I'm sure everyone here as some version of this story...I'm wondering if anyone has some feedback for my specific case. I'll try to keep it short (ish)!
I'm posting this as my PM and I have different thoughts on approaching this situation, so that makes me scratch my head.
I have tenant that I've inherited that is challenging.
They have been in the property over 4 years, prior to purchasing. Rents were below market. House needed a lot of work. We started exterior work as soon as possible to keep water incursion from happening, fixed roof issues, etc, all with very minimal impact on the tenants. Previous PM was terrible at managing the owners' interests, from what I could see, and owners hadn't been doing anything much to keep up the property. No issues with the tenant paying rent, from the information I have, and that hasn't been a problem since I've owned the property.
We gave 90 day notice to increase rents, and that we were going to do some remodeling on the interior of their unit, as part of that notice, and we sent the tenant a new lease to review (tenant has been MTM for awhile) as part of this process.
The tenant flipped out, and has let us know that they are unhappy in so many ways, they won't pay a higher rent, etc. I'll spare the details of long emails and voice mails that they have sent threatening us with all sort of legal action, etc. if we do anything to work on the unit that disturbs their well-being, or do anything that seems retaliatory. So, I've pretty much stayed away from the property, and once we had completed the essential work, I've held off on everything else.
My PM is great at doing things by the book, so we are all in the clear in the approach taken in regards to Tenant/Landlord law, notice provided, etc.
And along the way in the past few months, the tenant informed us they had no intent to stay, without providing any specific notice they were vacating.
My PM kept checking in as we got closer to the end of the 90 days to see what they were signing or moving out, without any response. Finally, two days ago, the tenant informs us they are moving out, that they have purchased a house, and it's going to close in the middle of July. The tenant asked if they could stay until the middle of the month until the deal on the house closes. They also insisted (this is the typical MO), that they didn't want to pay any more than their current rate to stay those 15 days. The tenant didn't give enough notice, so I know technically we have no obligations to extend unless the tenant chooses to sign the lease we've already provided.
My initial thought was that this was good news, and that the extra 15 days is not a big deal as opposed to some long drawn out contentious situation. Whether the rent was the new rent or the old rent was a negotiable topic to me, as long as we were set on the 15 days. I really can't do anything to the unit, until they move out, and that does provide some challenges, but in my mind a small price to pay to move on, and have a chance to start working on the property.
The issue is this...
My PM thinks the tenant is completely lying (they definitely has made some statements to me that are patently untrue so I do know they are manipulative) or that it's likely the sale will not go through. My PM is really insisting it's more likely the former.
The PM thinks the best course of action is to stick with what we offered the tenant - the tenant hasn't given notice so they either sign the new lease or leaves come July, regardless of what else is or isn't going on in their life. The PM thinks it isn't real, or unlikely to happen, and we'll be in a gray area of a hold-over tenant that could continue to manipulate the situation to their advantage, and make this whole process even more of a nightmare.
One thing - I've done my homework, and the tenant does appear to be not shy of getting contentious. There are multiple public instances of them pursuing legal action. I know we have proceeded correctly, but still I don't see any reason to get into a battle even if you're going to win, if the battle can be avoided in the first place.
My thought was to provide with some sort of written extension of the current month to month for 15 days, then change the date on the new lease for the 16th of July. Kick the can down the road if the tenant is really lying or it falls through, and hopefully not leave us in a weaker position, and if they are telling the truth, then great, the problem is resolved. I think the paperwork could be clear, but the PM thinks it could create issues.
I'd appreciate any thoughts from anyone on how they might approach this situation. Perhaps there is a more creative solution?
Thanks for reading my (short) version of my nightmare tenant.
