It only limits the extent that your assets are liable if you lose the lawsuit. 

Ok, so playing devils advocate (I've always believed in low LTV for safety), and out of curiosity; If you only lose money when you sell and make when you buy, and I have no plans on selling during the downs of the up and down cycles, and if my cash flow is unaffected / unrelated to market value swings, and I keep more money in reserve should I over leverage and push LTV to say 95% - is this a bad thing?

I feel like I have plenty of cause, but unsure of how to proceed lawfully so I'm not hit with cancellation fees and lose my deposit.The door locks are not consistent with property code; locking knob, keyed deadbolt & blind deadbolt.

I have always felt that insurance should only be used to protect against losses that otherwise can not be absorbed, and the data tends to agree (obviously, otherwise insurance companies would lose money). 

It's crazy, there are almost 50,000,000 rental properties in the US and they all just lose money, no wealth to see here. 

This is when things get serious because you only have x days to decide if you want to move forward or you'll lose your earnest money.

Compared with low-wage workers, people who have the financial ability to buy homes have been far less likely to lose their jobs, and in some ways, their ability to purchase homes has only expanded.

People forget, running a nice cost seg on a $1M+ 4 unit means these things typically lose money on paper for a bit of time even if you are cash flow positive each month. 

Glad you didn't lose the money after putting so much money, effort, and time.Welcome to JBLM, if you need any assistance from a veteran realtor around here, contact me!

There's no extra CA punishment for that, but you and your properties are potentially exposed to legal risks, so you might lose the properties if things go wrong.