All Forum Posts by: Dennis Day

 Well, the issues are many.

First, as another user mentioned, there is the issue of whether I can trust the original tenant. Plus, if someone has moved in, I have a right to know who is living in my buildings. To that end, I owe it to the other tenants in the same building to know who is in my buildings, and, more to the point, have them pass a background check- the same as any other applicant.

Then there is the issue of parking. This possible new move-in has a vehicle that must now be accounted for, and room made for.

Add to all that that this possible new tenant is now using water, and, more to the point, hot water, which I am paying for. These are added expenses that I did not factor in to the original lease. Will this new tenant run the spigot in the driveway for three hours washing his car? Who knows. The point is, unless this new tenant never washes his car or takes a shower, there are going to be added costs involved with this possible new tenant. 

And these are just the factors I've come up with off the top of my head. I am sure there are plenty of others. Here are a few more worries:  a new person in the building only adds to the likelihood of one more body possibly tripping and falling down the steps, or slipping in the bathtub and resulting in an ambulance trip to the ER.

So, the added worries are many. I think it is only sound policy to know who is in the building, living full time. I can't be the only one who would raise an eyebrow upon seeing a new, hitherto unknown person who has suddenly become attached to the building in some unknown, quasi-manner.

I have a tenant who's otherwise been the average tenant: generally pays on time, and is overall fairly average. However, I wouldn't put it past him to try to pull the wool over my eyes. Anyway, I suspect that this tenant has allowed a newly-acquired boyfriend to move in, against the lease, which stipulates that just the tenant is to reside in the apartment.

The other more senior residents in the building have seen this new boyfriend practically on a daily basis, coming and going, for about two weeks now. If it look and sounds like a duck, chances are, it's a duck, so my suspicion is I have a new resident in one of my properties that has snuck in under the radar.

Since I can't live at my properties 24/7, is there any way I can find out for sure whether I do, indeed, have an unauthorized dweller?

I've asked the current tenant in question, and he swears up and down that he is living alone, despite the observations of the other more senior tenants living in the same building.

I do have security cameras in place, but even those are inconclusive, as the tenants often remove the memory chips in them that record the activity.

Is there any way to find out for certain, save actually camping outside the front door with a pen and notepad writing down who comes and goes?

Anyone else being required by law to offer alternatives to the age-old security deposit dilemma? A new Cincinnati ordinance is now requiring landlords with 25+ units to offer some other alternative to the standard security deposit, and I am sure such is the case in other locales.

Does anyone have any experience with this type of insurance? I did a google search, but didn't find too many outlets offering security deposit insurance. To those who offer this alternative to their prospective tenants, who are you using as an insurer?

Any thoughts/ reviews/ raves/ insights/ dislikes on these types of insurance plans, whether good, bad or ugly?

To be clear, I am not talking about common everyday renter's insurance.

A police report was obtained, and it did shed a very narrow beam of light on the manner. Three charges were initially assessed against the tenant, two of which apparently were dropped shortly thereafter, according to the tenant's sister. This sister also maintains that the third charge is the pivotal charge, which may likely be reduced to reflect that of a self-defensive nature. Still waiting to hear how this one plays out before I make any decision.

Yeah, I don't want the media spotlight: "A landlord is under scrutiny for evicting a tenant over the legal self-defense use of a firearm..."

The tenant was arrested, by the police. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for the facts to be known before making any move on a decision that affects the tenancy.

Had an incident recent whereby a tenant, who possessed a handgun, used it in an altercation at a property I own. Now, while I would never disallow anyone his Constitutional rights, I'm still in a quandary as to whether or not this use of one constitutes a lawful right to evict.

While the details of the incident are still murky- the police are doing their follow-up investigating- there is some initial possible weight to the tenant's use of a gun for self-defense. After all, the person who was shot by my tenant did come to my tenant's residence for some as of yet unknown purpose. An argument ensued, followed by possible physical use, which resulted in the use of a handgun.

My tenant's girlfriend and their 1-year old toddler were all present during this altercation. I have few other facts to go on at the moment, but the notion that this may have been an act of self-defense is still tugging at me.

Certainly there are endless other means to end an argument that don't involve the use of a handgun, but such was not the case in this incident.

If it were me in this situation, and if it was a case of self-defense (and if the police work lent credence to this), I certainly wouldn't want to face eviction for something I have every right to do.

I don't intend to make any decisions as to what to do with this tenancy until I hear back from the final investigation report as to what exactly happened. I've spoken to some of the neighbors, most of whom saw what happened, but, as often happens to be the case, if you ask ten witnesses what happened, you'll get ten different stories.

What do you all think?