Inherited tenant: opportunity for investors, headache for everyone else

I've said before that buying a house with a tenant in it can be an opportunity. I still think that investor side. But I want to split it, because the answer flips depending on who you are. If you're an investor, an in-place tenant is income on day one and proof the place rents. You skip the empty months. That's real. If you want to live in the house, it's a headache, and people underestimate it badly. You don't inherit a tenant, you inherit a lease, and the lease usually outranks your move-in plans. Cash for keys costs money. Waiting costs money. And a tenant who found out from a stranger that the house sold is not going to be your friend about it. Either way, the paperwork is the whole ballgame: the lease itself, the deposit, who's holding it, what's actually been paid, and any side agreement the seller made verbally and forgot to mention. Estoppel letters exist for a reason. Get a real estate attorney to read the lease before you're the landlord, not after. The part nobody likes to admit: a tenant paying under market is a discount on your rent roll, not on the price. So tell me I'm wrong have you ever bought occupied and had the tenant turn out to be the best part of the deal?