On Fri, 27 May 2005 12:39:47 -0400, Jim Emery
wrote:

Thanks for your response; yours is a good question. I'd consider it, but the
idea of being a landlord and taking on more responsibility is daunting;
otoh, the retiring couple have taken impeccable care of the house. I hope
others can address both questions now.

If you read the original response, he suggested renting back to the
CURRENT occupants, which to my mind is an excellent idea given that
they have taken impeccable care of the house already. I've done this
myself two different times with very positive results; I had my lawyer
draft up an agreement where she held a $1,000 security deposit, and
the sellers agreed to pay a monthly rent that equaled my mortgage,
tax, and insurance obligations. The first time I did this, the
sellers rented back from me for 3 months, the second time was for 6
months. Just set a fixed lease period to assure that the sellers stay
and pay rent.

Jim Emery (haltingly humble) replies:

"jimemerydotcom" wrote:
We live in Northern VA and want to purchase a particular FSBO house in
NW OH. We want to delay our closing and move in 6 mos - 1 yr, and the
seller is amenable to this. Is anyone in this group familiar with
precedent for such an agreement? I realize the obvious disadvantage of
rising interest rates, but what other cautions might we watch for? The
two parties have discussed the matter in only the most general of
terms, referring to "earnest money" ($5K, 10K?). Any help.

Can't really help with the original question, but why not just close now and
rent back to the current occupants? With interest rates most likely heading
up
during the next year, I'd think the mortgage savings would more than offset
the
increased tax hassle.