I agree with the op that for the most part the idea of privacy as an effective or meaningful concept in asset protection planning is a fallacy.But the idea that folks are of different “camps” in asset protection planning is unfortunate as it is not a useful dialogue IMHO.

You’re giving them negative collateral. 

@Grace Hartman I don't mean this in a negative way but you're in this situation due to lack of experience, terribly high contractor quotes, or a combination.

If the continuing maintenance and repairs are more than you can afford and make the property cash-flow negative, I would sell and hope that the repairs I made and the appreciation would earn me some profit.

From the homes we manage here in Central Florida any benefit of your utility bill is negated by the financing of the panels.

Since you’re eligible for the capital gains exclusion, selling now would let you cash in on the $200K appreciation tax-free, avoid ongoing negative cash flow, and put the profits to work in cash-flowing investments closer to you.

If the landlord was aware of his past, yet rented to him anyway - any lawyer worth their salt would make a nexus between those two pieces of information and create a liability claim.In addition to the extreme negative press you would get, it also takes time, money and energy to defend a lawsuit you will eventually win.

My main thing is in how little people have explained this concept to me.

but yes, if you tell someone not to finance 110% of a purchase you are told that you are being 'negative.'

There are a lot of opportunities to keep it full while negating the full time management/customer service aspect.