All Forum Posts by: Brandon Snyder

So I'm in the process of getting my real estate license here in California.  I studied and UCLA Extension for nine months, and passed the exam on the first try.  All that's left is to get my fingerprints back from the Livescan place, and send them off to Sacramento.

I'd like to start off as a salaried assistant, but I've been looking on the job sites, and all of them demand years of experience.  How do I get past this hurdle?

I can't afford to jump right into real estate sales.  Even if I worked to the limit of human endurance, it would take me at least three months (probably more) before I close my first deal.  Until then, I won't be making any money, and would have to find another way to support myself, and I just don't have the energy to pull 12-16 hour days.

But if I could land a salaried assistant position, I could earn more than what I make now, build up some capital, learn more about the business, and then transition into real estate sales.

But how do I get past the "must have experience" hurdle?

Thanks,

Brandon

The lease has expired.  It's now month to month, so I can leave with a 30-day notice.  So yeah, I can bounce.  I just wanted to know who to talk to if this guy escalates his nonsense.

What do I do if I come home one day, and I find all my stuff on the side of the street?  What should I do then?  Who do I go to then?

What should I do if my landlord threatens with menace?  Who do I talk to?

I have a room for rent in a house with one other roommate, and I got a crazy landlord, who also lives there, who is an out of control alcoholic.  I made a comment asking if the washing machine is fixed or replaced, and he starts yelling at me, and I thought he was about to attack me.  Obviously, the best course of action is to leave, but for future reference, who do I talk to about a menacing landlord?  Behavior towards tenants like that is illegal.

Because I learned it last night in my property management class at UCLA.  We had a guest speaker who is an eviction attorney, and this subject came up in our discussion. 

But this is California law.  I don't know how it is in Maryland.  No other state in the country protects the tenant more than California, or so I'm told.

I was thinking of things that the landlord may not like, but cannot evict her for. 

I know for a fact that since the landlord has done nothing about her three dogs, and knew about it since the day she brought them over (because he is also the grounds keeper and has seen them) he cannot evict her for that since it's been so long since, and has been accepting rent.  I just learned that if landlords see something a tenant is not supposed to be doing, he/she has to complain to that tenant IMMEDIATELY or else the landlord is abiding.

But what if the landlord and my sister get into an argument, and he didn't like what she had to say.  Can he evict her for that?

My sister has a rental property in Orange County, California, and she's worried about her landlord one day feeling contrary and serving her an eviction notice for having three dogs (even though she has had three dogs for more than 6 months and he's never served her any warnings or notices at all).

Still, she worries that one day he could be feeling contrary, and serve her an eviction notice for whatever he wants. 

What are some reasons a landlord CAN'T evict a tenant for?

escrow costs are a small percentage of the purchasing price, right? 

So if a house costs $565,000 and escrow charges 0.8%, escrow costs $4,520, right?

Okay, so the second buyer is now eligible for the house.  So assuming that the seller's and the second buyer's names are on the purchase agreement, the second buyer is obligated to complete the transaction with the seller (if all contingencies can be fulfilled).

Hey everyone, thank you so much for all the help you've given me.  I hope I can give some back when I become more knowledgeable.  So I got a question for you:

In the state of California, a seller accepts an offer from a second buyer and notifies the first buyer under a release clause. The first buyer decides to remove the sale of buyer's property contingency. What happens? (underline time sequence and make time line if necessary)

A. The seller and first buyer will complete the transaction, assuming the buyer can still come up with a downpayment

B. The good faith deposit will be refunded to the first buyer

C. The second buyer will then be obligated to complete the transaction with the seller

D. The second buyer will be entitled to purchase the property only if she has made a good faith deposit

I'm torn between C and D.