That's the kind of talk you'll hear from every get-rich-quick guru on the planet, kind of like "7-Minute Abs" or Hydroxycut weight-loss pills.Just look at what he promises: you don't need to use your own money, you don't need to inspect the properties, you'll spend very little time on the deal, you aren't personally liable for the loans and debt, you'll work less and earn more...This can all be true if you know what you are doing.

And I can't possibly imagine anything other than an unnecessary assessment that could cause you that kind of outlay. 

Since you'd be looking to hold this property long term, look at what the property's cash flow and appreciation would potentially be 5-10 years down the road to help inform your decision.All that being said, if you feel confident that you can cover the maintenance, capex, vacancy loss, turn expenses, and leasing costs for a few years while you wait for the cash flow to improve, and you have enough risk tolerance to handle a potentially difficult tenant in the first few months which could lead to zero rent coming in during that transition to getting a new tenant in place, then it sounds like a solid deal to get into with $0 down.Lastly, I'll also caveat all of my statements above by mentioning that this all requires you to self-manage the property. 

If you drop your price $50, that's a loss of $600 a year, which is 50% less than you lose sitting vacant.

It's an unnecessary expense to operate the business.

One tenant however, did refer to having their rent pro-rated by the number of days that the situation would last.There is a clause in both their leases that they are responsible to carry renters insurance to protect their personal belongings against fire, theft, flood, loss of use etc. 

Are you able to deduct passive losses against earned income, or do you have enough passive income to wash against the passive losses in order to deduct all of the interest?

Last and most importantly, 99.9% of BP posters who are concerned with asset protection and/or believe anonymity will somehow protect them can’t even articulate what they are protecting against and that’s what leads to unnecessary time and expense spent on flawed asset protection practices. 

If so, maybe...But a brokerage account implies securities, which implies potential loss. 

Depending on how much money you're making (which, if you're at a loss, may not be a ton), those trusts can sometimes cause more tax than going the standard LLC route and just paying the $800 in the first place.I'm not sure from your post if you're talking about income taxes that are owed, or the $800 LLC fee, which is more akin to a franchise fee in the terminology that you're using.