That is his opinion and interpretation.

I interpret that as: If you get to the point where your income stream makes you feel secure, relative to your debt/risk level, you have "won"  And as others have stated, that finish line is different for everyone.

Tenants heard the "good news" from the government and they made their own interpretation of them.

There are always limits and how the law is normally interpreted when it's not clear is - would a reasonable person think it's reasonable.So, would a reasonable person think it was reasonable to charge a tenant $800 for breaking a month to month agreement before a year was up? 

That IS the agreement.The way you interpreted is exactly what the deal was.

Drunks, screamers, people who can't leave their own voicemails (unless they require an interpreter), are not protected classes.  

If it gets to court both sides explain the situation as they interpret it.

(You will get to know your Judge's "mindset" by going to court a few times to get a feeling of how this Judge sways)  There are not too many laws on the books that deal with Landlord issues, and so, the Judges rule on their interpretation of the case.  

I am not an attorney, so I can't interpret it better than you, but I was "imagining" me telling her about the rental increase, and then suddenly having her complain about stuff needing to be fixed - thereby triggering the statute.As it stands now, we have mailed (next day, certified, restricted signatures) her a non-renewal notice, prior to any complaints.

So, I can't quote you the exact verbage from the FCRA or interpret its spirit or intent.That said, I would think it to mean that the information reported must be current.