Marie, I believe, is speaking more about loans made with little or no underwriting, no documentation/liar loans, perhaps predatory loans, etc. where the bank doesn't really want to have to defend the merits of the loan terms in open court.

Right or wrong, should a government employee take an interest, there may be huge costs involved in defending your actions.I do not recommend anyone play in the real estate finance world without extensive knowledge.

I am not trying to be mean or talk about someone that I don't know and who can't defend themselves, I am just making an observation.

Get your lease from the lawyer that will be defending it in eviction court.I can send you the one I use, but I would strongly recommend that an attorney in your rental area go over it or give you one.

states have a similar concept where basically company control "...must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetrate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or a dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiff’s legal rights"(1)The material facts of the case don't support the claim of "wrongful intent or bad faith" by the defendant.

You are the new owner of the company would still have to hire CPAs and attorneys to defend the actions of your predecessors.The absolute best way to prevent those kinds of things is to buy the property not the LLC/corp.

In my experience I have found that most violations don't get to court, fines may be levied, orders issued and compliance required.You may be an attorney, if you are you would be in a unique position to defend your actions, most aren't so error on the side of caution is prudent business.There should be case law on the unauthorized practice of RE but I don't know of the specifics if they were dealing in leasing or options."

The above case ended in plea deals by all four defendants (2 real estate brokers, a real estate agent, and one who worked for the title company). 

An unnamed defendant with an interest in title could come forward from the past and that would not be grounds to rescind the purchase at sale.

If what you say were true, lenders wouldn't have to name the sub2 buyer as a defendent in a judicial foreclosure.