This breaks it down a little bit better for interpretation...

Even CPAs and lawyers struggle to interpret it.

Although some may disagree, I believe it only means seller is not agreeing in advance to any repair - though you should be careful because people interpret it different ways.

Fannie/ freddie have different guides on this, and i do see different lenders interpret them differently. for example, one requires you to OWN your primary residence in order to use rental income on the subject MF, the other will let you do rental income from your MF subject property with a "present housing expense" (rental housing expense being ok) so long as you have a 1 year + history of landlording (which it sounds like you do). maybe ask your mortgage pro if they are giving you credit for rental income from the subject property units?

But the meaning of "gross income" in this context is subject to interpretation.

The facts and figures you mentioned tilted the balance slightly towards Tulum according to my interpretation.

lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65852.22They way the law is written - owner occupancy requirement should not apply if the property is owned by a land trust Am i interpreting it correctly and does anybody has experience doing this ?

For example, there is one poster here who's business offers a note fund set up as a c-corp rather than an LLC in order to offer dividends that are more tax friendly for IRA accounts (at least that is how I interpreted it).

Note this is not only to rent the JADU, but in strictest interpretation to even have a legal JADU.

Ken,I know you are new to the Real Estate Investment business & I am sorry you were less than impressed by Holton-Wise & how we operate but I need to clarify a few things for you as well as the other members of BP who are reading this as your interpretation of the transaction is a little misguided.