Maggie, before anything else: you have a clock running, and nobody in this thread has mentioned it. Under IRS Section 121, when you sell a home that was your main residence you can exclude up to $250,000 of gain if you file single, or up to $500,000 filing jointly. To qualify you have to have owned the home at least two years and lived in it as your residence at least two years, and both of those have to fall within the five year period ending on the date you sell. Do the arithmetic on that. If you move out and rent the house, you have roughly three years before the two-of-five window closes. Rent it for three years, sell in year four, and the exclusion is gone. On a house with meaningful appreciation, that is not a small number. It can easily exceed several years of rental profit, all at once, and it is entirely avoidable if you know about it in advance. That is the frame I would put on the whole decision. You are not choosing between selling and renting. You are choosing between selling now and renting for a defined period with a hard deadline. Two more tax points, then the practical side. If you do rent it, you will take depreciation, and depreciation is recaptured and taxed when you sell. The Section 121 exclusion does not shelter it. So the after-tax comparison is not rent income versus sale proceeds. It is rent income minus recapture versus sale proceeds. A CPA can run this in one sitting and it is the best money you will spend on this decision. I am a real estate professional, not a CPA or an attorney, and this is precisely the place where I want you talking to licensed people rather than to a forum. If you eventually want to keep investing rather than cash out, look at whether a 1031 exchange fits, but understand that Section 121 and a 1031 are different tools with different requirements and the interaction is genuinely complicated. Again: CPA. Now, on the premise. You said prices around you seem to be going down, and that is the reason you are considering renting. I would push back gently on that logic. Waiting for a better market is a bet, and you would be financing that bet by becoming a landlord, which is a job, not an investment vehicle you can put on a shelf. If you would not buy that house today as a rental property at today's value, you should be suspicious of the argument for keeping it as one. The honest test: run it as if you were buying it. Market rent, minus mortgage, taxes, insurance, management (budget it even if you self-manage, because your time is real), maintenance, a capital reserve for the roof and HVAC, and a realistic vacancy allowance. If that number is not comfortably positive, you are not investing, you are paying for the option to sell later. Things to watch out for that are specific to your situation: Charleston insurance and flood exposure. Get current quotes for the property as a rental, not as an owner-occupied home. Landlord policies price differently, and in the Lowcountry the insurance line can swing the whole calculation. Your mortgage. If it is an owner-occupied loan, check the occupancy terms before you convert to a rental. Distance. If you are moving far, self-management stops being realistic and management cost becomes a real line item. South Carolina landlord-tenant rules, notice periods and security deposit handling. Get those from a local attorney or property manager before your first tenant, not after your first problem. And one thing in favor of renting that people underweight: if your rate is low, that financing is a genuine asset and you cannot buy it back. That is a legitimate reason to hold. It is just not the same reason as "prices might go up." My name is Zoltan Peresztegi and I work in Los Angeles, the South Bay and on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, so I am not the person to price your Charleston house or manage it. If you want an introduction to a strong agent and a property manager in the Lowcountry who can give you both sides of the number, message me and I will make one. Whatever you decide, decide it with the Section 121 clock in front of you. Zoltan


