If allowed, you can easily argue that it would be reasonable for him to expect there to be a smoke smell upon vacating of the unit.

Some may not be fixable and some may not be his fault (ceiling not level, if the house isn’t, and you could argue basement step railing if there was not two scopes out).

I would also argue that if I took the money and say, put it in stocks assuming they would appreciate that there is no difference there with assuming the house will appreciate, long term.

I think new paint and carpets will solve the smoke problem and after six years I think you are going to have a hard time arguing that you wouldn't need to do that anyway for normal wear and tear.

Everyone can argue until they're blue in the face.

I am not here to argue.

They may not be able to do a clean deal with another buyerr while holding your earnest money in limbo because you can argue that you still have a claim on the property.

She's just going to argue with you as to why she should get the place, don't get sucked in.

While you could argue that they should have confirmed the rate was valid, it's just as true that they had no reason to question the rate that was given to them.4) And learn that people who live off the government tit rarely care about "wealthy landlords" like you.

Who can argue against making informed decisions and calculating risk?