Here is an excerpt (edited slightly by me) from an Appellate Court case in Connecticut that discusses the test:"If an agreement is personal, it cannot be said to have run with the land and thus cannot have bound the future grantee....For purposes of the distinction between real covenants (running with the land, or touching and concerning the land) and personal covenants, a covenant may run with the land or may be a matter between only the purchaser and grantor.

They teach their students enough to be dangerous but not enough to do deals on their own so the student 9/10 times brings the deal back to the "guru" to help close it taking most of your deal you worked your tail off for.

What I remember so distinctly about acquiring the first rental is how there were a lot of documents and signatures, but no actual money at the closing.

Is that a dangerous sign? 

Ok thank you I understand the distinction now.

From my POV.it really depends on asset class and tenant Class.. this is a huge distinction. my clients that I sold apartment complex to in Oregon with B class.. they pay 4% but then have to pay for on site manager as employee.. so 4% to manage the on site person so that person does not rip you off :).However for BP and I have to think the vast majority of the rental property investors on this site that have gone to  D C B out of state markets.. those props are not like a 600k rental in Denver and the tenant that comes with it.. or really any city with a A class tenant..

Even the best trained horses can be very dangerous.

To clarify, the biggest distinction between a second home and a rental is the 10% down?

Not just Joe The Tree Trimmer, but someone who is an actual arborist or a person who has the knowledge and can prove that the tree was an immediate danger. 

Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake up in the day to find it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”T.E.