There is a saying that all RE is local, that goes to state laws, local customs, what the local judge thinks and political flavors of the day.

I should have mentioned this - thank you for bringing that important distinction up.

Unlike Bill G I did peruse the thread to get a flavor for it before posting...

I think the distinction is whether you're talking about a personal umbrella policy (which IS liability insurance, but covers pretty much any claim made against you personally no matter where it happens) or just extended liability coverage on the rental property (if anything happens at the property, you're covered).

Grand distinction is the higher end pittsburg brand and is good as well.

If the same person controls multiple entities, then the rules may apply; however, there is no clear distinction in the Act as it does not address this issue.We believe you may own several entities doing up to 3 deals and comply with the exemption.

@Steve Babiak In the First Niagara case, the bank had notice in the Citibank case the bank did not have notice, BIG distinction.

Maybe an error on my part (subtle distinction?)

What if there is no lead-based paint, a distinct possibility on a 1960s building?

I can think of some other schemes that wouldn't get you fined or have you end up in jail, but really, the sub-2 and option is probably the cleanest for you, first timer and with you using an attorney, cheaper to have them prepare the deal.If you have read 5,000 of my posts then you're a good guy, trying to do what is right, it's just so easy to get into contracts that end up with a predatory flavor, even if unintentional, look at contracts like a math equation, both sides should be equal, or close to it.You buyer just needs to pay rents, rent covers the mortgage on your sub-2, no issues.