Looking greed in the eye

and not liking what I saw. Seems as though one of our tenants decided that my brother and I are stupid enough to pay her in exchange for taking her off her rental contract when in fact, said tenant has already moved and left the state of California.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but why would anyone want to do that when A) we do not want to remove the tenants and B) we would like our tenants to continue renting for an indefinite period of time?

Well, the tenants' view is that Prop H passed. So, what? Relocation costs apply to no-fault evictions. For one, we have not evicted anyone. Two, she has moved out on her own accord. Three, relocation costs do not apply to someone who wants to terminate her rental contract.

But I suppose the tenants had this wonderfully, bright idea to see if we would agree to their terms with the assumption that we are desperate to live in our recently purchased property. Incorrect assumption, I would say.

So, it seems that one tenant has left the state without giving notice and the other tenant (the master tenant) decides to sublet the room without acquiring written consent from us (the owners) as stated in her rental contract. We are not going to do anything but take a wait and see stance. If the tenants violate their contract, which they are heading in that direction, then let them. We'll see who's playing by the rules and who isn't.