But general rule of thumb: I would never inherit a tenant unless I could be provided adequate evidence that the individual would pass all of my specific screening criteria. 

But since the house is under contract (and evidently the bank has enough of those already) they let her have another 3 weeks. 

She does not want to pay.The tenants lease is up in July, I'm more than happy for her to move out now, but this since this is a 2br condo and she's splitting it with another stranger -- I don't expect the stranger will want to move out (or cover the full rent until July).So the question is - iIs it my responsibility to pay and perform a mold test with no evidence of mold besides "my allergies are acting up?"

Just add on a fee to booking.com to reflect this if you want. there is little evidence that pre-screening results in better behavior from my research.

You have the evidence you can build up.

Usually, if you have >20% non-owner occupied units in a complex, banks don't like lending on sales.Short of her engaging in something that is malicious mischief or menacing and you can get some evidence, probably not much. 

If someone is suffering so badly that they require the presence of an animal in their home then they should be undergoing regular treatment by a qualified therapist and there should be some evidence the presence of an animal is actually helping them improve.

In reality, evidence shows that it was really worth $80K because of $20K in defects the seller knew about but failed to disclose. 

Our lease states that the pet is approved as long as there is no evidence of dangerous behavior or excessive barking. 

My father is a very generous person, but I am beginning to feel that we will have to go the legal route with this.What is all of the evidence that I would have to gather in order to build a bullet-proof case?