Moving in the miltiary has provided me a slow and safe way for me to acquire properties ( in between properties I saved my money and deployments definitely helped).

It was a vacant lot next to a property I owned, so it was a pretty safe risk.

About 20% of your gain should be safe.

A 50% split would give him half, which I am sure is significantly higher than he's getting with his safe $ thru his advisor.

Pension funds looking for an alternative to low-risk bonds, CDs, and US Treasury's want a high quality, asset-backed, "safe" investment.

Without more investigation, nobody is going to be able to tell you if this is a symptom of a serious problem, or if it's routine settling that is presenting a purely cosmetic issue.While you can take the safe approach and run away (like some others are suggesting), keep in mind that by doing so, you're giving other investors (like me :) an opportunity to swoop in and grab a great deal because we're willing to spend a couple hundred bucks on an engineer and then potentially negotiate the price down far below market value, even if the underlying issue isn't severe.If spending a little time and money is something you're willing to do in order to potentially get a great deal, then I'd recommend finding a good structural engineer and having him visit the property and make an assessment.

The exemption under the SAFE Act is for owners who occupy the home, not for non-owner occupied investors/landlords.

Dreams of savings down the road go away when they factor in the additional mortgage cost created by that extra upfront cost.When I was still building in Northern Idaho and put in energy efficient devices advertising them was a negative and several asked if I would take out the non traditional high efficiency tankless hot water heating system.I build to green certification standards but I am  not willing to pay the inspector for certifying them green especially since he had to approve the plans for the homes to be built.I wish you much luck and support your intent but the reality, at least in my experience, is people are willing to talk about being green but won't pay extra or go out of there way to be green if there is even the slightest hindrance to their life style.  

and the respective IRS publications.After combing through all those, and looking at my own scenerios, I have the following specific questions.(1) ElectionThe three safe harbor rules (Safe Harbor for Small Taxpayers, Routine Maintenance Safe Harbor, De Minimis Safe Harbor can be used in conjunction with each other? 

I think just to be safe I will call the missouri re commission and do what they suggest.