All Forum Posts by: Andy D.

I agree with what has been said here and the pros and cons given. I also agree with what @Joseph Leonard says with respect to the CA market. I have had great success with my condos there - and much headache! Whether something - for buy and hold - is going to appreciate, depreciate or go up in flames really is pure (bad) luck. One might give it educated guesses but ultimately the operating figures need to work out for it to be an interesting object.

I like the idea of looking at HOA fees as CapEx put aside. Never thought of it that way.

Anyway, why headaches? Because HOA are the worst to deal with! I can tell you a few stories where you wouldn't believe me a second. And all would be true. Apparently the people working there seem to all be idiots (sorry for stepping on a few toes of those who do work for an HOA ;-) ). They don't seem to care about those people who own the property and pay them. All they care about is making lives of these people (= me) miserable. The logic behind this must exist, but it has to be entirely twisted.

Do check into the HOA before buying. Some are in real bad shape and I'm not only talking about financials! I therefore prefer those run by "professional" companies which does at least, typically, ensure that the paperwork is in order (such as, you know, CC&Rs on file etc.)

Would I buy a condo with an HOA again? Yup. Just did a couple weeks ago. Several for that matter. And will continue to do so in the future. You just need to do your due diligence on the HOA as well, in addition to the one you're doing on the property itself. In that case both come bundled. Both need to be looked at. Oh, and it helps when the properties are fairly new because then the HOA is also fairly new. Less chance of a mess. Which, of course, doesn't mean that they won't turn it into one. ;-)

@Account Closed: Title of thread says "tenant breaking pet agreement"... ;-)

@Robert Blanchard: I would be very careful with that. Covertly taking pictures of people - not to mention involving unsuspecting minors in this activity -could lead to serious trouble, especially when trying to actually use these pictures to prove something.

Observe on your own, with your own eyes, preferably with a witness.

Oh, I just have to reply too...

I don't agree that leaked oil/oil stains should be considered "normal wear and tear". A car does not normally leak oil (this is the year 2016, not 1951), and in any case oil does not belong on any surface (certainly not where there's foot traffic). Apart from it being a serious bio-hazard it could also be the cause of injuries should someone slip on it.

Assuming the driveway is actually legally your property (not the city's or whoever) then, also, the tenant damaged your property. He most likely didn't do it intentionally but if I accidentally dropped a pallet full of bricks on your dog you'd also hold me accountable for it. Not because I handled the bricks but because I "damaged" your animal. You will want me to buy you a new dog for $$$ (or pay for you having him fixed up if he somehow survived that load of bricks) and, more importantly, you will probably claim emotional distress which can also only be healed, of course, with more $$$.

Now, since all male human beings take pride in a neat and clean driveway (no matter how messed up their garage then is...), I could picture you having suffered emotional distress from the fact that you driveways was abused by stinky, brown slippery liquid. But even if you were accepting the "be a man!" it would still leave your property damaged. And no, there does not need to be a hole in the ground for that.

Is it a relevant damage? It is when it comes to money. So the removal of the oil (stain) is a cost that the tenant needs to reimburse you for. And this has nothing to do with, in my opinion, that this guy is your tenant - if it were a passer-by who did this you would have no problem making him pay, wouldn't you? And since I do not consider this usage of the driveway and, more importantly, the associated damage resulting from that particular usage as w&t there is no "special tenant issue" here. Again, IMO.

First of all I'd make sure that your tenant makes damn sure that this does not happen again. Oil pan or whatever. Heck, maybe get his car fixed! Secondly, get it cleaned, for obvious reasons (cheapest way possible). Thirdly, make sure the tenant pays most of those costs, if not all - I'm having a hard time paying a single dime for this as it was entirely the tenant's fault... And no, you're not to blame for having provided him with access to and usage right for that driveway.... ;-)

What has been said.

Ask yourself this: someone (who's not related to real estate business and not your employer) is asking you to do something. Would you expect them to give you the tools/equipment/etc to enable you to achieve the task? Barring special circumstances I guess the answer would be: no.

Tenant has duty to shovel snow so you need to provide him with a shovel? Hhm. Go one step further: since shoveling nowadays is oh so cumbersome and unbearable for human beings, tenant would like a motorized snow-removal device - which you need to provide?

Lawn care goes beyond mowing, it might require watering (where still allowed). So you need to pay part of the water bill?

I certainly wouldn't. Tenant has a duty = his problem how to they deal with it, at their cost. Otherwise I might as well have someone do it professionally and charge the tenant for it or have it come out of my own pocket.

Apart from these practical reasons I would also never provide them with a "dangerous" tool such as a lawnmower ("I cut off my toes because landlord didn't tell me that I shouldn't also mow over my feet while wearing flip-flops and being on the phone watching cat videos. Give me $2m please!").

@John Mattox I agree with what you describe. I'm now wondering what the opinions are with respect  to the Mgmt Co + the Hold Co being both owned by the same Company which would act as an overarching (true) Holding? I.e. Mgmt and Hold Cos would be "sisters". Any thoughts?

I'm with @Rick H. here (and apparently the general consensus so far) that trying to force the transaction is going to end up in a mess either way. While the executor is typically the (only) person/entity authorized to act on behalf of the estate (executor relates to execute, meaning "to carry out"; do something yielding consequences) it does not mean that he can act as he pleases if there are beneficiaries (which is typically the case). He needs to act in the best interest of the estate, i.e. ultimately the beneficiaries. Just like a trustee would (have to) for a trust. This particular sale could very easily be considered not in the best interest of the estate and then that's it. With the "nuisance" that it took a bunch of lawyers and at least one court to derive at that conclusion, costing you tons of money in the end. And you still wouldn't own the property.

I understand @Justin Hammond in such a way that you did not yet actually did any work/invest money. At least I hope that for you. Because if you did then you would have the added nuisance of trying to make them pay you back for "improvements" you did - which they of course will not consider improvements to avoid having to pay you. And then your money spent is sunk in a deep hole. Heck, they could even consider your "improvements" an infringement of sorts and want money from you for "damages" (let's leave it at the simple terms).

Let them back out of it and you go run. And next time involve a lawyer with such transactions that are not mere straight sales. Lawyers are expensive, but they are so because they know a lot which took a long time to acquire and keep up to date. At least the good ones. ;-) And they are worth their money in the big picture. Good luck!

Thanks for pointing out the difference between service and assistance animals @Denise Evans. 

I was, indeed, not specific enough in that regard. Believe it or not, I was so far never in the situation to have a tenant apply that had any kind of animal. Quite surprising, come to think of it.

Boy am I glad that my property manager handles this! ;-)

While I certainly don't agree with comparing a nurse to an animal (typically nurses don't pee on your grass or scratch the walls etc; at least that's my impression from the nurses I have met ;-) ) I do think that @Jason Clinton has a valid point when, uhm, pointing out that a service animal is not a pet and that these service animals are indeed highly trained and well behaved.

As always, it depends on the person in control: you can have parents that do not have their kids under control and them trashing the place and then you can have very well behaved kids where the cute little dog is the issue because the dog's "parents" don't have it, the dog, under control. Or you can have a family of with 6 kids + 2 dogs and 3 cats and not have a single problem at your place.

Would it be lovely not having to deal with this at all? Totally. But that's simply not the reality. What @Thomas S. is describing is textbook discrimination. Will it cause him an issue? Probably not as he is right in pointing out that it's very hard to prove. Just like with all these laws that the US seem to need to protect someone from some sort of (perceived) hardship. I'm not a big fan, I have to admit. But it is simply reality and we need to (properly) deal with it. Or avoid it: by getting out of the game...

And having a proper service animal addendum - to get back to the OP - is a proper way of dealing with it. At least this is how I see it.

I would allow her (= your tenant) to sublet to him. In writing. That way you keep your contractual relationship with her (alone) and avoid issues as @Nancy Curran described. She will have to figure out the contractual parts that she wants to have with him (e.g. the $$$ he will have to give to her as his contribution to the rent, assuming she wants to reduce the burden on herself in that regard). You're not involved. Also, if he screws up, she's on the hook and you could evict both. If he is also on the lease then that would be much more problematic (albeit probably rather theoretical). What she can negotiate with him is going to be limited to what you allow her - she can't allow him more than what's allowed for her (pets and whatnot).

That way I also personally wouldn't care about doing a credit check on the boyfriend. Not relevant as she is your tenant. Background check is something else, of course. You don't want a (non-financial) problem on your premises if it can be helped.

With respect to rent: The rent would be the same if you had had both of them on the lease from the start, right? If not, then adjust by what your increased costs are going to be. I don't see - apart from metered utilities that you pay - why a 2nd person warrants higher rent, apart from maybe slightly higher wear and tear as there are now 2 people instead of only one. Never had to think about that, honestly. I market the place for $x. It's going to remain $x whether a single person or a family of 4 moves in. But maybe others do this differently. Also, my tenants pay for water and electricity, so the parts where you do notice more people is taken care of by the tenant, not me.

Just for the sake of it: since tenant is not giving landlord numbered bills which tenant is expecting to receive back exactly the same and nor is the landlord required to give back the "exact same thing" (because, with cash/money, there is no such thing) one could, technically, have money of tenant A in the "general security deposit account" and also the money from tenant B and so on. And then simply give back $x to tenant A from the (big) security deposit pool. No need to have separate accounts for each unit. And I go one further even: as long as landlord is able to repay the security deposit to the tenant then no one will ever question the source of that payment. It could have come from the landlord's private account or from him selling his yacht or take it out of the rental income of another unit that he has etc etc. Would that be legal? Absolutely not. Would it at least be clever? Obviously not as it is illegal and is (also therefore, of course) exposing the landlord to a high risk and could quickly turn into a ponzi scheme. Because, you know, Murphy's law...

What @Mike Cumbie described is what I would call "best practice", especially when looking at this from a "proper book keeping" point of view. Run a clean ship and you will avoid unnecessary hassles. Jm5c.