Scott Meech seems like he can defend himself.

I have spoken with dozens of CPAs that understand the ruling in the passive loss limitations as @Brandon Hall explains it (tagging him in case he wants to defend his position), and very few that don't view it that way.

I use the term safe harbor - meaning if there ever is issues with it then the attorney you drafted it is gonna have to defend it.

In fact it may actually complicate litigation in the event a claim were to arise while adding additional insurance expenses to your real estate operation.To explain why this is the case I’m going to ask one very simple question: In the event a tenant dispute, premises liability, or any other claim were to arise, what prevents the Plaintiff’s attorney from merely listing your wife who it seems is the property deed holder in your fact pattern as a Defendant?

Supposedly the second lien holder is a credit card debt collector, they were listed as the defendant in the foreclosure case.

Defending them is akin to defending any pied piper that this forum supported.

What happened in North Carolina was definitively unforeseeable, a freak event, without any forethought of such, or means to defend oneself from such unforeseeable. 

@Ian M.For the owners hiding behind the bare trust agreements, you can pull up their names by doing an online search for "David Baines: Real estate investors settle class-action lawsuit" Mr Baines before he retired was a business columnist for the largest newspaper in British Columbia, the Vancouver Sun.In this article you can see the payment the defendants (who I am talking about) had to pay out to the plaintiffs.

Do not work with people who defend criminals especially when they do NOT have the facts on their side.

Yes, you need to do a cost segregation study"Don't you two have a vested interest in defending this position?