All Forum Posts by: Landon Elscott

It was already signed.  The landlord sent them a presigned lease my parents were to sign and send back.

I had my parents copy it after putting their signature on it, as at thst point it was binding.

Yes, their old lease expired and they were sent a new lease by the new company.

The plan was originally for them to transition into a month to month tenancy at an additional cost until they moved into a house; however, when they received the new lease they decided the incentives of snow removal and mowing at their age and health and the water bill was a bonus would be a good incentive to stick around awhile longer and sign the year long lease and not expedite their purchase of a home.  Of course that locked them in for a year.

But now, if they dont want to honor this new lease, they'd rather not wait until next year for the lease to expire to purchase a home and would rather see about moving out in October or November.  

The reason they have to wait minimum until October is because their home flooded with 9' of water in the basement several years ago in an area that wasnt considered a flood plain.  That has since changed and new flood maps have been updated to reflect potential risk of flooding where they used to live.  Since the area wasnt considered a flood risk, their options without insurance were limited and they opted to do a Deed In Lieu of Foreclosure since the damage was so extensive and move out of the area.  They are preapproved to buy again, but under writers want them to wait a minimum amount of time from the signing of the Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure.

The management doesn't want to provide reasoning, only just reinforce that my parents can either discard the new lease and go with the old lease (resigned for the new year) or move out sith 30 days notice.

Due to the lack of reasoning, I assume what occured is that at least their duplex was sent a lease meant to be for their apartment buildings where they do intend to include mowing and snow removal and water bill. 

So, I'm asking a question on the flip side on behalf of my parents who are tenants.

I just want to get some 3rd party feedback.

My parents have been renting a duplex unit for roughly 3 years I believe without incident, and recently recieved a new lease - presumably from a new and larger company that manages several large apartments in addition to the sum of duplexes they bought up in the neighborhood.

Old lease, they were responsible for their own utilities, mowing and snow removal.

New lease says landlord pays 80% of water bill, provides mowing and snow removal.  So my dad signed the lease and then sent it back and called a day later to inquire about how to handle the water bill now since it is in my parents name.  Got transferred multiple times before being told theyd receive a call back.

Property manager calls and says, the new lease doesnt replace the old lease and if they dont like it, they can give 30 days notice to vacate.

Unfortunately, my parents are preapproved to buy a house sometime in October or November.  So moving out in August isnt ideal.

My understanding is there is a new lease and the old lease is null and void.  The new company is responsible for the utilities and yard, and if that was a flub thats on them.  There is a signed contract with both parties suggesting this is the case per the lease.

I told my dad at this point, dont sign anything new but just keep following the terms of the old lease until we get it resolved.  I feel like they are strong arming them, but when I send a tenant a lease and sign it I do under the understanding that it is fact.

Can they retroactively take this court?  Assuming they buy a house in October, should they just wait to make a stink about it then and see if they get offered a 30 day move out again.  I hesitate to have them play the witholding rent game, especially without even sending the property management a written compliance notice zo should they just send one each month until theyve lined up a place to live.

Thanks!

You're her only debt and she successfully filed bankruptcy with a stable income?

How much does she owe?

It just seems hard to believe someone could successfully file bankruptcy for a single debt given a stable employment.  I'm under the impression there is more to the story of her financial situation, either that or the amount of rent she owes is one substantial sum of money that justified the judge ruling.

That depends upon how the Passive Activity Loss rules apply to you.

Rental properties are often considered a passive activity by the IRS, and depending upon your non-passive (ie. wages, salary), may or may not only be applied toward passive aactivitie with a maximum deduction of $25,000 per year.

If you make over $150,000 in non passive income, your passive activity loss can only be applied toward passive activity income.

If you make under $100,000 in non passive activities, you can deduct the full $25,000 in passive activity losses against your non passive income. 

From $100,000 to $150,000, you can deduct losses from passive activities but its phased oug at $.50 per dollar.

Keep in mind, too, losses can be carried forward.  So if you meet the max and still had additional losses or even if you can't deduct them from your non-passive activities, you can use them in the future when you do have a loss - such as adding a roof or major repair.

I'm going to simply suggest you do additional research on Passive Activity Losses or perhaps someone else will chime in.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Rehabilitation-Tax-Credit-Real-Estate-Tax-Tips

Here's the link I as reading, but it doesn't really make sense to me, but I figured if I was Denton out a house for income that's basically self employment and might qualify base upon age of the house for repairs I make each year...or is it only for major renovations.

Yesterday, I read about a Rehabilitation Tax Credit that provides what appears to be a 10% tax credit for restoration and rehabilitation costs do properties built prior to 1936 or a 20% credit foe those that are certified historic structures - such as on some sort o historic registry.

I have a rental home built in 1920.  While its not a certified historic building by any means, I was just curious if due to the build date it might still qualify when used as a rental property.  Certainly, I can already deduct repair expenses, but assuming I was able to qualify, would I take the expense deduction plus the credit?  

Just wanting some more information as to what pre-1936 buildings qualify.

I appreciate the replies, including the PMs I received.

I think in the back of my mind, I knew it wasn't going to be that easy, but you never know until you ask questions...

Beyond just the complexity of the situation, regardless of the risks, the other problem I foresee is that the "predatory" nature that might be construed from this could shine a negative light on my real estate rental business as a whole.  Certainly, I'd love to find addition streams of income and intriguing ways to make money, but the more I consider this the more I think I don't want to sacrifice a reputation I'm looking to achieve as a fair, just and ultimately profitable landlord because I was trying to pull off some sort of loan sharking scheme...so I think I'll just look into simpler options for getting a kick back in there.  

The company that owns the property, while initially I thought was just considering contract selling, actually looks to be focused on contract selling only.  Once I looked more into their terms, they were only offering reasonable terms for owner occupied and basically set the interest charges too high for investor contracts to make it reasonable...it appears their whole business is just contracting out to subprime borrowers.

Buildium is also a consideration.

Although, their fees like Appfolio at least, tend to push out the small portfolio guys like me.