You are losing creditability by your continued lack of support for your assertions and your attacks on me. 

It is definitely a gray area and I am wondering if it's simply a breach of contract issue, and if so, what the likelihood is that I would prevail in not allowing the borrower to assert the costs which were not part of the original agreement.

She may say she's cool to do "whatever is best" now, but that may change once she (and you for that matter) gets a first hand taste of what "whatever" entails, and it may be late in the game to change at that point, so the sooner you can drill down to those details, the better ... and always remember my young friend "happy wife, happy life".If it were me and my fiance (who is now my wife), given our temperament, goals, and the current state of the market, we would likely choose to move in together in 1/2 of the duplex, rent, or move in with the folks if we could stomach it (which we could not) to minimize costs and risk, save like crazy, search out amazing deals to flip (but don't buy until/unless the deal was amazing), and wait for the market to correct to pick up another primary residence, bought like a flipper but with the long term intention of turning to a rental after living there.

I have a good grasp on what they entail, but a reputable company could educate me some more.

They finally came back with the following:“At this point we would just need you to apply for a “Special Inspection” at our office for visual “certification” of the existing structures.”I am curious what this sort of “visual certification” entails.

The more the deal is financed by the loan the greater the risk it entails.

The only way that this would be possible is if the transaction was not listed on the MLS which in most cases would require a client signed waiver (since the MLS wants to have all possible listings, it typically prohibits agents from listing off MLS unless there is a waiver signed by the client).Listen, I'm not saying that banks care about MLS rules or that ultimately they dont get their way 99% of the time, but I am saying that you are 100% wrong in your assertion that the rules don't apply to banks.

I remember, however, reading a Fed study that asserts buying a home is a better investment as the implicit income, being equivalent to the rent of the same property, is tax free.

It entails that if you see folks flocking into a specific area then it's most likely too late to go there and you must find another one to invest in.

You can abuse a contract right such as an inspection clause by asserting it in a way that was not intended and to attempt to gain unfair advantage, in which case you are essentially breaching the terms of the agreement and your reputation will follow.