SB 291 prohibits the landlord from charging a screening charge unless the landlord includes written notice to the applicant of the following:A right to appeal a negative determination, if any right to appeal exists;Any nondiscrimination policy as required by federal, state or local law plus any non-discrimination policy of the landlord, including that a landlord may not discriminate against an applicant because of the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, familial status or source of income of the applicant;The amount of rent the landlord will charge and the deposits the landlord will require, subject to change in the rent or deposits by agreement of the landlord and the tenant before entering into a rental agreement; andWhether the landlord requires tenants to obtain and maintain renter’s liability insurance and, if so, the amount of insurance required.The following will require landlords to review their screening criteria and application documents.

Also, I failed to mention that I think it would be pretty easy to tie into the existing wall between the Living room and "Dining Room / Bedroom 2" (see Image 3). 

I don't know the laws in your state, but in NC you have to honor the existing leases. 

Purchase price: $50,000 Cash invested: $10,000 Sale price: $84,900 2 bed 1 bath single family home with existing tenants rented at $650/month.

In the end, we gave the tenants 3 months notice that the rents would be raised 25% at the end of their existing lease and each year until they reach market rates.

I didn't know that existed.  

Do you not exist online? 

If you are a pro member, their is a bigger pockets form for adding someone to an existing lease. 

I was just reading today an appellate court opinion here in Illinois where someone purchased a 2nd mortgage w/o realizing a 1st existed, then tried to reverse the CONFIRMED sale after subsequent auction on foreclosure of the 1st for a myriad of reasons, and then sued his attorney for malpractice: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.cor...As part of the legal malpractice claim against his lawyer, the plaintiff (2nd mtg buyer) stated, "that Gooch also “negligently failed to stay the final judgment of sale during appeal, resulting in dismissal of the appeal in October 2015 as moot because no remedy remained available to reverse the sale to a third-party purchaser."

I'm definitely not one of those "The Secret" speak it into existence type people, but making a choice to be and think differently is a conscious effort that you have to choose each and every day.