All Forum Posts by: Andy D.

Is #2 also F/F? But, really, if one lender tells you it's possible then they have looked at this matter and decided it's how they'll go about it. Unless, of course, the person representing the lender just blabbers meaninglessly, which, however, I hope is not the case. ;-) Then again, if it's one of the known big banks people...

Get back to #2, ensure that they really will do it the way you have understood it and take it from there. You may want to specifically ask about F/F restrictions/requirements in that regard.

For what it's worth: I have always only had a seasoning requirement of 3 months, not 6 (with F/F).

Are you talking about actual CapEx (i.e. outflow) or the figures factored in for your budget/ROI etc. calculation?

Because how would 1 work without actual cost (alternatively: that's done via ROI calculation). Or rather: irrespective of 1, 2 would be a given since you need to have cash reserves for "stuff like this" anyway. The calculation really doesn't help much in real life: if statistically the roof is due after 20 years, well, bummer if it needs replacement after only 3 years. You better have the money for that, irrespective of any ROI calculation...

So I think I have no idea what you are trying to ask. :-)

@Marcus Hendren Exactly. Many renters are painfully ignorant about what they have insured, and many believe that the landlord will pay for what was described above. Well, he certainly won't but nor will the landlord's insurance.

It's basically a means of education toward tenants and for me, as a landlord, some peace of mind that events for which the tenant might have thought to make me responsible and for which tenant could try to claim compensation from me will be - known to the tenant as he signed the policy - covered by his renters insurance.

@Bryan O. and @Jeff B. have said it pretty much all. But of course the devil's in the details especially with "all your other expenses" as @Natalie Kolodij wrote. Because here some people might be very mistaken in, for instance, believing that their entire mortgage payment is a "cost". Now while this is only relevant for those with a mortgage (compared to those who bought all cash), I guess that'll be the majority of investors here. I thought I mention that since the questions from OP imply that he might not be too familiar with the whole "tax thing". :-)

Therefore: make sure you have a (good!) CPA who tells you what to do, especially for a) the first year, b) the year in which you bought something (e.g. because of different depreciation figures) and c) when you sell something. Oh, and CPA fees are a deductible cost in this situation. ;-)

I'm curious as I have never done a re-fi myself so far but have had my fair share of nuisances in the original financing rounds (to put it mildly... you're not alone ;-) ): I would have thought that refinancing an already mortgaged property, especially with equity in it, should be a no-brainer? At least assuming that your financial situation has not deteriorated, of course.

In any case, steer clear of the big banks. Not gonna fly for (smaller) investors in the non-commercial realm. Find a good mortgage broker. Good luck.

@Ralph R. The way I read you it sounds like you consider renter's insurance to be useless. Should that be your opinion indeed then I disagree. While you are correct about what it does not cover you are not mentioning the benefits it can give to tenants. And indirectly to the landlord! For example, one of my dwellings became uninhabitable due to water damage leading to mold with the required remediation attached to that. Fun. Tenants/family had to move out for some 4 weeks. Guess who covered the hotel bill? Their insurance. Otherwise it would have easily been me. In addition to the lost rent (which, however, my insurance covered). That's just an example. There are many other things covered.

I require renter's insurance with me being named as additional insured. It does not cost that much, and at least for my class of tenants/locations it will not be a deal breaker. If so, well, then that prospective tenant was not the right one for that place and shall find another landlord.

A gentleman will walk but never run. ;-)

Re $100 late fee: just make sure that this is actually allowed in your jurisdiction. Seems very high to me...

Good luck with your newly chosen tenant.

I would very much refrain form touching that vehicle prior to it clearly being considered abandoned. Much less would I take action (= getting actively involved) by moving it from private property to public ground. This could make you liable for whatever the city might come up with to fine you because you moved an abandoned vehicle onto public grounds. Do what has been said before: call the local towing companies and inquire about that situation. I'm sure they have had something like this come up before...

@Ben Tate I respectfully disagree that this is "poor negotiation". At least for Condos with an HOA you need to make sure that the place is meeting the requirements for an FHA (or VA) loan. Some so called HOAs are so bad at what they do that they do not fulfill their duties which, however, might actually be only discovered when you get to the point where you as the owner want to advertise (for whichever reason) the place as being available for FHA loans. Therefore, if the buyer is not disclosing that he/she wants to go FHA then that topic might not be looked at by the seller and ultimately the deal will fall through when the seller looks into it, not having an issue with FHA loans, and discovers that there is an issue with the HOA. Stupid situation for both parties which can actually get quite expensive for the seller. Ask me how I know...

And yes, the fault lies with the HOA - and the owner who didn't look at the HOA closely enough from the get go.

@Jack B. Sell it if it causes you headache badder than what you feel like it's worth having compared to the income. Otherwise keep it.