Justin: First off, I don't think my original posts were "brutal", but since some of the less experienced felt you were being attacked, I wanted to err on the side of caution and apologize if you in fact were offended, hence my message.

I always err on the side of caution even if it means losing a few bucks.However, I also think if you get along with the current tenants doing the switch, it does make good business sense and probably worth the risk.

Most lenders would err on the side of caution and even if they would initiate foreclosure would do so following the guidelines relevant to when the loan was made - that is residential consumer purpose ( this is assuming the property is residential and existing note was made to an owner occupant or for consumer purpose).So this adds 6 months to any existing state foreclosure proceedings.

Now again, it could happen that a landlord files UD erroneously or there is no evidence to support it and the tenant is not found guilty.

They want to err on the side of doing deals to generate fees and thus have a reason to price the money cheaper.

In our "house rules" we clearly outline when the Tenant will be responsible for the cost of the service and when the bill goes to us {our providers also know this} ... but we stress, if they are in-doubt and the matter is urgent (i.e. poses a safety or health risk to them or other Tenants in the building or if damage to the property is occurring) to err on the side of precaution and call us.

Just err on the side of caution with those.As far as rental potential, that has different meanings and not sure which you meant here.

Note: MA law allows for 30-day no-fault notice to quit, however, we decided to err on the side of caution based on lease terms specifying 60-day no-fault termination. 

I would definitely err on the side of caution. 

I would err on the side of giving them most of it back unless they really trashed the place.