Meaning, I don't have to necessarily provide them evidence of current title insurance....just sufficient evidence that the title is clear.9c(iii) seems more favorable to the Seller than 9c(i), since the language in 9c(i) is the following:Seller shall designate Closing Agent and pay for Owner’s Policy and Charges (but not including charges for closing services related to Buyer’s lender’s policy and endorsements and loan closing, which amounts shall be paid by Buyer to Closing Agent or such other provider(s) as Buyer may select);It seems to me, that 9c(i) is implying the Seller would pay for the Owner's policy, which could amount to over $200.  9c(iii) limits the Seller's responsibility to $200 to simply cover title search expenses.Any thoughts?

That's about the point where your second property cash flows down to zero.If you want more borrowing capacity then get another HELOC on more favorable terms, at least on the first property.

I do this as a favor to my Client, but mostly to insure that it was done correctly and on time.  

They have a repayment period and aren't usually as favorable as a mortgage. 

If you plan on staying local and investing in your area I would consider slightly less favorable rate or terms in the name of establishing a relationship with a local bank.

I always use my contract which is written heavily in favor of the buyer when I am purchasing something.

Depending on your own situation, with 25% down you could get a bank loan that would probably be more favorable than the seller's if you are looking for straight cash flow.  

If this were a condo community, I think I'd be more in favor, but not a SFH Association.

I say this great line from Michael Quarrles when I am in a tough negotiation and I act like I need a favor.

As long as the numbers work in your favor, it's a good deal.