Hi Ashley, We have found what works well for us, as well as our clients is to ask them during the on boarding process if they have any preferred contractors.  

I have other mobile homes which have been moved more than once and therefore will not qualify for a VA or FHA Loan so I'm doing  Rent to Own alongside a Rental Lease so that I can evict instead of foreclose on. 

If she went to buy a house and applied for a mortgage, I think the lender would say the same thing aka you don't qualify until you get this removed from the credit report.

So back to the drawing board, but for myself the big takeaway is to continue on the course that I set out on and too continually learn and stay involved with goals that I set out on and to stay focused.

I was looking at DSCR loans because they don't require extensive checks like the bank loans and they "only" look at the income generated from the property to qualify for the loan.

Also check if there are any boarding house regulations in your area that would impact you. 

I've been on this board since 2010 and haven't found an example yet.

You want to force the tenant out so you can occupy, which qualifies as an eviction.Talk to the tenant.

So I require skin in the game (average is 5% to 15%) to offset this.

The positives are from the buyers prospective1- the ability to buy a property with little down payment2- the ability to obtain financing at below market rate3 -not needing to qualify for convention/institutional financing4- not having another debt on your PFS5 - not needing to pay points and other fees to obtain a new mortgage The positives for the seller are 1- can possibly sell a property in which they have negative equity without bringing cash to the closing table2 -expand the pool of potential buyers 3 -possibly obtain a higher price/ quicker sale 4 - can utilize a wrap to potentially earn the “differential” on interest rate 5 -May be able to save the Realtors commissionAll this being established, here’s the BIG question:  Can a subject to transaction be done where both parties are reasonably protected?