In Illinois and a number of other states, you can purchase under a land trust, which subsequently signs the mortgage, and you personally sign the note.

I can’t find any info online related to the pros and cons for purchasing the liens for subsequent years, and I was curious for feedback on your thoughts.

Based off past experience in the Fort Wayne area, what do you all expect the cost for a contractor to remove wall paper and subsequently paint the walls? 

So i guess my question would be does it make sense to payoff/cash refi my first property to then essentially follow David G’s advice to then purchase the subsequent properties.

I’ve been using a normal accountant for several years but I don’t think he’s properly crediting for depreciation, and I know my wife and I are close to qualifying for real estate professional and the subsequent active income write offs…my accountant won’t even look at it.

When we buy apartments from the eighties and early nineties, the seals on the double pane windows are often broken and subsequently are permanently fogged.

Specs on this house:  4 bed, 2 bath, "ugly" house, decent condition, needed new roof, we subsequently discovered a previously abandoned oil tank which seller had to remove.   

@Sadierose LemireNot a tax person or CPA but have you considered opening a Connecticut 529 with yourself as as the beneficiary (assuming that is your State of residency and you have W2 income) and then taking the $5000 state deduction (10,000 if you’re married) and then using those funds to then subsequently pay up to 10K in your school loans as allowed under the CARES Act.

I agree the next sentence goes on to address a current owner that may already have more than three, which seems redundant in light of the first statement...but the way it is written the plain reading is that three maximum in the entire development applies...The subsequent statement about three per owner only applies to current owners at the time of this being passed...it's an additional stipulation in light of the fact that some owners at the time of passage may have already been in exceedance of that requirement.

One major question I have is: Is there room to legally argue that it was tenants 1) disconnect water service 2) left valves open that led to subsequent damages and therefore they are liable?