BUT the park manager could impede your new buyer from buying, to punish you for going around them by sticking you with rent for awhile.

@David Dachtera that's a good point about offering a reduced rate for early rent instead of punishment for late rent.I charge $50 or 5% of the rent, whichever is greater.I used to charge a flat rate and then a daily increase but stopped it.

That is considered brokering without a license and the punishments vary per state.There are many legal ways to wholesale, getting your license is just one of those ways.You also stated that the seller would not allow any contingencies (sounds like a smart seller) and that you did not want the seller to leave you hanging, I would argue that if and when you locked it up and did not find that buyer, then used your escape clause, it would be YOU leaving the seller hanging which is why he or she made that comment to you in the first place.

Rather, the bill will cause unintended consequences for the market by reducing the number of homes available for sale – further depressing California’s ownership housing supply.In a time of record surplus, the state should not punish property owners simply for deciding to move due to unforeseen life events.

And as they say in the very profitable legal business, "the process is the punishment" and if someone gets hurt or dies, God fobid, you have even more serious problems.

Well, then perhaps its a game of chicken if you feel like "threatening" a lawsuit if they unlawfully back out of the deal... 

There is maipulation going on in the background: lawsuits, (can even be unlawful foreclosure), FDIC requirements & investigations, mortgage insurance processing, too many REOs at the bank, bankruptcies, contract requirements, change in department heads, change in policy mid sale and on and on.  

It has typically been held to be a major ethics violation with a punishment that includes a hefty fine and an ethics class.Do you all encounter this problem a lot?

He cites South Carolina Jurisprudence to note that “while homeowners' associations typically have the power to regulate the use of common areas, their regulations cannot prohibit a usage contrary to any restrictions creating easements or rights of use of property in owners.”In short, if you were to press this issue and take us to court, all federal and state precedent overwhelmingly indicates the court would find in our favor, and this enforcement action would prove an expensive waste of association money.All that to say, we politely request that you drop this unlawful enforcement action.

Having said that, you seem to feel badly for Seattle tenants, or want to punish the "big dog" landlords, or whatever.