We are not disagreeing in substance, just what to call each type.

I've leased to prior LLs, both very good, I didn't view it as a danger at all.

Pete, my insurance carrier has singled out pit bulls, along with other dangerous breeds.

People, Bill has already had a post removed that had very dangerous suggestions, just because someone has ideas and makes it sound like the best thing since sliced bread doesn't mean it safe, ethical, prudent or legal.Bill, welcome to BP, but you might do some lurking and reading to get the flavor of this site.

Dion, position of who's head gets chopped off first I don't see as an issue, you're right that a Sub-2 seller is financing the amount they have financed.What is suggested, isn't creative financing, piling up loans isn't creative, but dangerous, especially in a Sub-2 with an underlying mortgage.Unless you have the ability to pay off a Sub-2, by selling or refinancing quickly, it's not prudent to go there.If the 1st is called, the lender forecloses your second lender looses.Next, what lender would loan to 100% without other significant assurances?

Just goes to show powerful knowledge in the wrong hands is as dangerous as a loaded gun.

Well, with respect, I don't think there is much substance to that metaphor.

It's an opportunity for you to make some money and we're trying to help you figure out how you can do it.Why is 100% financing a bad deal or dangerous for the investor.

Just read up until you know just enough to be dangerous and then get out there and buy something.

Those laws will vary state to state but in most states, including here in FL, a tree falling is an act of god so unless you can prove negligence (such as the tree was dead and rotting and you had warned the owner about the dangers of it falling) then it's going to be on you to fix the damage to your property.