@Francis Morris ok cool we can chat tomorrow do you have instant messenger?

Any ideas or feedback would be appreciated.Maybe park a "Taco Truck" (Roach Coach) there and put one of your relatives (who needs a job) in it as an employee/cook.Bingo--instant restaurant, and a free car wash with every 15 burritos purchased.Tasty burritos draw car wash customers, and car wash customers can buy a burrito.

I saw the bill and instantly replaced the internals to fix the problem and stopped the waste.You'll make more, but the headache is going to be far greater than renting the whole unit.

(Though of course, we can't judge the comps or instant equity from here)...

He kept avoiding our requests and said we should claim it in our 2023 taxes instead… The last straw for us was when he tried to charge us another $7.5k to file our taxes which obviously ended our relationship instantly.

Can I borrow $500, sure $575 due next pay day.

The case is REMANDED to the lower court for reception of evidence as to the amount claimed by the respondents for the preservation and maintenance of the property.SO ORDERED.Hence, the instant petition for review raising the following issues:ITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT USED TO PURCHASE THE LAND AS WELL AS THE COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE, FOR IN SO RULING, IT INDIRECTLY ALLOWED AN ACT DONE WHICH OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE DIRECTLY x x x DONE, WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROSCRIPTION THAT AN ALIEN IS PROHIBITED FROM ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE PHILIPPINES.IITHE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IS ACTUALLY A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN OWNERSHIP OVER THE LOT IN QUESTION, CLOTHED UNDER THE GUISE OF CLAIMING REIMBURSEMENT.Petitioner contends that respondent, being an alien, is disqualified to own private lands in the Philippines; that respondent was aware of the constitutional prohibition but circumvented the same; and that respondent's purpose for filing an action for separation of property is to obtain exclusive possession, control and disposition of the Antipolo property.Respondent claims that he is not praying for transfer of ownership of the Antipolo property but merely reimbursement; that the funds paid by him for the said property were in consideration of his marriage to petitioner; that the funds were given to petitioner in trust; and that equity demands that respondent should be reimbursed of his personal funds.The issue for resolution is whether respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the acquisition of the Antipolo property.The petition has merit.Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states:Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain.

There were a lot more people looking to rent than there was before the great recession (when many were looking to buy).You are correct that no one knows what the future market wise or rent wise will be but if the past is any indication those that invest in So Cal will do better than virtually everyone that invests out of state.I currently am looking at properties were I can obtain instant equity because I predict an appreciation growth in my market (San Diego county) of <3% over the next couple years (3% at 25% down still would give 10% return) and I want better. 

Good relationships have enabled me to have instant buyers when I need them and the type of projects I like to rehab when I need one.

Once she moves out, I fix the property up, put it on the market, sell it, pay off her mortgage and get a nice payday!