I believe I’d look at filing suit against the city for fraudulence and withholding that information which should have been publicly recorded or understand on the title .

Often an investor will hand it back/walk away after they get tired of being Landlords & all the drama that drives them out of that 'combative arena' of REI.

As far as buyers remorse goes, about the only way to combat it, is to realize that the purchase is already done.

Sort of like the whole terrorist - insurgent - freedom fighter - enemy combatant charade.

A month later your bank discovers the check is fraudulent and take the money out of your account.

(Dangerous I know) Tax enities have eagery spent more and more money,,,used ever increasing values of real estate to combat there increased costs.

Lol, that's because half of that junk hovers around fraudulent and criminal activity.

Their pockets loaded with combat pay.  

how about bringing the additional 1% on if/when there is a lawsuit, you can usually tell when it is coming and even if not add the other person when it happens, as long as it's for a valid business purpose I would think it okay to add after the claim is filed.It's an idea, but I believe the trick would be convincing the court the sale of units on the eve of a lawsuit were truly for "valid business purposes" and not a weakly veiled attempt to complete a fraudulent transfer/conveyance.My philosophy regarding asset protection mimics the layers of an onion.

The pm got jail time for fraudulently filling out a lbp disclosure after the child died.