Even straight out selling a home that is not your residence and telling a potential buyer about the interest rate of the bank down the street could be interpreted as a violation of this act.

I've looked into the safe act and have read many interpretations.

Have a detailed scope of work so there is no room for interpretation from contractor.

Obviously, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation/negotiation, but the distinction is important.If you squeeze an extra $1000 a year out of a 4plex, it will still appraise based on similar properties.

Some aspects of the scope of work were "left to interpretation" and as a team we need to work harder to be able to set those nuances in stone.Did you work with any real estate professionals (agents, lenders, etc.) that you'd recommend to others?

Not sure if I am interpreting this correctly.Thanks for the help!

Regarding the law suits, criminal cases, and mechanics liens, they take a level of interpretation and sometimes a bit of digging to determine what they mean .  

I believe it does, but like most things, I'm sure it's up for interpretation.... perhaps @Steven Hamilton II can shed light on it?

So if some folks recommend allocating 100 percent of relevant closing costs and improvements made prior to being placed into service to dwelling structure versus allocating part to land and part to the dwelling structure, are they just more aggressively interpreting the regs?  

I did find this from AGhttps://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/interpretation-2008-statute-concerning-distressed-home-consultants"In Laws of 2008, ch. 278, the Legislature significantly expanded a series of laws relating to “equity skimming.”