Although some reasons may be in conflict with fair housing I don't really care when protection of my investment is concerned.I would guess that:1) they had low credit scores if any score.2) each alone does not have sufficient income to qualify for the rental by themselves.When screening young unmarried couples each must qualify fully on their own merit otherwise both are rejected.

Each has it's own merits.

So if your reason for paying down debt is strictly security, then paying down your main residence is the most secure choice.Others have commented about lowest interest rate and smallest debt, and even buying more properties instead of paying down, and all of those things have merit, but you mentioned security, so that is why I explained the legal aspects of capital preservation rather than maximum profit.I hope this helps and keep in mind this is a VERY brief overview of the legal principals and not an in depth study an attorney would normally do with you in estate planning.Best of luck bud.

Sounds like the facts merit a good faith exemption.

But I can certainly see the merits.

The answer to whether or not the ex-husband's suit has merit would be found in the divorce decree -- this is public record; you can go and pull the file at the courthouse and read the order. 

If you keep 100% of the profits, sure.If you plan to share it with your brother, I would argue that the transaction had no merit but to avoid tax.

It's a pivotal decision that merits meticulous evaluation and they should be written out.

Conformation bias at its finest...We can argue the merits/pitfalls of the ordinances as much as you want... there is a lot of it I disagree with........ but the "you got what you asked for" attitude is just plain ignorant

I think that your case against the former seller may have some merit if you can prove that they were aware of the problem prior to selling and did not disclose it.