Since they are not owner occupied it is not an emotional decision... you can either significantly improve the NOI or not.

Money is deeply emotional and tied to perceptions of family security.Your fiance has already clearly signaled to you that she needs more security in the immediate future than you do - you're both just starting from different places. 

I suggest, if you must do something with this property from some emotional attachment that you buy it and hold it, allow equity, real equity to accumulate, enjoy the cash flow, turn it over to a PM if you don't want to LL and sell it years down the road.

That said, I still believe it's important to have some positive cash flow on any property to cover expenses and help you emotionally accept some of the hassles. 

Don't get caught up in the emotion of "highest and best" Establish your goals and bid accordingly.  

Thankfully the judge excluded the emotion from a constitutional lawsuit)Of note- see pg 8: "Moreover, Jenkins' interest in protecting her son from lead-poisoning is inconsistent with the lead-paint ordinance as written, as the ordinance does not apply to all rental properties in Toledo."

The judges get annoyed when you start trying to argue with emotions. 

I fell into real estate in 2007 when I realized that my then-fiance owned two empty homes in the greater Los Angeles area (Pasadena and LaVerne), and he did not have the emotional energy to empty them (difficult family situation; deceased parents), so they just sat there, in gross disrepair.

Most FSBO sellers are bad negotiators, and distressed sellers are in so much emotional pain that they cannot think straight.

No time for emotions because he was the one to sell you your last house and no time to see houses your agent wants to show you.