Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
General Landlording & Rental Properties
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated about 9 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

126
Posts
47
Votes
Lois Ginter
  • Rockford, IL
47
Votes |
126
Posts

Inherited Tenant - Rent above Market - Questionable Siutation

Lois Ginter
  • Rockford, IL
Posted

I am purchasing a property with two out buildings.  There is personal property in these buildings that may, or may not, belong to an inherited tenant.  If the tenant does own this personal property, it indicates that he is doing work on-site with dangerous machinery. These tenants are paying at least $100 per month above market.

The existing month to month lease agreement has no mention of the use of these buildings.  My lease agreement has a clause that personal property may not be stored outside of the apartment or designated storage areas, and that anything other than a personal vehicle is not allowed to be kept on the outside on the property.  I am asking that they sign a new month to month lease, for the same rent, within seven days of me taking possession. 

The seller inherited the property, so he has no idea what personal property belonged to the original owner. My purchase agreement includes all materials and equipment on-site related to the maintenance of the property.  

My gut is telling me to give these tenants 30 day notice, rather than offering a new lease. It makes no sense that they would pay above market for this apartment, when there are plenty of SFH in the area for for the same amount of money, or less. It makes me wonder how they were screened, and if the reason they aren't renting someplace else is that there is an issue that would prevent them from doing so. I'm willing to talk to the tenants about removing the items from the buildings, and give them the benefit of the doubt. But still, I don't want to get into any drama about what they were promised by the seller. I also don't want the possibility to remove these items dragged out over months.

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

7,341
Posts
10,046
Votes
Mindy Jensen
  • BiggerPockets Money Podcast Host
  • Longmont, CO
10,046
Votes |
7,341
Posts
Mindy Jensen
  • BiggerPockets Money Podcast Host
  • Longmont, CO
ModeratorReplied

"Going with your gut" gets a bad rap in real estate when you're using your gut as the only method of screening. I say go with your gut on this one, and give them notice. Make sure you follow your state laws in regards to property notice. Some states are 30 days, some are 60. Regardless of when you give the notice, they have until the end of the month to move out, meaning if you give notice on February 15, you can't expect them to be out before the end of March. Your 30 day notice turns into a 45 day notice.

Regarding the dangerous equipment, as long as you aren't providing the actual equipment, I can't see your liability. (I'm not a lawyer, either.) Talk to your insurance agent, and see how you can best protect yourself.

Loading replies...