A corporation offers more personal protection, but can create additional taxes.Another option is to use an offshore strategy, which has it's own set of pluses and minuses.I know an excellent asset protection lawyer who can advise you.

You are taking a gamble on what path their life takes in the future knowing the likely out come if it goes bad.

You are gambling with having to pay double damages.

But, they didn't take advantage of this and they weren't just going gambling and then not paying their rent :-)

Your tenant gambled that you would let them break the terms of the lease.  

You have to do the math regarding what it's worth to keep a known hassle-free tenant vs gambling on a new one.  

And maybe some tenants who can't find the type of unit you are offering in that particular area, so they're willing to gamble you'll get the work done on time, and that it will be done right.But, even then, I think you'll be renting to people who will be coming into the rental with an eye that is looking for problems and things to complain about.  

Really, I have to agree with Greg on this one, as far as it being easy to deny them, and from my personal experience, it's worth the gamble.  

It's a gamble IMO and goes against the notion that you should make your money in real estate when you buy. 

I prefer SFRs with no HOA too ... higher buy in cost, but generally better appreciation & tenant class, more control, more "value add" possibilities (try doing an addition on a condo :)), and no unpredictable HOA fees or assessments to eat into my cash flow.So, though some think that all that buy RE in CA for appreciation are crazy gamblers, and many in fact are, I myself am incredibly conservative, because of my multiple exit strategies believe that what I am doing is NOT gambling, and have the consistent long term track record of profits (in BOTH appreciation AND long term cash flow) to back it up.