Terminate Lease with inherited tenant

[Evelin Negrete]

I recently bought my first duplex. I inherited a tenant whose lease ends by August 1st. We talked and they asked if I would be increasing the rent I said yes to $925, they were originally paying $825. Market rent is $1,000. I told her the amount and he is an older man who lives off her social security check. He asked if it was okay for her to pay $900 for 6 months & then $925 the other 6 months. I said it was fine, there was no lease signed or anything. Well I moved in and got roommates, I made the error of giving them my number so now I get a text with complaint for any small thing. I want to know if since I agreed to the amount on rent but did not sign a lease. Do I need to continue to sign a lease for another year or am I able to give them the 60 day notice to leave the property once they’re lease is up?  
Any advice would be very Much appreciated. 

[Kevin Sobilo]

@Evelin Negrete, it sounds like you are punishing them for being a little annoying and for you not managing that better.

I would get a google voice number to give out to tenants because I can control when they rings and when I receive messages etc. Then I would give that number to the tenant and block their number on my phone's main number. Then I would be able to control when I receive messages.

If the tenant is complaining about petty things, I need to figure out how to manage that. If there are legit issues with the rental that's on me. If the tenant is calling to request light bulb changes then I need to be able to say no and set boundaries. That's a ME issue, not a tenant issue.

Sounds like a typical paying tenant. The kind that would pay and stay a long time. Vacancy/turnover is very costly. So, I would never evict for such minor annoyances.

You can probably refuse the sign the lease and give the tenant whatever the required notice is in your state. However, I suspect if they got a lawyer, they might be able to at least delay an immediate eviction claiming your verbal agreement constitutes a month-to-month agreement and that you would need to honor it for at least the first month of that before terminating. I think in most places a verbal agreement by default can only be month-to-month.

For me, though I would take this as a learning experience and work to remediate the issues and try to keep this tenant. A tenant who wants to stay and is on a fixed income is likely to stay a long time which means you won't have excess loss to vacancy/turnover. That has a lot of value. 

[Gregory Schwartz]

I agree with @Kevin Sobilo. From your tenant's perspective; you purchased the duplex, jacked up his rent, and moved a bunch of people in next door. Im sure he's adjusting to this change in his life and is himself a bit annoyed. Likely this will die down and he won't reach out as often. 

As a side note, all my tenants have my personal number. Rarely is it an issue.  

[Andrew Freed]

@Evelin Negrete - If you don't want to manage tenant communications, hire a virtual assistant for $5-7 dollars an hour and have them take tenant inquires. Then provide them with a preferred vendor list, set up electronic locks and make the landlording a little more automated. They can communicate issues to you and source contractors to fix it. 

Given this is your first property, the overhead might not make sense, nonetheless this sounds more like a system implementation issue and less a challenging tenant. 

[Nathan Gesner]

I agree you should learn to set boundaries with your tenants. However, I also believe you made a mistake by agreeing to a reduced increase phased in over time.

He is paying $175 below market. You will lose $2,100 a year.

To be a successful investor, you must learn to charge what your property is worth. His lease doesn't end for three months, so give him notice that you can't afford to charge less than $1,000 a month and suggest he move to something more affordable. An elderly man on a fixed income should be able to find an apartment that is income-based and affordable. It will work out better for him in the end because rent rates are increasing faster than social security income.