Do not ever use the term simultaneous closing, as most interpret that as using the end-buyers funds.

It's possible that it was a mistake; it's also possible that the summary is misleading and you're interpreting it incorrectly (I misread HUD-1 statements all the time!)...

If not, I presume it's not legally binding (I'm not an attorney, but that would be the common sense interpretation)...

A judge can interpret the law and what's on paper versus who do they believe with nothing in writing.Family or no family it's business and every transaction should be handled professionally.

The board is correct in not taking action and their interpretation that a vote is required.

The 2% rule says that a place pulling in $2k a month in rents should only sell for $100k, if I've interpreted it correctly.

I had interpreted it as your assignment fee being 60k.

Jay Dackman which an attorney friend called the "most tortured interpretation of the law I have ever seen"

Under state law, at 20% equity, you would have to foreclose on the borrower and would not be able to use land contract forfeiture provisions (more like an eviction).Oceans of ink have been spilled here talking about the SAFE Act and Dodd Frank regulation that seller-financers have to abide by now, and the implementation varies by state, and there is still lots of ambiguity in how it will be interpreted and enforced.

While brother to brother may not be prohibited as self dealing per se, it could be interpreted as a Quid Pro Quo deal to get around self dealing rules.