@John Woodrich There is a distinction between true cash flow and artificial cash flow.

In this circumstance I think they would be more likely to work with you on fees and such.

dual source of repayment.. you and the tenant.. the risk in money comes when the fed's require banks to make loans to those that do not qualify under normal circumstances.. the CRA really hammered banks and lenders..

Time has a way of changing people's circumstances and needs.

As already stated you have fulfilled your responsibilities, Take one or two space heaters and do not give a rent rebate...sets a bad precedent and not required under the circumstances.

Here's a sample of fine print:“Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower’s principal residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrower’s principal residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist which are beyond Borrower’s control.”Different lenders have different "fine print" statements that may be more grey and confusing.

I don't want to buy on speculation that these circumstances will continue, but it's a stable market and I see no downward forces in the near future.So is it a good move or a stupid buy?

Hi John,It's not always the case the bigger is better, but I think it is in this circumstance (with a few caveats).  

Seems to me someone living under such circumstance should have notified the PM, and if so, you may get after them for moving expense, and even damages to your property.

I thought IRA funds had to remain in the account until you meet the age of retirement in most circumstances?