One Big Question to answer
I understand the technical differences between "Subject-To" and "Lease/Options" for purchasing properties, but why would you use one over the other? From my understanding you take over the various payments in both, the mortgage is not in your name on both, and both allow you to get into a deal rather quickly and with very little money. So why would you choose one over the other?

Any insight into this question would be greatly appreciated.

To me it seems like the "Lease/Option" would be a lot better. One can get the property under contract fairly quickly, and cheaply. I would think that one could set it up something like this. You find a desperate seller, and set up an lease/option to buy his/her property in a given amount of time. The payment for this lease/option is to catch up what is owed in arrears, and what not. Would this lease/option give you the right to rehab the property?

If this is possible I believe that if one could get favorable terms as far as length of the option one could purchase many more properties, and not have to worry about the "Due-on-Sale" clause.

The reason I ask this is because that clause has been a major stumbling block in having some investment properties at this time. My partner seems to be very worried about this clause being used, and because of that he tries to get the banks permission. Which like anything with the bank takes a lot of time. Which in turn has produced no deals. I understand why he is worried, and I have to respect that because it is his funding and credit that we are using. But at the same time I would love to find away around it so we can get the bus moving.