It seems to me, that if you were to take a dozen applicants over a weekend and checked them all out before making a decision, It would be complying with fair housing law to choose the best of the lot.

I understand that if you are a professional PM you need a reputation as someone who complies with all of the rules, and it could get out if you didn't follow the law and got an owner tagged for some sort of liability.

I believe it complied with MD law and the realtor code of ethics.

If that is the case it is not the fault of the broker but of that agent.Yes a principal broker is responsible for the agent BUT when the broker has a system in place and the agent does not follow that the negligence is on the agent.For example if agents make a mistake and procedures were not clearly outlined in the IC agreement and operating and procedures manual then the agent can claim ignorance and the real estate commission can get onto the broker for not having proper procedures in place.A head broker can't physically force agents to comply only make demands and then drop their license.Now the question becomes do you go after the agent's brokerage and then they go after the agent to recover the money??

All this record keeping become triply complex when the business owner seeks to comply with various tax laws and has to prove certain facts.All of these multiple layers of complications makes lots of work for accountants and bookkeepers ... a Full Employment Act?

I know that you hate to play hardball, but if they fail to keep the unit clean according to the lease requirements, you can serve them notice to either comply with the lease or leave.

Fortunately, they both complied and stopped parking cars on their lawns.

Prior, our data scientist, has some models built for other zip codes that we would like to look at helping you fund yellow letter campaigns for. 16th, Rockdale*2, and Crest*2 should all start construction before the end of the year if the city complies.

The word I got was that the HOA was doing this temporarily until the city goes away after thinking we complied with the "do not use" order.They coned off the illegal stalls.

If I went this route and they qualified for section 8, we would sign a new rental agreement at the higher rent and I would also ask for a larger security depost than what is transferable to me from when they first moved in back in 1997, which was $200.Or should I just leave it as is and once I take ownership of the property give him a 30 day notice, hope he complies and if he doesn't take it to an eviction?