All Forum Posts by: Andrew B.

 You're more than welcome to explain your thoughts here. Its a public forum, so discussing it in public makes the most sense since the topic of this post is the same as what you're discussing.

 You keep using the phrase "rent control" but that is not what this is. This is phasing out of a tax benefit. We have plenty of tax benefits that phase out as your income goes up. If you have a need to increase your rent more than 5% you go ahead and do so with the knowledge that you will lose a tax benefit. 

It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded. 

I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless. 

You signed the lease and accepted payment, which makes it a legally binding agreement. However, I will say, I would much rather deal with the legal ramifications of giving them their money back and asking them to rent somewhere else, rather than deal with the legal ramifications of an eviction. I'm not giving you legal advice, but if I were in this scenario I would refund the money through paypal, (make sure you refund, not just send them money), and ask them to find a new rental. Then hope it goes away. Use this as a lesson that you need to learn how to screen better.

HOAs can return a budget surplus to the owners if the board votes to approve it. I would expect that to be rare as most HOA's are underfunded and should be putting budget surplus into reserves.

That being said, I dont think the new owner owes it to you unless the board voted to approve this before your sale went through. It was not a budget surplus until the board voted on it, so the date of that would be the determining factor. A good way to look at it is to ask if you would be legally responsible if the board voted on a special assessment. I'm sure you'll agree the answer is no, so the answer on the budget surplus is also no. 

If contractor told tenant they did not need to move their property, then the contractor is responsible for the damage. I can't believe we are having this conversation. 

Quote from @Wade Penner:

Quote from @Andrew B.:

Check your lease. It should outline required notice, i.e. "Tenant must give 30 days notice to cancel lease." 

Depending on your lease they may owe you 30 or 60 days notice. Now you do have an obligation to mitigate your losses. That means you must work to re-rent the unit in a reasonable timeframe. If you find a new tenant, prorate any fees they pay you so you are not collecting 2 rents on the same day. 

If your lease says nothing about required notice, you may be able to hold them to the extra month if they told you in writing. If you have nothing in writing, the lost rent is your tuition fee to school of hard knocks. Use the opportunity to improve your lease.

It appears they needed to give notice since they were on a one year lease - would you agree? If so, then are they on the hook for 30 days rent, or whenever the next resident moves in (whichever is shortest)? 

 I agree with your assessment

My friend, you just made a post on a public forum with your full legal name and approximate location and admitted you intend to break the law. If the tenant or their lawyer ever find this post, you will be sued. 

I would put up a camera to help figure out where the nails are coming from. Maybe one of the tenants has a vindictive neighbor/ex and he doesn't even know it.