Update `id: late fees explanation` and late fee defense

[miabonardi]

id: late fees explanation - conditional language in question can be changed to ask if tenant has written lease first

Fix #318

Requesting review from at least @tobyfey to confirm defense defense_liquidated_damages_late_fees

### In this PR, I have: * [X] Manually tested to ensure my PR is working * [X] Ensured issues that this PR closes will be [automatically closed](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue) * [X] Requested review from Mia or Quinten **+ Toby** * [X] Ensured automated tests are passing * [ ] Updated automated tests so they are now passing * [ ] There were no automated tests on this repo so I filled out [this interview](https://apps-dev.suffolklitlab.org/run/test-setup/) and there is now an "it runs" test

[tobyfey]

If we're going with two different logic blocks, the one without a written lease should be

  if late_fees_assessed:
    defense_liquidated_damages_late_fees = True

Because it there is no written lease, there is no lease provision allowing late fees to be charged.

In Ohio, late fees have to be in writing. If there's no lease, the landlord can give something in writing saying that late fees will be charged. So there could be a late_fee_lease_provision, even if there's no written lease. If that's the case in Missouri, then maybe keeping the original question and changing the label to "You can answer no if you don't have a written lease and the landlord didn't give you anything in writing that said late fees would be charged."

[miabonardi]

@tobyfey I updated this based on your feedback here. Can you re-review and let me know if this now addresses your concerns?

[tobyfey]

The question about whether the late fees are a penalty should be asked even if there is no written lease, because the late fees as a penalty will still be added as a defense for additional support. The jinja2 in the document will have to be rewritten if we add a new variable.

Here is the language from the answer. It expects late_fees_penalty and late_fees_lease_provision to be defined every time this defense is used, and late_fee_doesnt_comply_with_lease defined if there is a lease provision. (Also should be asked if there if is a late fees writing not in the lease).

{% if late_fees_penalty %}The requested late fees are an unfair penalty, not liquidated damages.{% endif %}{% if not late_fees_lease_provision %} There is no written lease provision properly authorizing the late fees charged by {{ landlord_doc_name | capitalize}}.{% elif late_fee_doesnt_comply_with_lease %}The late fees assessed by {{ landlord_doc_name }} do not comply with the written lease provision authorizing late fees.{% endif %} Therefore, {{ landlord_doc_name | capitalize}} is not entitled to the late fees. 

I think it would be easier to keep one variable for late fees lease provision and change the label based on if there is a written lease.

We should ask for legal expertise about whether a writing outside of the lease can allow for late fees in Missouri.

[miabonardi]

Ok! @tobyfey can you prepare this question for LSEM for the 3/1 meeting?

[nonprofittechy]

@tobyfey I know we discussed this on Friday but I'm still not clear if it was answered--does this need to be an email to Terry to clarify?