Sure, but at the end of the day, you are going into a binding contract with a seller under the "pretense" of an investor/buyer, "knowing" that you are not interested in buying and therefore that constitutes a "Business Opportunity", or "Negotiating of a sale", no?

According to the National Home Builder Association, the Department of Labor is walking away from their previous efforts to try and classify subcontractors as employees:"In a victory for NAHB members and the small business community, Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta on June 7 announced the withdrawal of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) 2015 and 2016 informal guidance on independent contractors and joint employment — two Obama-era documents that expanded the tests for what constitutes a joint employer and an independent contractor, respectively."

Here are the ACTUAL numbers:the subject property is 1900 sq ft with 4 bedrooms the homes down the street which have recently sold are aprox 1750 sqft with 3 bedrooms have sold for 215,000 this home should give me at least 220-225k - I've even saw 4 bedrooms sold for 230k with 1850 sq ft.I have stayed in this house countless times and know that it is in pristine condition, new hvac furnace and a/c.with that said If I can buy this property at $180k when the ARV is lets even say $220k, doesn't this constitute a good deal?

Consequently, nobody knows how it might be interpreted by a court, and therefore makes attorneys and title companies cautious, nervous, and leery of being involved in foreclosure transactions, especially when it comes taking the property "subject to..One of the unsettled question is "does taking the property Subject to an existing loan constitute payment since the seller is still completely responsible for the existing loan?"

As it stands this constitutes 11 pct of loan amount, 9 pct of the purchase price.  

Doesn't sound like its enough to constitute that much in repairs unless its high quality finishes or something.

@Grant Rothenburger What constitutes an “established, tested, and proven track record” to you?

Especially given the position of the fence, and that we, and I guess they, believed it to be their property and not ours, this seem to constitute hostile, actual, open, notorious possession and exclusive and continuous use of the property by them.

Yeah that makes sense.Pretty sure the constitution gives people the right to enter into private contracts without interference.

The reason the AP policy has been in effect is that the CA constitution provides for same as defined during initial legislative formation in 1853 and subsequent assemblies whereby policy was to keep lands productive and reduce fallow fields as well as a means to address abuses by homesteaders and early Californios (an old term) who did not utilize their lands and prevent neighboring rancheros from paying their taxes and putting their fields and range lands to active.It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the policy; it's the law.