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.
Innovative Strategies
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 almost 10 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

367
Posts
189
Votes
Jeff G.
  • Investor
  • Wethersfield, CT
189
Votes |
367
Posts

Lease Options, Subject-To, and Repairs

Jeff G.
  • Investor
  • Wethersfield, CT
Posted

So, back in the day before the (in my view wholly unnecessary) Dodd-Frank Safe Act it was common to perform a lease option as follows:

  • Large "option payment" as a faux down-payment.
  • Charge well above market rent
  • Provide generous rent-credits based upon the performance of the tenant-buyer.
  • Make the tenant-buyer pay for repairs below (say) $500.
  • In the case of a Subject-To deal the prior owner might be contractually on the hook for repairs above $500.

I realize Dodd Fank changed much of that. I have a partial grasp of what has changed: within market rent only, capped option payments, rent credits are by decree now magically redefined as a security, etc.

My question is: having done some reading I've gotten the general impression that requiring the tenant-buyer to do repairs that traditionally fall to the landlord also violates the act. Is this understanding accurate?

I realize few of you are lawyers, and those that are aren't my lawyer, and so forth. Any clarification on this point is welcome.

  • Jeff G.
  • Loading replies...