You cannot separate one from the other.The undisputed and unbiased facts of the case are- they knew there was a no pet policy, a friend gave them a dog, they hid having a dog, they were caught with a dog, they asserted ESA. 

So I asked Google to see if that assertion was correct.

And if you assert that you would, would an underwriter believe it? 

The estoppel contains:An acknowledgment of the increase in rentAn assertion that the landlord and the tenant discussed a new lease last fall, and the tenant is "informed" and believes one was draftedAn assertion that the tenant stated they want to stay another yearMy question is: will any of this get in the way of them being evicted in 60 days?

I was successfully (regardless of whether some want to accept it or not) able to refute the assertions of some agents on here just by quoting federal law. 

do not believe a thing they represent.. you need to independently confirm their numbers and assertions.. especially when it comes to ARV and rehab costs.. 

Those claims generally must be affirmatively asserted. 

If anyone has supporting evidence against this assertion, I'd love to hear it.

Kiyosaki's assertion work.I would say $100k of W-2 income, where the person qualifies as a 'real estate professional', and has enough RRE assets to produce a $100k/year tax loss would be the exception, not the rule, and would be hard to attain.

You attack the incentive and damages and make it not worth the time to get to you and through the system. to provide an incentive for settling a claim, improve the client’s bargaining position, offer options when a claim is asserted, and, ultimately, deter litigation.On the other hand, asset protection planning is not about avoiding taxes, keeping secrets, hiding, or fraud .