Ya I understand that when going through a traditional lending method.

I just close on the property and then sell like a traditional sale and it seems to work well.

A traditional PM charges a percentage, and you pay them for payroll costs.

I'm not seeing how traditional financing, while using the 50% rule for est expenses, is going to cashflow at all with properties under $150K. 

.- my husband is in a tax bracket that capital gain is almost equal to normal taxes, so my accountant says it didn't make a difference when we sell traditionally-also we would have held it for less than one year, if all goes right. no real tax benefit there.

I'm buying a small condo in the northeast as an investment property for now and a place to retire to in 10 years.I'm trying to decide between getting a traditional second mortgage or getting a home equity loan.The condo I'm planning on purchasing is $69,000.

.- Second option is to partner with a few american family members with great credit score and possibly buy with 20% down using more traditional financing.I hear other options as well like using portfolio lenders, seller financing etc.

My question is, if I line up a seller financed deal and explain that this will ease the tax burden but then I sell after a year or so, does that in turn put him in the same spot as if he would have sold it traditionally to begin with?  

I will have a street address plus a Suite # instead of the traditional PO Box.CheersSuzanne

I forgot to include this within my original post, but my reasoning for considering the apartment unit over the single family home to begin with was due to my limited cash on hand to support the needed 20% down on a single family home that is traditionally higher in asking value ( north of $150k ) than apartment units.