Title company escrowed 2x the anticipated amount needed, so the incentive to the seller to actually follow through is to get the balance of their money back (about $8k), but the contract also states that if the seller does not pursue the riparian grant for whatever reason, the title company can use the excess escrowed money to legally enforce them to do so.I feel okay about it, I think, as this seems fairly common in this part of NJ, but any other red flags here I might be missing?

Too many red flags.

To me that's a red flag.

But if there are other red flags, this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

That statement in bold is true enough, that's why people in Nebraska get higher rates. heh.Any ways, it's not really something I'm interesting in debating theoretical reasons, I might as well try to argue with you about how much cashflow you see based on a theory I have.

Originally posted by @Iesha Padilla:...For me, red flags seem to be popping up all over the place.

I'm not sure if it's a matter of hiring a crew to cleanup the site and then build as normal, or if there will be some nightmare of red tape, soil remediation or who-knows-what kind of obstacles.I'm sure i could ask the listing agents for some information but they are hardly impartial so I wouldn't want to rely on that. 

Bold thinking!

It is red hot right now.

Does anyone have any experience using BOLD LEADS?