Honestly It's a horrible financial move in almost all instances dumping a bunch of money into an upside down home unless if it would push it to an extreme upside value where you can recoup all of your repair costs and have substantial equity to spare. 1) If they have cash to offer a lump sum settlement of close to as-is value 150-175K I would consider doing that but know that 1st lien settlements are extremely uncommon. 2) They weather the storm while increasing cash flow.

Its not uncommon for tenants that want to move to use the sale of the building as the opportunity to disappear.

It's fairly uncommon that they use that clause.

@Doug Sah my guess is there were multiple applicants, and someone with similar qualifications but no NSF history got the unit, not uncommon to take a lower earner with better payment history and or credit.

It's not uncommon to see listing with 500-700/month rent. 

You have to consider how the partnership is structured, how cash flow is distributed, how much control your interest has in the management of the property etc. it's not uncommon for there to be a considerable discount to the market value of a limited partners shares due to lack of control over the factors listed above and the inability to mortgage your portion separately.

It's not at all uncommon for the lender to require that the sponsor has a net worth equal to the loan amount, and liquid reserves of at least six months of payments. 

It's not uncommon for lower-rent properties to have a material difference between projected gross rents and collected rents.  

He said he does 100% ltv ( very uncommon) , up 2-20 year term( never heard of that) , 6% , and doesn't take a lien position against the house.

In this area, it is not uncommon to find properties under 90K that meet both the 1% rule and the 50% rule on paper.