Were this case in Virginia, I would say that the clause you provided does not make them liable based solely on the information present.Now, if they were negligent in informing landlord of the damage and that caused MORE damage, then sure.Disclaimer: I am not licensed in your state. 

I don't necessarily subscribe to that when it comes to the Colonies and east coast states... case in point.... open escrow with closing attorney...

I suspect that's the case in Virginia as well.

That may well be the case in your state as well, so check with that lawyer.

And in any case, in CA, a landlord can only go after a tenant for actual out of pocket losses.This is fair, by and large, but what it boils down to, is that a landlord in CA can't afford to be too "nice," or he/she can get screwed.  

I would agree that an additional HELOC may be unnecessary and potentially less effective in your case.  In

The other big problem , I heard in one case in Baltimore City, the purchaser of the drug house was threatened by the family of the former owner.

Best to be specific about what the problem is and what needs to be done, in this case.  In

tenant A loves dogs but the building policy prohibits pets. one day, tenant A notices thru the front window that tenant B moved in with 2 dogs (a pit bull mix and a german sheperd mix) with the PM present and no issue was apparently raised; landlord even pet and played with the dogs. tenant A feels betrayed and goes out and buys a yorkie. landlord finds out and issues notice of breach of contract and to vacate or restore the apt to its pet-free requirements.tenant A contronts landlord and demands explanation as to why tenant B has 2 big dogs but tenant A cant have 1 tiny one. landlord discloses tenant B provided proof that each of the 2 dogs are emotional support animals.tenant A asks tenant B why does she have 2 emotional support animals, and for a referral to a professional that could also recommend 2 or 3 dogs so he can keep his yorkie and get a playmate for his and maybe even the yorkie's 'emotional support' each.tenant B is insulted and files a HUD complaint that landlord shared that she needs emotional support (per Fair Housing Act, landlords may not divulge that a tenant has any disability to any third party).meanwhile, tenant C whose toddler was soon after mauled to death by tenant B's sheperd mix, has just won a case in California Supreme Court finding the landlord to be a statutory owner of the dog since it was accepted onto the premises simply based on a letter written by a 'pet therapist' without regard - and consequentially, with negligence - to the other tenants' safety and thus responsible for $2,000,000 in compensation to tenant C for the loss of precious human life, regardless of whether landlord was negligent or not, and regardless of whether animal was a service/support animal or pet.landlord, having lost his countersuit against tenant B for vicious 'support' animal's lethal actions, files claim for his homeowner's insurance to cover the $250 million he owes tenant C but claim is denied altogether on basis that building had a no pet policy and dogs were not declared and the pit bull mix, though recommended, was never even licensed.last but not least, landlord receives summons, subpoenas, etc from HUD and appears for trial in Federal Civil Court. judge finds landlord guilty of divulging that tenant has a disability and orders landlord to pay the statutory $16,000 for one county of housing discrimination,  plus 300,000 in actual damages for the complainant (and of course, her attorneys fees) for she is emotionally scarred for life!

I would imagine this is the case in most states.