Lender has risk if as @Chris Seveney mentioned buyer puts a second behind your first  this causes the first lender to have to go through a full foreclosure to remove the second in a default scenario. 

Just remain wary of the potential consequences of operating in an anti-landlord jurisdiction: vacancy taxes, potential vacancy control, inability to remove deadbeat tenants, etc.Coincidentally, Jesse Vasquez posted "why your MTR isn't renting" on YouTube yesterday.  

My water usage bill is the same,  general lability coverage is the same, if and when I have to replace my water service line it will cost the same, the cost for my lawncare and snow removal costs the same, exterminating services cost the same and the list goes on.   

My thinking is that if I remove them completely it might bring back a little more curb appeal to the property and make it more inviting to potential renters. 

Keep in mind that your refi options change dramatically once you do move out because you will loose the option to use a homeowner's refi and the much better rate that provides.

Quote from @Stuart Udis: I suspect they drew you a flow cart and then your conversations went something like this:Please kindly remove your bugs from my office

You need to remove this tenant.

You must have done everything reasonable, even unreasonable, to cure the issue and document it.I lost $200.00 once in court because a tenant removed the range and would not let us reinstall it.

Unless you choose to remove the husband from the lease, they both remain leaseholders even if he is not living there.

It removes all the advantage of using RE to increase wealth.