I'm also an actor too so maybe we can work on a film together as well.

But, I guess you need to clarify what "red flags" are to you.Someone could be killing it/raking it in with sterling credit, income, etc. for that all to change when the cards fall if they are behind a ponzi scheme or even an honest profession that fizzled out (e.g. an actor, model, lottery winner or sports star who blew threw their cash.)Thus, a good tenant in the past could be lousy in the future and vice versa.

I'll add a clause to the purchase agreement that states that they did not live in the property the last 5 years and that they understand and agree that the sale doesn't fall under the Home Equity Sales Contract Act, or whatever it's called..

As @Brian Burke stated your track record and the quality of the deal will determine what you will be able to offer investors and have a positive response.I do have another take on the investors motivation to act or not act.

Dodd-Frank was put in place specifically to address bad actors in this space.

The risk is hard to grasp until you've actually been maliciously sued.

@Victoria DransoffIf the tenant is really desperate (or malicious), he or she may also decide to file for bankruptcy.

I have been remodeling 5 plus homes a month for the past 10 years with my retail company, I am not looking to be like the flip or flop actors.

For the most accurate information... go to the source... the ruling in the Federal Register, here's an excerpt:An animal qualifies as a reasonable accommodation if: (1) An individual has a disability, as defined in the Fair Housing Act or Section 504, (2) the animal is needed to assist with the disability, and (3) the individual who requests the reasonable accommodation demonstrates that there is a relationship between the disability and the assistance that the animal provides.

Fraudulent inducement claimA claim for fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation requires a showing of the following elements:(1)There must be a representation.(2)That representation must be false.(3)It must have to do with a past or present fact.(4)That fact must be material.(5)It must be susceptible of knowledge.(6)The representer must know it to be false or, in the alternative, must assert it as of his own knowledge without knowing whether it is true or false.(7)The representer must intend to have the other person induced to act or justified in acting upon it.(8)That person must be so induced to act or so justified in acting.(9)That person’s action must be in reliance upon the representation.(10)That person must suffer damage.(11)That damage must be attributable to the misrepresentation, that is, the statement must be the proximate cause of the injuryNave v.