It basically gives me (the buyer) a way out of the contract all the way up and past the lien holder approval.The deal would be great at the price but I feel like the agents trying to strip out our rights as a buyer in a short sale.

That is illegal for them to do as they are not allowed to single out policy holders.

I think TX buy and holders should be fine.

I am certainly not opposed to this, but it does add some extra costs and challenges with the first mortgage holder. 

Ideally, I would be lending in Providence, Kent, and South County investors as a first position lien holder.  

For a property with outstanding tax liens, the closing attorney would simply request a payoff statement from the lien holder and the lien would be paid off with the proceeds from the sale. 

or housing that has section 8 vouchers holders, 2 different thingsI am thinking if you need advice probably not ready for it unless as a silent investor

My understanding is that no matter what number a seller has price and approved for a property, the Lein holder (bank loan agent) will determine what they will accept based on BPO and other factors.

No, as the current title holder is not available to sign over title to the wife.  

Originally posted by @Richard Fields:I wound up opening one account with checking for paying venders and mortgage on the property, savings for the rent checks, and a money market to hold the security deposits, so it's always activeThere is nothing about a money market account that make it "always active"; the account holder has to make some transaction (either deposit or withdrawal) to constitute activity - the bank paying interest does not constitute account activity.