That's on them.Your tenant sounds like someone with a gambling problem. 

It's a gamble. 

Hello, My future father in law bought a property in 93 which is an 8-plex in LA for around 300,000He owns his own home currently ( beautiful home)and owns a rental also ( I don't know when he purchased this)He also has a real estate license ( he isn't an active realtor, he is retired and just invest in stocks now)He believe california for the place to purchase property because you can see and feel it.I am trying to convince him that just because its out of state, doesn't mean it can't be successful.He says that unemployment is higher than anywhere else in the USACalifornia and Nevada are both around 6.7-7.1% He says thats because obviously the population is much higher in california so its not comparison He believe with the indian reservations in california, it will turn vegas the unpopular place to gamble and all of the las vegas community is fueled by gambling and entertainment. 

Some RE investors don't like the concept of public benefit programs and subsidized housing, and/or the characteristics of some of the people these programs support.For other investors, such as ourselves, we find partnering with our local housing authority beneficial to all parties involved and our community as a whole.

That seems like a crazy gamble. 

I use soap when I shower, and occasionally eat cereal for breakfast: that doesn't mean I'm qualified for a job at a CPG company like Kraft, Proctor & Gamble, or Kellogg's.2) Following on 1), by listing it you make it fair game for the employer to poke around.

If you're already heavily invested in capital gains stocks and your primary residence, I would say that you are introducing too much risk into your overall portfolio by buying (with leverage) an appreciation-only triplex.If you have a lot of other investments which generate cash-flow like dividend producing stock or cashflow REI and you like to gamble, I don't see a problem at all with buying this property hoping for some appreciation.Also, I would be wary saying you don't need the cash flow if you are only offsetting the negative cashflow with income from your job.  

Then, you can only charge them for anything that was on the list that they did not do - or for damage that was not visible during the inspection or happened after the inspection.So, if you didn't do this, getting them to accept a deduction is a gamble. 

Unless you can afford to gamble on iffy applicants.Unless you absolutely can't find good tenants for your rental, and absolutely have no other choice but to accept sub-par tenants, don't do it.That said, you can add something like, "a combination of criteria may be considered on a case by case basis."

Tell her she'll have to tell her story to the judge, and you'll accept whatever the judge says.How much you wanna bet, she took out her rent money out of her checking account, so she couldn't use it to gamble with at the casino.