Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 16%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$39 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime

Let's keep in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter for timely insights and actionable tips on your real estate journey.

By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions
Followed Discussions Followed Categories Followed People Followed Locations
Tax, SDIRAs & Cost Segregation
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated about 7 years ago on . Most recent reply presented by

User Stats

140
Posts
119
Votes
Megan Hirlehey
  • Pittsburgh, PA
119
Votes |
140
Posts

Does High Equity Increase Your Liability Risk?

Megan Hirlehey
  • Pittsburgh, PA
Posted

A lawyer (family member) who works in personal injury once told me that one of the first things a lawyer will do when you come to them with a personal injury case is to look into the kind of insurance/assets the potential defendent holds. Basically, how lucrative would this case be, if they were to win? And if said defendent doesn't have any "good" assets, most lawyers won't go after them because even if they win, they likely will not get paid and neither will their client.

I am curious if and how this translates to real estate. Is there any benefit to keeping your properties reasonably levaraged (50-60% in my opinion) even if you can afford not to, to reduce your assets' risk against libility claims? To put it another way, does someone with 100% equity look more attractive to a potential lawsuit because if the plaintiff wins, and a sale is forced, they would essentially have "first dibs" on the proceeds, as opposed to forcing the sale of a highly leveraged property and being left with the banks' sloppy seconds?

Does anyone consider this when strategizing how to protect themselves and their assets? Or is this not really ever a factor in a potential lawsuit?

Loading replies...