So I was hoping to get some clarity as to getting a 2nd home mortgage and what constitutes as occupancy fraud.

My attorney said she had never heard of it being an issue, couldn't see how it would be an issue as when you sell a home there is no link back to the permitting office, and on top of that said it violated my constitutional right to sell my own property.However, I am paranoid and don't want to get in trouble.

I do not know what legal education - understanding of evidence, chain of evidence, constitutional/procedural rights - the hearing officer(s) may have.

Remember, a fence does not constitute a legal parcel boundary.So, you may find out you have been enjoying the use of 6 feet of your Neighbor's land.

Regulations/requirements may vary by location and this doesn't constitute professional advice: I've helped remediate a couple buildings and IMO the best solution is to toss all porous things and thoroughly clean all hard surfaces.

It also details the buyer's requirements to ensure taxes are kept current, maintain insurance, what constitutes a default, and what happens in event of a default.

Assuming the purchase loan was not a homestead loan and/or you have a homestead in Alabama...and this loan is not a homestead loan - see Texas Constitution Art. 16, Sec. 50(d): "A purchaser or lender for value without actual knowledge may conclusively rely on an affidavit that designates other property as the homestead of the affiant and that states that the property to be conveyed or encumbered is not the homestead of the affiant."

He just emailed me that he will enter my apartment "sometime within 1 to 4 WEEKS" and said that this email constitutes advanced notice under Florida's required notice law.

The IRS stated in a 2009 ruling that exchangors shall realize no gain or loss when exchanging one property that’s held for use in a trade, business or as an investment when that property is exchanged for another like-kind asset used for the exact same purpose.¹Moreover, the IRS addresses what constitutes a “holding requirement” in the same ruling.

The government has thumbed its nose at the Constitution and the quaint notions of private property and contracts.