Worst-Case Scenario Eviction - Massachusetts

[Karl Kauper]

For a 3-bed, 2-bath house in Sutton, MA (good school system), if I screen very carefully (high credit score, work history, no evictions, etc.), please describe for me the worst-case scenario for an eviction process if the tenant refuses to leave at the end of a lease term (assuming I do everything properly according to MA laws)?

I own such a house with a few other people, but, for reasons I won’t go into here, we cannot sell the house for several years. I want to rent it out instead of allowing it to sit vacant, but the other owners are hesitant to rent because of fears of dealing with potentially difficult tenants. So, this is why I’m asking you to describe for me the worst-case scenario. In other words, I want to make the argument that even the worst-case scenario is better than allowing the house to sit vacant for several years while meanwhile paying out-of-pocket for taxes, minimal heat, lawn care, etc. Easy argument to make, isn’t it? Thanks!

[Jonathan Greene]

Your worst-case scenario (not specific to MA) would be having to sue to get them out as a holdover, but this is really reserved for worst-choice scenarios when owners choose the first renter or don't do any due diligence. In 30 years, I have had one eviction (in NY) and the court would not grant it and they ended up paying and staying for two more years.

I think the multiple owners is more of the problem than panicking in advance about tenants. You would choose the tenant so you would have a decent amount of security on who is living there. Can you sell off your share to them? If so, that's what I would do. The other option is just to leave it vacant for several years? That seems silly.

[Laura Stayton]

Quote from @Karl Kauper:

For a 3-bed, 2-bath house in Sutton, MA (good school system), if I screen very carefully (high credit score, work history, no evictions, etc.), please describe for me the worst-case scenario for an eviction process if the tenant refuses to leave at the end of a lease term (assuming I do everything properly according to MA laws)?

I own such a house with a few other people, but, for reasons I won’t go into here, we cannot sell the house for several years. I want to rent it out instead of allowing it to sit vacant, but the other owners are hesitant to rent because of fears of dealing with potentially difficult tenants. So, this is why I’m asking you to describe for me the worst-case scenario. In other words, I want to make the argument that even the worst-case scenario is better than allowing the house to sit vacant for several years while meanwhile paying out-of-pocket for taxes, minimal heat, lawn care, etc. Easy argument to make, isn’t it? Thanks!

Worst case (IMO) - Tenants move in and tear up the place and don't pay.  Evictions take months here in DE so you could potentially lose out on 4 months rent or so and have to rehab the house.  You have to know the landlord tenant code regarding proper notices etc.  Or they could sue you for multiple reasons. 
Your best bet would be to hire a good property manager who screens well and knows what they're doing and you should be able to get good income over a few years.

[Karl Kauper]

Quote from @Laura Stayton:

Quote from @Karl Kauper:

For a 3-bed, 2-bath house in Sutton, MA (good school system), if I screen very carefully (high credit score, work history, no evictions, etc.), please describe for me the worst-case scenario for an eviction process if the tenant refuses to leave at the end of a lease term (assuming I do everything properly according to MA laws)?

I own such a house with a few other people, but, for reasons I won’t go into here, we cannot sell the house for several years. I want to rent it out instead of allowing it to sit vacant, but the other owners are hesitant to rent because of fears of dealing with potentially difficult tenants. So, this is why I’m asking you to describe for me the worst-case scenario. In other words, I want to make the argument that even the worst-case scenario is better than allowing the house to sit vacant for several years while meanwhile paying out-of-pocket for taxes, minimal heat, lawn care, etc. Easy argument to make, isn’t it? Thanks!

Worst case (IMO) - Tenants move in and tear up the place and don't pay.  Evictions take months here in DE so you could potentially lose out on 4 months rent or so and have to rehab the house.  You have to know the landlord tenant code regarding proper notices etc.  Or they could sue you for multiple reasons. 
Your best bet would be to hire a good property manager who screens well and knows what they're doing and you should be able to get good income over a few years.

With respect to hiring a PM, I respectfully but very strongly disagree. In my 20+ years as a landlord in three different states, it’s my experience that the owner can screen more effectively and find tenants way more quickly. I assume the reason is that the owner is 100% focused on their own property whereas the PM is only partially focused on it because of other clients.

[Nathan Gesner]

Quote from @Karl Kauper:

I process nearly 1,000 applications per year for the last 15 years. Yet you're able to screen applications more effectively?

If you are more capable than a PM, why don't you know the answer to your question? Laura is a PM, she answered your question, and your response was to fire back that you can do a better job than a PM. Does that make sense?

A tenant could sneak past your screening with falsified applications that you can't catch. Once in, they could pay rent for a few months until you feel everything is perfect, which then greases the tracks for them to tear your life apart. They stop rent and communication. You file for eviction and they employ multiple delay tactics that extend your court case 3-6 months without batting an eye, all while not paying rent. When you finally get them on the ropes, they pack up and move out never to be seen again. You find the house completely trashed with missing appliances and cabinets, tenants were cooking meth, windows broken, etc. 6-8 months of unpaid rent, unpaid utilities, thousands to empty the abandoned property and trash, $50,000 to completely renovate the property and make it rentable again, plus all the time, energy, and stress along the way.

I would actually argue this is pretty common and not even the worst-case scenario. I've seen landlords held hostage for years by tenants who know how to manipulate the law.

On the other hand, sitting vacant costs you the mortgage, taxes, utilities, insurance, lawncare, and other expenses. If that's $25,000 a year, then two years of vacancy is about the same as a really, really bad renter. If you're as good as you claim to be, it should be easy to show that the rewards outweigh the risk.

[Tony Savage]

Karl, You're living your worst case scenario right now!  You say you've been a Landlord for 20+ years in three different states.  Get your house rented out!

Good Luck!

[Bruce Woodruff]

Worst case? Lol, the tenants stay for a year+, rent free, and then completely destroy your property on the way out. You lose $30-$50k in total expenses and lost rent....

[Karl Kauper]

Quote from @Nathan Gesner:

Quote from @Karl Kauper:

I process nearly 1,000 applications per year for the last 15 years. Yet you're able to screen applications more effectively?

If you are more capable than a PM, why don't you know the answer to your question? Laura is a PM, she answered your question, and your response was to fire back that you can do a better job than a PM. Does that make sense?

A tenant could sneak past your screening with falsified applications that you can't catch. Once in, they could pay rent for a few months until you feel everything is perfect, which then greases the tracks for them to tear your life apart. They stop rent and communication. You file for eviction and they employ multiple delay tactics that extend your court case 3-6 months without batting an eye, all while not paying rent. When you finally get them on the ropes, they pack up and move out never to be seen again. You find the house completely trashed with missing appliances and cabinets, tenants were cooking meth, windows broken, etc. 6-8 months of unpaid rent, unpaid utilities, thousands to empty the abandoned property and trash, $50,000 to completely renovate the property and make it rentable again, plus all the time, energy, and stress along the way.

I would actually argue this is pretty common and not even the worst-case scenario. I've seen landlords held hostage for years by tenants who know how to manipulate the law.

On the other hand, sitting vacant costs you the mortgage, taxes, utilities, insurance, lawncare, and other expenses. If that's $25,000 a year, then two years of vacancy is about the same as a really, really bad renter. If you're as good as you claim to be, it should be easy to show that the rewards outweigh the risk.

If you sign a lease with a nursery school teacher and CPA with credit scores of 800+ with a 3-year-old, what’s the likelihood that they will suddenly start cooking meth and destroying your property? 

My most recent experience with a PM company: I had a PM in Ohio who told me for 10 months that they couldn’t understand why my apartments were not renting (I had 5 vacancies in my building at that point, one of which had been vacant for the full 10 months). I then took over the entire marketing and leasing process directly, flying out from NJ to show the units. I filled the building in a matter of weeks. Had I done that 10 months earlier, I would have saved tens of thousands of dollars, despite the flight costs. This is probably (hopefully) the worst case PM scenario, but, again, no PM is 100% invested in your property and your success — only you are.

[Karl Kauper]

Quote from @Nathan Gesner:

Quote from @Karl Kauper:

I process nearly 1,000 applications per year for the last 15 years. Yet you're able to screen applications more effectively?

If you are more capable than a PM, why don't you know the answer to your question? Laura is a PM, she answered your question, and your response was to fire back that you can do a better job than a PM. Does that make sense?

A tenant could sneak past your screening with falsified applications that you can't catch. Once in, they could pay rent for a few months until you feel everything is perfect, which then greases the tracks for them to tear your life apart. They stop rent and communication. You file for eviction and they employ multiple delay tactics that extend your court case 3-6 months without batting an eye, all while not paying rent. When you finally get them on the ropes, they pack up and move out never to be seen again. You find the house completely trashed with missing appliances and cabinets, tenants were cooking meth, windows broken, etc. 6-8 months of unpaid rent, unpaid utilities, thousands to empty the abandoned property and trash, $50,000 to completely renovate the property and make it rentable again, plus all the time, energy, and stress along the way.

I would actually argue this is pretty common and not even the worst-case scenario. I've seen landlords held hostage for years by tenants who know how to manipulate the law.

On the other hand, sitting vacant costs you the mortgage, taxes, utilities, insurance, lawncare, and other expenses. If that's $25,000 a year, then two years of vacancy is about the same as a really, really bad renter. If you're as good as you claim to be, it should be easy to show that the rewards outweigh the risk.

Also, you say you screen 1,000 applications a year. That’s exactly the problem! You’re not processing the 1,000 applications for one landlord. You might process applications efficiently, but you’re focused on filling 2 or 3 hundred properties. You’re not 100% focused on mine the way I am. How could you possibly compete?

[Nathan Gesner]

Quote from @Karl Kauper:

I'm not attacking you personally. It's just a fact. I can give you dozens of examples of owners who believed they could care for their property better than a stranger. They ended up stepping over dollars to pick up dimes. They may be more emotionally concerned, but that doesn't mean they are better at the job.

Why are millionaires and billionaires using financial managers, property managers, nannies, and maids? I guarantee Musk cares more about his money, property, kids, and bathroom floor than the hired help, but that doesn't mean he is better suited for the job or that he has the time, skills, and energy to handle it.

Maybe you're part of the small percentage that can do a better job. That's OK, too.

[Tony Savage]

Can't we all just get along..LOL.  Karl l believe in you man, you have the experience you can find a solid tenant that will take care of your property.  Think about the best case scenario of leasing your property!