that section over.