Yes, some staffer at some point back in 1990 and no one knew and if you knew anything about reading and interpreting an insurance policy you would know that things can be in an insurance policy for decades that people are unaware of.

That right there could be an issue contributing to the factors of this senate bill.Again, I am not a lawyer and can not possible understand how the wording of this bill would be interpreted by a judge in a court of law.

This would be interpreted as "enjoying" the asset and is a no-no.

Technically, this could be interpreted as a restriction with which you can never sell the property using escrow.

Thus, the definition of it could be subejct to interpretation.

Jeff the problem with interpretations of things is you will see it one way and the government or a banking entity will see it another way.Some look at the lender taking the hit as an implied agency.So your prime fiduciary duty to the seller and then secondary to the bank.Many ways to look at it.As a licensed broker I simply do not get involved in these types of deals.The pay day does not equal the headache or the risk to the license.This is where to an investor the payday might be so large that they take the risk but to the broker/agent it's not worth it.

Chris and Dave T, you seem to have conflicting views on this and I guess, just like any tax question, it depends on how you interpret it.

I would likely take Option 1 instead if it meets Justin's interpretation.

That listing agent may interpret your action as meaning you're not a serious investor and it could hurt your chances of getting any of his/her properties under contract in the future.

@Chris GPerhaps I am not understanding what you posted.My interpretation of the facts presented is that this Landlord incurs a net loss of $250 per month.