The downside of this is the obvious scenario of losing the subsidized portion of the rent and still having the non-monetary default issue.

You learn by looking and losing and not rushing.

The problem is the National Association or Realtors are pushing the issue as they are "losing" money to wholesalers when they normally don't go after the same types of properties.

Plus, you could lose out on important money-saving deductions by not having a business checking account.

You should focus on making money not losing money, the taxes will take care of themselves.

Submit a deposit check and make it out to the escrow company the seller wishes to use, never to the owner personally.Pay attention to the contingency dates you include in your contract, especially if it’s for financing, and meet those deadlines to avoid losing your deposit.

The new part is only good for lack of repair and new systems, in every other aspect you are losing because you are paying up for that luxury and unlikely to get the rent back on your investment right away as the buy-in would be higher for people wanting to house hack it.

On the one hand, as long as we aren't significantly losing money on a month to month basis I feel it best to maintain the property purely from an appreciation standpoint (strong location close to the a large medical center) with an dramatic increase in housing.  

If you do not have a HUGE risk tolerance don't do it.  100 OOS investors lose everything for every 1 that makes a profit in Detroit. 

If you two knew about the issues in the property and know that you can fix them up and flip the house then the funding shouldn't be a reason to lose your escrow.Best,Paul