data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3f1b5/3f1b58d3204ff31f2190d2eddc9e9f7889a2bfc1" alt=""
22 January 2016 | 22 replies
On the surface , the properties in Seattle metroplex will not meet the 1% rule but dig dipper and you will find values.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/752c1/752c11bee78633428bf990adc2fd9a9bbf6cd542" alt=""
7 June 2016 | 9 replies
Clearly haven't even scratched the surface but have found it EXTREMELY valuable.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe89a/fe89a97755fd06e2fe062e21bba587cd43cba3b7" alt=""
12 August 2016 | 4 replies
@Daniel DietzYes to one.For two, fathers are disqualified parties but brothers and uncles generally are not deemed disqualified parties, so while it may be deemed aggressive, it is not prohibited on the surface if the father is not the father of one of the sons mentioned and only IRAs and non-disqualified parties are investing.For three, it is similar to two except the father's IRA is removed from the equation, so it is not prohibited on the surface since brothers and uncles are not disqualified parties.However, under both 2 and 3 above, the IRS can always challenge both scenarios, and unless you can prove to the IRS that such transactions could have been made without the need of the other parties, they can still deem it prohibited.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7277c/7277cc6111d5a0309ae59b97452fefeae030aca8" alt=""
11 May 2016 | 5 replies
So, if you have a cost per square that your roofer will charge, you can take the footprint of the house, do a little math/geometry, and determine the surface area of the roof.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d899b/d899b5e3a392c30362deeff30514fd0c3dc66a39" alt=""
18 September 2017 | 4 replies
If its less, then someone's equity is coming at your expense...The devil's in the details in these docs once you get past some of the basic surface numbers.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c15dc/c15dcb6e765712b4a12ad8b04f35771b4d75358e" alt=""
19 June 2017 | 5 replies
On the surface I would walk from this deal.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0ff94/0ff94b9cae44f2ad11733c4998ea24b20a2fba6f" alt=""
2 May 2016 | 2 replies
.- It's owned Free-n-Clear- Bad school district though- Above surface pool!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9940f/9940f93cdf3be6bf2b0451a9adcfc67fabf96322" alt=""
28 September 2016 | 3 replies
Even the surfaces, whether it be stainless, hose-able walls, etc etc.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/54d5b/54d5b6bfd6699d581cabef9517843a164ca66e90" alt=""
23 January 2016 | 14 replies
On the surface this deal seems marginal at best, likely falling in the "not deal" territory and that is without considering how hard you would have to work to even make the deal happen.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/13dbb/13dbbb3e68e1659e897feea491094c67e322ed01" alt=""
21 January 2016 | 6 replies
One thing I've learned about this issue is to use a high clay based dirt packed against the foundation will minimize the freeze-thaw & torquing of settling, by diverting surface water from being able to cause these issues.