It could  had easily came from the tenants as their stuff was in storage.

Seems someone could make a master lease stating the homeowner receives 92% of rent collected and keep the 8% without paying RE license and broker fees.Also, they would earn more money as it would not be W-2 income, as most property managers earn currently.Because the person creating the master lease would not have to pay RE/ Broker fees, they could give lower the fees to the homeowner or give better monetary incentives to the homeowner to master lease, as apposed to going with a licensed PM.For example, if a property manager is at 10% fee with 100% of first months rent going to the PM, a master lessor could easily do 8% "fee" with no first months rent going to the PM company because they don't have RE/broker expenses or percentages they need to pay out.Has anyone seen or experienced this?

Paying no mind to how easily and quickly the rabbit hole traps you.  

Noticed here in San Diego area communities  where homes are built pre 1960 up thru 1970's easily have  "mf in fill" looks undetectable, in many a blue collar neighborhood.

We all know the cash-on-cash and cap rate math depend on NOI so it's easily seen that the property value grows over time by how you manage your GSI.There is one major advantage to holding SFRs;  you can partially liquidate and still retain an income stream. 

One can get an eviction for nonpayment of rent fairly easily.

Pretty straight forward and easily accomplished.  

I can easily get 3-5yr ones on craigslist for basically a months rent.

First, the rent to income ratio is great and they guy had a legit reason for BK it seams, going through divorce and you could easily have an opportunity to ask for a higher deposit to mitigate some risk and even get a higher rent rate (slightly, not gouged).

Now, some people could easily just apply to live on their own and month later have a partner that lives with them.