Insurance is not an issue, either party can insure the property and make assignments of loss proceeds or amounts applied to the purchase price.

We are currently touching up the place to sell it and cut our losses.

hi jermaine hereWe tried that about eight years ago but to two people that were not related, total nightmare, thay got along for about four months, then it all fell apart, one did not like the other one girlfriend the other one did not like the smell of the food the other one cooked, you get the idea, I guess it could work just did not work for us.

Property and casualty coverage usually will have an 80% co-insurance clause that basically says the insured must carry at least 80% of the value of property insured to be considered fully insured, having less coverage is deemed to become a self-insured situation where the insured assumes a level of insuring part of the loss along with the insurer.

If you don't have a mortgage, then you are NOT required to have flood insurance but run the risk of a total loss.

What we have put in-place for ourselves would likely not be appropriate in you situation.In Canada I was going to start investing as sole proprietorship so i could get the lower tax rate ( the need for liability protection via corporate structure is lower in Canada).When you are first starting out there can be benefits to holding {residential rental} property in your own name - especially if you are expecting to produce negative cash-flow in the first year or two as you can use the loss against your earned income from other sources.

Aside from the sad loss to the patriots by 1point, there are a ton of opportunities on the Westside, just looked at 4 today....Great cap rates 20%+

What are the vacancy and default/loss rates?

To have 6 clear titles you have done something right in the past cut your losses and do it again.

At least now you have a stable situation although cash flow negative which sounds better than selling the house for a big loss.