To Marco Antonio Torres: You want the Asker and other Readers to know --- 1. you admitted you "..agree with Mr. Brinkmeier..". Further, 2. in addition to what was conspicuous from the Asker's question, 3. your agreement admitted you were able to cognize Brinkmeier understood the Asker had a lawyer; specifically ".. Your lawyer ... said it is a valid legal contract. You should follow the advise of your lawyer [sic]..". 4. Ignoring Brinkmeier's "It doesn't make sense for a lawyer hearing a few isolated facts over the Internet to second-guess the lawyer representing.." the Asker [to evade the question and lawyer comparisons]. Notwithstanding all those facts you, nonetheless, "..thought.." it was wise to “..second-guess..” with your question to the Asker "..Is the termination of the lease a date further into the future than the 90 day notice you would otherwise be entitled to under the Protecting Tenats At Foreclosure Act? [sic].."; begging the question --- was it your "..thought.." the Asker was --- too ignorant to arrive at such a conclusion; that his/her lawyer would be --- that ignorant; or, Marco Antonio Torres, was that just --- you? The message, Marco Antonio Torres, to the extent it eludes you, is if you don’t have a cogent “..thought..“, to justify blatant self-promotion, --- don’t respond. By the way, the correct spelling of the word you wanted to use is "..Tenant..". Quoting you, "..Just an additional thought to consider. . . ."