Assuming all of the information you provided is in line.i.e.

If you did a full repipe and gutted the entire property then I assume (in all that means) that there were permits pulled and this should have been caught when the inspector did their rough in walk through or atleast the final occupancy inspection. 

Consider just signing a new lease with the husband only assuming you have verified that he does qualify for the property by himself. 

You can assume the lot rent will go up over time and take away some of the benefit you would have had from renting. 

A $60K down payment will get you a $300K property (assuming your income is high enough and debt low enough to qualify for a $240K mortgage).

Those loans are assumable.

I suspect it would require a court order to be able to show that you have not followed this law assuming that you have the money to pay the tenant their deposit at move out. for me, i would likely ignore this law.  

I assume you meant, regardless whether the person named in the note actually lends their own money, it's still owed to them because the agreement is binding. 

I assume you mean that unemployment was 5.7% not 22.2% haha, but are you just talking Pittsburgh Metro, or Allegheny County?

Again, this is typically for those with larger portfolios of "residential" rental buildings.MN is very much a wind/hail prone state (assuming that's where you mostly invest).