Maybe this was done before the new laws were implemented.

If there are no leases then you can give 30 day notice for the tenant to vacate, but if the tenant disputes that they had a lease, then problems might arise, which is what the estoppel prevents.  

Have a strategy, implement a plan, and remember, quality over quantity when it's in front of the right audience. 

Based on the amount of renovations and quality (ie cost) I'm fairly certain it would have been owners that did them and not tenants unless they were implementing a purchase option.

There's nothing to prevent a seller from accepting an offer on a property direct from a buyer.  

Our contract says that we will take reasonable measures to secure a property when we leave - lock doors, windows, and other openings.... but that we cannot be held accountable for loss incurred while our agents are not on site.In iffy neighborhoods, we take tools home with us every night.The way I feel about it is that it's not my fault the owner bought a house in the kind of neighborhood where it may be broken into, and I can't be held responsible for things that happen to the house while I'm not there as long as I'm taking a reasonable measure of care to prevent break-ins.

This was the situation in 2003 also, but instead of incomes putting a ceiling on prices, "creative" lending structures were implemented to allow the ceiling to be penetrated without the income growth.  

So, from an asset class perspective there are few restrictions on qualified plans.Notwithstanding, there are numerous compliance hurdles to implementing such a structure.

From my understanding you can put it in a Land Trust without this and then have the LLC own the land trust which prevents the bank from being able to call the loan due.  

I've heard a painter say not to do it bc it's only a cosmetic thing and doesn't actually prevent water from getting behind the boards.