The vast majority of us on here are not fans of this model. 

But I would confirm what they were doing in 2008, since I have heard some syndicators talk about "I started investing in real estate in 2004..." which, when you dive into it, they mean "I bought my first primary residence in 2004", which is vastly different than doing large scale investments.Regarding syndications, only accredited offerings, etc: I tend to disagree.  

I'm not sure what law are in your state so can't comment on whether failure to pay the deposit is sufficient grounds for eviction but I would suspect it's not.

I estimate the vast majority of those who would send in money to something along the lines of a syndication they fund online lack the skills to perform the necessary due diligence, would not take the time to learn or perform the verifications even if they knew how - the whole pitch is "trust me, zero effort."

First: Define “good.”Second: Why would any owner want to leave money on the table, especially money sufficient enough to make a market deal a “good” deal for the buyer?

Given how good the terms are, I'm surprised to read that they will work with someone that had a bankruptcy or foreclosure more than 3 years ago with a sufficiently compelling letter of explanation along with supporting documentation. 

The sellers interest is the interest and transactional convenience, when a lender is involved there are costs associated that can often be rolled back into the loan provided the loan to value (LTV) based off the appraisal is sufficient. - Higher rates.

The main thing is to have sufficient reserves because stuff will go wrong in a house like that and it’s typically more costly than a newer home.

Anyone in OUR situation (who is not in the 1% of 1% and has dividend / investment income that would provide a sufficient means of living otherwise) is going to be totally focused on cash-flow.  

The signed lease is sufficient as a legally binding contract, confirming their acceptance of the new rent amount.