After reading this article, I'm puzzled why this ruling from a State Supreme court would trump federal law. 

Im a jeans and tshirt kind of guy Im a successful agent.in part it depends on your client base....but honestly if you are supremely confident and successful, you can dress however you want, like I do. 

We don't have a freeze on evictions, but the state supreme court declared a judicial emergency.

If you've spent anytime in court, in appeals court or in the supreme court in regards to property and real estate then you know the judge is going to ask, why didn't you take a stand when he started walking across your property?

The WA State Supreme Court has set out four separate elements that a potential adverse possessor must prove in order to perfect a claim under WA law. 

@Christopher Smith, I can't see it getting by a supreme court challenge.  

Purchase price: $360,000 Cash invested: $130,000 (including 40K for reno)With all of the regulatory changes happening in California for multi-family properties and the high costs, we decided to expand our search to the supremely hot market that is SLC (a quick flight from LA).

I would adopt your strategy if it's a A/B/LUX class property in some of the nicer areas of OC where disposable cash is more abundant; otherwise, I would just collect one month and exercise supreme diligence during the screening process.

The reason I say this is because most likely there is going to be some strings attached to the rental assistance money preventing you from evicting your tenant in the future. https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/virginias-supreme-court-lifts-freeze-on-evictions-stoney-pledges-cares-act-funds-to-address-issue

Landlord must pay tenant whose allergies were triggered by neighbor's support dog, court rulesDES MOINES — An Iowa City tenant with a severe allergy to pet dander will receive damages of one month’s rent from a landlord who allowed another tenant to have an emotional support dog in a building with a no-pet policy, according to an Iowa Supreme Court ruling Tuesday.In a 4-3 decision, the court overturned a district court ruling that concluded the landlord, 2800-1 LLC, shouldn’t have allowed the tenant to have a dog because of the other tenant’s pet allergies, but then dismissed the case because the law governing accommodations for emotional support animals wasn’t clear.Chief Justice Susan Christensen, who wrote for the majority, said the two tenants — Karen Cohen, who had severe allergies, and David Clark, who had the dog — had the landlord in a “pickle” trying to accommodate both of them.