Sometimes, even if you have a "binding legal contract" with someone who turns out to be fraudulent, or just a scumbag....you simply tell them you're ending it in writing, end all interaction, and correct the remaining problem.  

In a rapidly rising market, some investors will pay more in anticipation of appreciation, but I call that "gambling".  

I called several of his references, and they had nothing but positive comments on the guy.We decided to take the gamble and negotiate a contract with the guy.

The only possible cash flow strategy I can think of is to gamble on rent control cities by buying out tenants to make the numbers work (much harder in SF now).

The only way for you to truly make money on this property is through appreciation, which is essentially gambling, but a lot more work. 

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.

A lot of GC''s have time and money tied up in there business and would rather be hired for a job where they know they will profit rather than gamble on a property that could not only lose money, but also keep them and their employees away from other paying jobs.

Account ClosedAppreciation is gambling - even for the highly informed and educated.

You would just have to weigh this against either gambling on them not exercising their right while you start your rehab now or waiting the 6 months and then beginning your rehab.