As you mentioned, owner-occupants would be guilty of mortgage fraud if they intended to spend less than a year in the property when they closed, but if that wasn't their intent and something better came up a few months down the road, they're not bound to the occupancy rule or guilty of mortgage fraud.

You are human.... and sound like a good person with a good heart.... its ok to feel a little guilty, but you have to put that aside and run it like a business. 

Unfortunately I sent the email blasts out myself so I’m as guilty as the next guy….

It seems like all the parties that are guilty of taking bribes get off with a slap on the wrist.

They ought to at least have the opportunity to plead their case, with a human being knowledgeable with the facts of their tenancy, before standing before a judge about to get tossed to the curb;2.

@Scott Mac I am probably being more provocative then I need to be but my point is that I see alot of people (I'm guilty of this myself) pounding their chest giving advice etc that were able to do things like buy real estate that is much more difficult to do today for young people sadly. 

Maybe we're all guilty of that from time to time.  

The title/escrow company will hold the money while seller and buyer negotiate it out.. if no meeting of the minds within a set period of time the title escrow company will inter-plead the funds to the courts then you will need to act for yourself or hire and attorney to make a claim to the court. 

Even I have been guilty of this.

The fee for the inspection was $60 and any owner who failed to comply with the inspection requirement or who occupied the premises without the certificate of occupancy was guilty of a minor misdemeanor.In its lawsuit the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was unconstitutional, an injunction against the city from enforcing the ordinance and restitution of the $60 inspection fee.