Fair House Act and or HUD should fall under the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (link).  

I am a couple years out from hanging up the uniform.

It would make no sense for a bank to loan someone money at 4% but then not collect the 4% on the balance but some other formula that lets you pay less than 4% the first years to make the principal payments more uniform.  

Bombed with mentions, LOL.The type of property is irrelevant, it is relevant if you finance the option price.When the intent behind your contract is to assign it and not perform as the contract sets out, you can put yourself in an agency relationship, there are two aspects, one is with "agency" as a state RE commission may define it and the other is under the uniform laws of agency.

My comment to the esteemed attorney was more in reference to "uniform law". 

This opens a can of worms and loophole for more robo-signing and Fraud. http://consumerfsblog.com/2015/07/nevada-federal-c...http://www.babc-financialservicesperspectives.com/...http://www.law360.com/articles/671235/hoa-superpri...http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title12/p...http://info.swlaw.com/reaction/2015/2015_Alerts_HT...It's like the attorneys for FHFA and Fannie Mae, as well as the clowns in UTA, read the federal uniform code law book, got to Chapter 12 and stopped.

Schools are fairly uniform in Canada, so this is new to us. 

Personally I'd likely get rid of it since I think that for individual properties the uniformity on the ROW items like sidewalk just looks better, even if it is plain concrete. 

I have yet to see any math that shows you save more interest with the lowest balance method assuming all else is uniform.

Only a couple of stray remarks from some uniformed individuals who have contributed exactly NOTHING to this post or to the community.