All Forum Posts by: Landon Elscott

Well, I know complete radiant systems are very expensive, but I had found this system that seemed like it might be affordable. Requires a single saw cut under the area you want to melt, which and then a line of the heating element. Seemed to install like an invisible fence I could do myself.

http://www.warmquest.com/products-snow-melting.php

My justification was that while the initial investment might be a $1000-1500 or so, it'd pay for itself since a plow and truck are several thousand and it could $25-50 for professional show removal on each snow storm. As far as the monthly cost, you bring up a great point and really the reason I was curious about monthly costs associated. Potentially, once it had paid for itself, I could credit tenants a certain amount per snow and still be cheaper than professional removal.

It was just an idea though. Most likely, they can just grab a shovel!

Recently looked at an absolutely beautiful home, and priced extremely well, too. That said, its major flaw is a steep driveway coming off a main street road without on street parking.

During the summer, this isn't such a concern as there is a one car garage and space for one car in front of garage, too. However, during the winter (as I learned myself), you just can't get up the drive - especially if tenants fail to clear snow or let the snow get packed down. Had someone snow blowed it'd probably be alright, but what about coming home from work after a big snow storm...I just envision potential clients pointing this out or existing clients complaining a lot in hindsight.

On thought I had, to potentially eliminate a tenants stress is to install radiant electric heat along the tire paths up the drive. At the very least, tenants would be able to get up to the garage, eliminating the headaches of complaints, necessity to plow, and perhaps make it ideal for elderly.

Just curious of the cost such system might be, especially for do it yourselfer in comparison to a pro. The Heatizon system I saw went about surface deep into existing concrete and then sealed. Seemed easy enough with a concrete saw and some basic wiring knowledge.

What do you think? Granted, I could probably just say its the tenants problem if they can get up the drive, but with no on street parking there's really no where for a tenant to go if they can't get up the drive and it can't be blocked as its an egress for neighbors.

For $600, I'm doing the vast majority of the work myself. I've been fortunate enough to know a lot of people in the landscaping business and my father-in-law owns a skid loader. There is no off street parking as you noted, and because it's a shared drive way I can foresee very limited space. My objective is to have a space for 1 vehicle in the garage, 1 vehicle in front of the garage door, and then lay a secondary pad aside the existing pad enough for one car to park in front of the house.

The garage maintenance and driveway is shared, unfortunately. That said, there is a dividing wall down the middle of the garage so tenant belongings aren't accessible by the neighbors. The landlord next door owns multiple properties around town and they are all well maintained as necessary. He doesn't go above and beyond, but if the garage needs new shingles for instance, he has the capital and I'm confident would not be opposed.

Honestly, 1st Avenue is really the "main drag" through town so it is fairly busy, but there are just about as many homes on the road as there are businesses in that particular area and from inside the house it is very quiet. The backyard is also quite large, with a storage shed, and is completely fenced in. We have a severe rental housing demand in town, so I feel very confident that like the house next door we could get $700. Most of the 2 bedroom, 1 bath home in town do go for about $600, but I've walked through many of them as a potential tenant and they are very subpar and lack of the amenities, garage space, etc.

Here's the listing with pics, and I'll admit these aren't deceiving. We've literally walked through about 100 different homes including looking at our own personal home at $83,000 and so many of them were so deceiving online.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1224-1st-Ave-E-Newton-IA-50208/86982693_zpid/

So, my wife and I made our first offer on a potential rental property and the seller has accepted. Being that this is my first property, I figured I'd post up the details and see if I could get some feedback. At this point, the purchase is contingent upon a financing, acceptable inspection, and the city allowing us to excavate beside the driveway to create at least one addition parking spot as one of the main down falls is that it is a shared garage (with dividing wall) and driveway.

That said, we have a purchase price of $38,500 locked in so long as everything goes as planned. The prior owners purchased it as a rental property a couple years ago for $60,000 and actually had it successfully rented out, but they live about 2 hours away and were unable to manage it successfully resulting in it being trashed. One of my concerns is that the prior owners are willing to take such a huge loss on the property considering they want it to be an investment, but the broker assured us that it's been sitting on the market for quite awhile, they're unable to properly manage it from so far away, and the real estate market in the area is slow - so they've been aggressively priced to sell.

Anyways, the house just next door to the east (the yellow one) is a very comparable property detail wise, but not quite as nice and it currently is leased out for $700 per month. Because it's a shared driveway, one of my contingencies is for the city to allow me to add at least one new parking spot - roughly a $600 is what I've been estimated plus any retaining wall. One of the major benefits is it as on the main drag of town, so basically anyone and everyone in town is going to drive by this place.

Here's some details on the property. First some tax information.

http://beacon.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=325&LayerID=3398&PageTypeID=4&PageID=2264&Q=1023740063&KeyValue=0835102033

And now a map of the property.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.69918,-93.037245,3a,37.5y,1.89h,89.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sebRxq-9wUPR_rx0i-2cw0w!2e0!6m1!1e1

So, what do you all think. I still have some contingencies to back out, so if anyone thinks it looks like an absolute bad investment let me know.

Well, both my wife and I are capable of handling the mortgage without income from it, I just thought maybe if I was able to find a potential tenant in advance for it, we could have everything ready to go and the tenant moved in just shortly after closing.

Essentially, I'd be saying to a potential tenant "I'm currently working on purchasing a property that fits your needs. Let me show you it and if you like it, you can sign a contract now for a year lease to take possession as soon as I close on it. But if the deal falls through, this contract is void, but at least you're locked in and guaranteed this house if I purchase it."

In our local area, we have a Facebook group specifically for people looking for rentals and landlords looking to rent. The demand on that group is very high and it appears that at least for that particular page, there are far more people looking to rent than offering housing.

This brings me to my question as I look for financing my first property. Let's assume, I see a person looking for a 2 bedroom home at $700 a month and hoping to move in sometime in the next couple months.

I just happen to be looking at such a property and aiming to purchase. Could I potentially sign a lease contract with a tenant on a property before I own it, pending my purchase of it? If its possible, then it would allow me to go to the bank with a signed year lease to say that I already have a tenant lined up and income lined up in advance and that could be benbeneficial.

If the financing is secured, the closing date occurs and the tenant moves in. I'd be sure to set the closing date a few days before tenant to take possession. If the deal falls through, then the lease contract is void. Is this possible?

Ah, perhaps I have misunderstood. I had seen this link: http://www.rentlaw.com/repairs/carpets.htm and perhaps did not read it correctly. I have read the Iowa rental laws and they really don't cover depreciation aspect of damages.

I mean, I guess in my head I questioned it, because it didn't quite seem right that someone could ruin property just because it was old and not be held responsible. I could see just about any tenant using that to their benefit, but obviously it was just confusion on the way I was interpreting it.

If that's the case though, why are Landlord's out there charging damages based upon depreciation as described in the first link?

Well, I've been snooping around on here for awhile and am in the process of learning everything I can know and being completely prepared as I make the transition into becoming a landlord. I haven't purchased anything yet or even made an attempt to, and am just learning the laws, tips and tricks, and trying to find what I feel will be a good investment using the information I've read here.

I understand the concept of depreciation; however, I'm a bit confused in terms of how it applies to tenant damages. For instance, tenants are required by law to only pay damages based upon the remaining life that the particular object has. So if a carpet has a life span of 7 years, and a tenant damages carpet with 3 years left on it, I can only assign them damages for those 3 remaining years.

But what about a situation where the carpet may have already fully depreciated, but in reality is still in really great shape. For instance, when I first got married, my wife and I rented an older farmhouse. The carpet was about 10 years old in one of the rooms and obviously outdated in style, but it was very well kept up and was in better condition than many of the other properties we looked at with carpet only 5 years old. That particular room had served as a formal dining area, and I'm assuming tenant probably rarely used it.

I would never have considered damaging the carpet, but what would have happened if my dog were to have chewed it up or if another tenant were to damage it in that property or any other that someday I may own. I mean, by all considerations the carpet was in excellent condition but would have technically past its lifetime and therefore seems to me as though it could be debated as to if a tenant were liable for any damages, under the provision that their damages would be less the amount that the carpet depreciated.

Say the carpet cost $500 when it was brand new and had a life of 5 years. Each year it depreciated $100 under straight line depreciation. So on the 6th year, if the tenant damages the carpetting, they'd be liable for $500 but then minus $500 from the 5 years of depriciation, meaning they wouldn't be liable for anything.

I appreciate all the help, including that from all the other posts I've been snooping on!!!