All Forum Posts by: Andy D.

I require all tenants to have renter's insurance with me as the additional insured. At least where I am actually the landlord (personally). It just occurred to me that I need to check with my Property Manager how this is handled for leases where I use an LLC and he signs all the paperwork on behalf of the LLCs as their agent.
@Curtis Bidwell

@Curtis Bidwell You say that your LLCs are insured by commercial policies. My question would have been: can I even add an LLC as additional insured on a renters policy?? I figure that ought to be a natural person, rather than an entity?

With respect to the commercial policy: would you mind elaborating a bit on that, possibly?

@Blake Meester Yeah, that. I keep saying, it all depends on what people want/care about and, not forget that, what legally works.

The only time I advertised a property that was not yet mine was when I bought it from the developer who had just finished building it. And even then I had seen the unit and knew what needed to be done to get it ready for renting it out. And it was, obviously, uninhabited.

Unless you are absolutely certain that the place is "rent-out ready" I would not advertise it (with what kind of pictures would you do that anyway?), not to mention do anything beyond that. If the owner tracks his property this could backfire.

Either way, you want to communicate about this with the owner. If he owner-occupies and the unit is basically empty because he already packed up all his stuff then he might not have an issue with you coming in and taking pictures to use for advertising (he is, after all, trying to sell the place to you and wants to get rid of it). However, if he's in the process of packing and moving, heck, I wouldn't want anyone jumping around my place during that time taking pictures of that mess to then post it online! No, Sir! And the same applies if the unit is rented - do not bother the tenants! And in addition there's the questions, in that case, why you would need to advertise if it's already rented.

So in short: depends on the individual situation (as always) and generally I'd say, don't do it and if at all only a few days prior to scheduled closing.

@Rachel Pivonka All these bits and pieces of information you have now provided do make the overall picture look better as far as I'm concerned.

But it also means that there is a likelihood that a) she will remain the sole tenant (nothing wrong with that apparently) and b) that there will be a good chance of her leaving fairly soon/breaking the lease. Because if he indeed does not move due to him not finding a new job in your town then - as they plan on getting married - she will probably try to move closer to where his work is (if that is even practically possible). Or they break up...

Anyway, if you would take her as sole tenant then why not go ahead. Just make sure that you make it very clear that should he plan on moving in that this is subject to your approval and therefore him going through the application process. Also, maybe M2M makes sense if you're ready to deal with potential turnover fairly soon. This would also benefit them and let you get rid of "them" quickly if need be. You probably should follow your gut with this one.

@Chris Mason I'm with you on that one! Although, technically, she's not really retired. ; -) Anyway: why do people (well, banks, really) focus so much on income from jobs?? I am lucky enough to have a very good one but the fact that I've been with the company for many years - what exactly does that prove with respect to me being  able to keep that job in the future?? I could call my boss an, uhm, "very unpleasant person" and get fired and then what? I tell you "then what": it boils down to the fact whether I have money or not. Not whether I make money. Should the money I have also make money (e.g. dividends) then even better but the bottom line is, as one lovely person once asked me: "Do you have money or do you have to work?"

That really says it all. ;-)

So coming back to the retired folks: guess what, they have worked all their lives (let's assume that, for the sake of it) and have accumulated more or less wealth that now, coming from various sources most likely, generates a flow of income. What else do you want? Because, really, the goal of an investor-landlord is to get the rent (and for you as a lender to get your interest and ultimtely money back). I couldn't care less whether this is coming from the tenant getting prizes on dog shows for their poodle or from hard work they does himself. As long as that poodle-prize-winning potential tenant shows me their bank statements that show some reasonable money in them I'd probably be happy (with no red flags otherwise, of course). Could the tenant-to-be spend all that money tomorrow on a new super-poodle and have nothing left for rent? Sure. Just like an employee can get fired. Actually, you know what, I'd prefer that poodle-prize-winning tenant-to-be as he (she?) would be totally in love with the poodle and would do everything to keep it! If I get a judgment against them I could possibly get possession of that valuable poodle and auction it off at a poodle-lover auction! The person would never allow that and rather pay up. Ha! (and no, I'm not being entirely serious here ;- ) ).

@Robin Cox We are in the business of making money. Don't be stupid by on-boarding everyone you come across but also don't be stupid by excluding perfectly fine opportunities (= good tenants) simply because they don't have a W-2 (there was another thread about a trust kiddy; I'd jump on that immediately if it were me in the context of financial security - but the kid of course needs to otherwise be a viable tenant, which, uhm, sometimes can be the main issue ;-) ).

So with retired folks we as landlords actually are in an even better position when looking at "job security": you can't get fired from your retiree "job"! SS will pay as long as you live and so will, typically, pension plans. So just like @Account Closed said, have him provide you with proof of income/wealth. Anything he will present, that will corroborate the above, should satisfy you, I'm pretty sure about that. Good luck!

@Account Closed But, but... it's looove!!

And yet another sad story of how a female potential talent (hey, I'm trying to give her some credit!) is going to go to waste because some deadbeat guy takes advantage and the woman is naive enough to fall for it. Too bad.

And now I need to think about a way to make this post relevant for BP and most preferably even related to this thread or at least the forum we're posting in... hhm. Give me a second here... I'm getting there... oh, yeah: @ALL, don't get tenants of such sort/in that kind of situation in their life! And if it feels funny, stay away. This is not social work or some kind of charity, at least not this particular part. We're doing some sort of charitable work here, I believe, be it only trying to help others out here on BP. But a charity still needs to be able to sustain itself. ;-) Again, I digress...

@Account Closed Oh, why you so negatiiiv?? ;-) No, seriously, I couldn't have said it any better.

@Rachel Pivonka: Do you know the song "Don't pay the Ferryman" by Chris de Burgh? One of the refrains in there is "Don't do it!".

Enough said.

@Naseer Khan Right, especially since the attorny - at least this is my plan - is licensed in the state where the trust is supposed to be settled anyway. So that wouldn't be an issue either way.

And with respect to my actual question: I am well aware that I need someone licensed in the state where the trust is supposed to be set up and for which he is tasked to draft any legal documents. That's why I'm looking for one in UT - or, really, any other state where land trusts are (more) common.

I shall therefore rephrase my question:

Does anybody can refer me to a lawyer in the US that can draft legal docs for a land trust while also being located in a jurisdiction where setting up such a land trust is common? However, UT would be preferred, yet not required. Thanks BP world! :-)

@Marcus Tanner  What you are trying to get answered here is, really, a question for a suitable lawyer. AFAIAC you shouldn't be looking for this at a place like BP as your sister needs to be sure about what her rights are. I couldn't answer it, for sure, and others will give you this answer and then another one that answer and so on. Actually, have her contact HUD. They should know their own rules and should be able to answer this in no time.

@Richard Nguyen Yeah, the whole "not an issue we always do it like that" thing is great as long as it indeed does remain "like that". ;-) There is a first time for everything. Then again, in all practicality, why on planet earth would a bank call a loan if everything is a) fine and b) still have the same person on the hook that they vetted at the beginning (see above, no quitclaim will change the fact you are personally liable for the loan; disclaimer: IAMNA(US)L, maybe there is indeed a difference!). That would not be a reasonable business decision AFAIAC. But then again, we are talking about banks here *cough* mortgage-backed securities anyone *cough*

Re "foreign": well, not exactly foreign (that would be outside the US) but only out of state. The US is very much a federal system in the sense that each state makes the rules, unless there is a federal rule that (allowed by the [federal] constitution) trumps the state rule(s). Best example is the IRC which is a federal law. But every state has their state tax code in addition as well. But I digress...