I was moving forward with them but was just informed i need to sign CA form D-1 which states "the insurer does not patriciate in any of the insurance guarantee funds created by California Law, therefore these funds will not pay your claims or protect your assets if the insurer becomes insolvent" .Seems kind of risky but does anyone have any thoughts on this?

You might want to consider setting this up through an entity like an LLC for asset protection and tax benefits.

its total Caveat emptar .. so yes get a great agent and pay them to protect you..

And, I can benefit from amortization and appreciation over the long term.Best of all, my investment is inflation-protected: As overall prices go up, so do my rents and my property values.Your HYSA simply can't compete with a quality rental property investment.

Poor work and poor service get called out publicly, for example right here on Bigger Pockets, and reputation drives business.So, contrary to your statement, myself and my colleagues have tremendous incentives to provide excellent service and protect our reputation.

What's the best strategy for a buyer to protect themselves from a due-on-sale clause in a subject-to deal?

Anyone who does it faster is either likely to be too highly leveraged for protection if the market turns or has a really high paying job starting out.

I am looking for best practices both from a legal protection standpoint and from a tax advantage standpoint.

A pre-existing LLC cannot, but if you want an LLC for asset protection reasons your Solo 401k can own a newly formed LLC and that LLC can own the duplex.

Doing research on my next step and I must saw CA tenant protection law really suck.