Then work the plan and you can amend it as you go.

It was a mistake on the seller to give such crappy terms to execute the lease for the tenant.In these situations typically I make the seller pay for their mistakes by giving a large credit at closing to mitigate the risk factor of terminating in such a short notice.The tenant with signed lease in place is not going to change anything without putting a large carrot in front of them to motivate them to amend the lease.You do not want to to give something to just fix the sellers mistake.

Remember, operating agreements and any agreement can be amended!

I am quite confident however that as long as you sent the proper paperwork in (and can prove it, I typically use email which I can prove was sent to the appropriate individual and their supervisor, OR directly deliver to the office which where they will photocopy and date stamp as received) that you are owed the money and will be paid.The only issue could possibly be that the S-8 authority doesn't recognize that the paperwork was submitted to them (properly/on time/at all) and they claim they weren't aware there was a new owner...hence the authority would have paid the old owner and not feel they would be accountable to yank the money back and direct it to you.Of note- the agency is typically very good about making amends to payments that may be mis-directed while they were processing.Hope this helps, keep us posted! 

The biggest challenge was a last minute survey easement title sprung on us 2 days before the original close date, and figuring out who actually needed to sign the amendment. 

That one hurts, but my projections based off of the initial proposals showed in my case (and a lot of hypotheticals I ran for my firm’s tax blog) showed that most people still benefit due to lower tax rates, expanded tax brackets, benefits to business owners and investors, and elimination of AMT (which sadly was only modified and not eliminated in the amended Senate bill).

The only amendment on carried interest that was voted on was offered by Sen.

(Amended by Stats. 2010, Ch. 596, Sec. 1.

Both house and senate wanted that EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM SALE OF A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE (section 121 exclusion) to be modified to at least 5 out of 8 years instead of current 2 out of 5 years, In version that passed house it said: "The amendments made by this section shall apply to sales and exchanges after December 31, 2017".

But the male tenant is still on the current lease.Does he still not have a legal right to be there, unless that is amended, and a lease signed only with her?