would you start eviction over $50? $160?

[Sheree H.]

What would you do with tenants like these?

My tenants in Athens, GA have paid late every month. They never pay the late fees, and we never chased them for it because it wasn't worth the $50 or so. The last month they paid $50 short of full rent, begged more time, and then paid the balance a week before the end of the month. This month they paid $30 short, and are now delinquent 11 days. I have the pay or quit letter on my desk.

Is it worth the trouble and possibility of losing tenants for such a little amount? They do pay, and they aren't students but have jobs, which should be a good thing. If we do lose them, there are no shortage of applicants in Athens, but we would probably lose the rent until next august.

[Bill S.]

Since a number of people have posted the idea that it's not worth the $30 or $50 to go through an eviction. I say it's not about the money it's about who is in control. It was said to me early on "The landlord's in charge the tenant is not."

I say it's absolutely worth the cost of an eviction to maintain control over my property and investment.

There are plenty of tenants out there that will follow the rules. The cost of the eviction is my education in tenant screening. That cost reminds me during my next vacancy that "a vacancy is a blessing compared to a bad tenant". If I do let someone in who won't follow the rules that's on me and I should in now way compound that error by letting the terms of the lease slide. The longer I do so, the greater the peril.

As @Gerald K. said allowing things to slide can be construed as rewriting the lease. The lease governs and all things not in compliance get brought into line or the tenant moves on one way or another. What's the point of a lease if you let the tenant do whatever they want more or less? Where do you draw the line?