@Jim BrandtBefore talking about "losses", let's examine the economic substance of this proposed deal.For her. 

Nothing was signed and there are no legal remedies involved this early in the process, so no harm done should things not work out.It's not fool-proof but it's less risky than most other aspects of REI 

If you can fill the vacancy it might be best to operate under a “no harm no foul” policy.

It is doubtful that anything harmful would come up, especially considering her age.

Based on “substance over form” principles, it ruled that the IRA did not really own Roth Inc for two main reasons:• The IRA’ were exposed to no significant risk; and• An independent person in the IRA’s shoes could not realistically have expected a benefit.Since the IRA did not really “own” Roth Inc, the income really belonged to the taxpayer – and putting that money into the IRA resulted in a taxable “excess contribution”.More specifically, the court held that a $500 investment, absent any other significant risk, does not give rise to any real risk for the IRA.

She also threatened the manager with bodily harm, and had some of her "thug" friends show up at the property to intimidate.

The buying opportunities in that period were crazy from other less capitalized/experienced owners at that time, one owner got a failed class A for 1/2 the value to build 5 years later for example.We typically perform very well in down markets, so not to wish harm to anyone, I am excited for the next cycle we’re buying makes much more sense again.  

I mean: you're not purposefully trying to cause harm to anyone else's earning potential. :) Hmm.

I brought up multi family deals for your loan because I look at this house as a deal with more potential to do harm than good.

Position the televisions so that they are out of harms way.