I do have an agent helping me with the purchase and I plan on making a cash offer and would like to avoid an inspection clause as I would be forgoing a formal home inspection anyway.

That said, a benefit to creating a new LLC for each deal is if you have partners you want to bring on, which some of my clients do, it formalizes the ownership and equity structure, not to mention separates liability and prevent "spillover". 

Meaning this landlord would literally have no way of getting this guest off of his property unless he pays her the $100,000 relocation fee.As of now the case is not settled, there is a ton of back and forth litigation, and the guest has still not left the unit.I've summarized the highlights in this post but I encourage anybody thinking about operating a short term rental (especially in a place like California) to read this article and understand the risks.Link The problem here is just LL using the formal law to get rid of problem ….. oh man there are so many other way , from bring down the utility , speaker and move large crowd to the house.you don’t use law when the law is created to abuse the property owner.

You broke the rules and got caught.....With that being said 12k is a ridiculous fine for this type of violation, especially with no formal notice or warning before implementing a fine that high. 

And if we are being limited on taking on new loans, we have many other issues to worry about beforehand that came long before our portfolio performance started to deteriorate.Finally, you can absolutely postpone in a judicial or non judicial state.

Some states have outlawed non-judicial foreclosures and the seller will have to go through the courts to repossess the property no matter what.

Many current owners are willing to sell under the right circumstances, even if they haven’t formally listed their buildings.

Such surveys and affidavits shall be admissible in administrative and judicial proceedings for the purposes of such verification.(3) Housing shall not fail to meet the requirements for housing for older persons by reason of:(A) persons residing in such housing as of the date of enactment of this Act who do not meet the age requirements of subsections (2)(B) or (C): Provided, That new occupants of such housing meet the age requirements of sections (2)(B) or (C); or(B) unoccupied units: Provided, That such units are reserved for occupancy by persons who meet the age requirements of subsections (2)(B) or (C).(4) Nothing in this title prohibits conduct against a person because such person has been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).(5)(A) A person shall not be held personally liable for monetary damages for a violation of this title if such person reasonably relied, in good faith, on the application of the exemption under this subsection relating to housing for older persons.

I don't think I am getting any further help from the broker. 2 gentlemen have asked me not to waste my time and I think it is wise, but I will have to file my formal complaint and hopefully the board will at least bring some disciplinary action to them, and hopefully, that will stop @Vic Valera from hurting another investor.

Also, depending: is it judicial or not?