All Forum Posts by: Dave Friedman

Relatedly, does anyone have any insight into whether passive RE income will, under the new law, become subject to SE tax? I'm hearing conflicting things. (I own 4 rental properties, and am a sole proprietorship.)

Thanks!

Just to provide closure, because I'm sure no one will be able to sleep otherwise. :-D

PM called in one more company--more of a "real company" than the other two vendors; usually also more expensive.

This last company said the tree is in pretty good shape, and we're fine just getting rid of the offending branches. So, we're down from near $2k to a little over $500.

Thanks again for all your advice!

Thanks, everybody. Sorry for the late reply--it's turning out to be a crazy week.

@Michaela G.: That's not my understanding of the law, if the tree was a known hazard. (of course, ianal, but I'm looking at this kind of conservatively.)

@Matthew Paul: I'm tempted to agree with you, but I'm not sure that one necessarily follows the other. A lot of things might not happen over a period of time, but still be a hazard, so this seems like a hard avenue to pursue.

@David Dachtera: The same thing has crossed my mind, as well, and it's a large part of what I'm weighing right now.

@Account Closed: That was one of the first things I asked. :-) PM's response was that the tree seems to have deterioriated in the last two years.

My PM had a couple of tree-removal services come out to take a look at the tree, and one took specific pictures of where he feels the tree is especially sick. So now there's a record of one professional giving his opinion that the tree needs to go. I might be able to find an arborist who could give a contrary view, but I'm not sure where that would leave me in terms of liability, which I'd need to ask a lawyer about. By the time I've factored in the aggravation and expense involved with the lawyer and the arborist, I almost might as well just get the damn tree taken out.

Thanks for your thoughts, everybody.

Thinking some more about this...

@Ralph R.: I think you're making some good points. In this case, my broker was recommended by a trusted friend who's had multiple good experiences with him. I don't think he was the problem. But I think you've given me some good angles to think about. Thanks for that!

@Nicholas LaGatta: That's exactly why I'm keen to figure something out amicably. I'd rather preserve a good relationship. Of course, a relationship is a two-way street...

At the end of the day, my sense is that I don't have much recourse. Maybe finding out what an arborist would charge for a house call is the best next step.

@Account Closed: Thanks--that's a good point. I'm obviously at a disadvantage, being an OOS investor, though I guess I would have hoped that my agent would have picked up on it. 

Hi, all.

I recently bought my first property, on the outskirts of Atlanta. The property management company also acted as the selling agent in this transaction.

About a month after closing, the PM company advises me that they got a letter 2 years ago from someone living next door to my property. The neighbor's letter says that a tree on my property is endangering their home, and needs to be removed.

So it looks like the selling agent (or agency) was aware of this when they facilitated the sale, and they never disclosed it. Can anyone help me figure out some options? My initial sense is that the agent, whose company received this letter all the way back then, ought to be on the hook for this, but I'm also new to this whole thing. (I'm also keen to handle this amicably.)

I was just going to let it go, but the tree-removal quotes I've received are for nearly $2k (the whole damn house was only $60k--plus other rehab money I've already spent on it). 

Thanks for any insights! :-)

Thanks, @Taylor Brugna!

@Christopher Smith: I thought to use the simple, $5/square foot rule. Porch does have electricity (an outlet).

Anyway, sounds like no-go. :-)

Hi, all.

I can't find an answer to this anywhere--not just on BP, but by a wider Google--and would be grateful for any insight.

We own/live in a 2nd-floor condo, and have a large balcony that we don't use for anything. (We used to grill, but that got outlawed for our kind of setup. :-( ) But if we did use it for something--like a home office!--we could pretty much use it year-round. We're in a part of CA where the weather is pretty much always good enough to be outdoors, and it only rains a few days out of the year. (You may have heard about our drought.)

Can you think of a reason why we couldn't use this as a home office? I can't find anything in the IRS pubs about "it's gotta have a proper roof".

Thanks!

@JD Martin: But in this case, if I take the HE loan, aren't I increasing my leverage, but *also* keeping my cash reserves high?

@Alex Deacon: Thanks...that's crossed my mind, too. I may just end up there.

To be clear, even if we pay for the rehab out of pocket, we still have a pretty solid level of reserves (we could get through long stretches of both properties being vacant, and even unemployment at the same time--it would suck, but we could survive). So it's really more a question about most efficient use of capital, I guess. (Sorry, kind of thinking out loud. :-) )