Ivana, there's a TON to unpack here and I'm happy to carry on the convo via DM or a call.You're not crazy.

Having access to the funds without needing to refinance again could save on fees and give you flexibility when another opportunity arises.However, if you’re cautious about carrying extra debt with no immediate deal in sight, taking only what you need now might provide peace of mind.

She thinks it’s ok to stay for free and she deserves free housing, non paying her dues or any thing just because she does not have a job (on purpose) and does not have money ( has all money for fancy furniture and gadgets)But anyways she has not paid her move in deposit ( paid partial) and has not carried renters insurance.

Most “Gurus”, authors, advisors and experienced real estate investors preach obtaining seller “carry back” financing for property buyers in order to (1) obtain financing when they don’t qualify for a 3rd party loan (2) obtain financing when the property doesn’t qualify for financing and or (3) extend the “buying power” of their capital contribution (down payment) to purchase a larger more expensive property by having the seller provide a subordinated mortgage loan.That’s all and good, but why should the seller agree to finance the purchase of his property, instead of getting CASH for his equity?

That would leave you with $230k to do the renovation, and cut down your negative carry by 2/3. 

Lets say that i have a total of $100K in total losses that have been carrying from prior years from all of my rental properties combined.

The FEW who will touch mixed use would never touch it with the seller carrying half the loan.

Seller financing enables the seller to carry back a part of the purchase price.

I would personally rather have the $120k and get to use it or save it and let the bank carry the note. 

On my first in person meeting with the seller, he came in carrying a postcard that he received 3 years ago!