All Forum Posts by: Amy Shari

Thank you so much Joel for the reply back. Toilet and wax seal were installed one year and three months ago...brand new everything. Will go over your message and check everything as you stated. Thanks again for the reply and info.

Not true at all. They are sweet older lovely people. The man is funny and friendly and the woman is a crafter, just like my mother was. Please remember on the Internet you cannot get the inflection and tone of a person...if you could get mine you would see I think they are neato.

Even so, the fact of the matter is that a repair like this could be costly if I needed to do it several times in a year. Again, I am asking what would you do if you determined the repair was not caused by something I am responsible for.

For instance, I had a tenant that never washed their dishes before putting them in the dishwasher...she also deep fried everything...after a time the drain got clogged with grease....I refused to pay for the bill from the plumber and told them if they didn't clear the grease off the plates that this would happen again and again. I own one property and the rent covers the monthly expenses (mortgage, insurance, taxes, water, trash, sewer bill) and that is it. After that there is a whopping $100 to play with. I can't make repairs that are not my fault. I just don't have the money.

This is the question I was asking about.

Well, I guess that could be so, however, my understanding is that if the bolts holding the toilet to the floor are not tightened down or wrenched loose and the toilet now rocks...the wax ring/seal will be broken. Wax seal broken=water leaking from the base of the toilet.

Either way, I wasn't really asking about the repair issue or what the leak could be from....I am asking, if once I fix this issue at my expense and it happens again...which I think it will what do I do. I can't keep replacing something like this. What would you do if you were me? I am considering telling them the first wax ring (if that is what it is) is on me and then after that I have to assume that they are putting too much pressure on the toilet or rocking on the toilet to help themselves get up off of it and causing the damage.

I have also been told by a friend that they can purchase something called a riser that is like a very thick/high toilet seat that allows them to sit down on it without sitting too far down but again that would be a purchase they would have to make and should not be an expense that I need to incur. Please tell me what you would do if you were in my place/what you would say to the tenants if you were in my place to prevent yourself from having to make this same repair over and over again.

My new tenants have moved in now as of one week ago. They are both older, have a hard time walking around, both morbidly obese, and the male is recovering from heart surgery.

Prior to them moving in, my daughter and I spent the summer in the house, probably two out of the three months, while I fixed it up and tried to rent it out. We lived there and any issues that I noticed were repaired immediately. When they moved in, a week ago, there were zero issues.

Today, they phoned to say that there is water leaking from the base of the toilet. Of course, I know it is the wax ring. But the whole toilet, and wax ring was replaced exactly one year and three weeks ago.

I suspect that the toilet/wax ring could not handle the 300+ pounds of the male..and that in the process of him trying to get up from the toilet, which is pretty low as it is a cheaper model,the bolts were wrenched loose a bit and the wax ring broken.

I of course will replace it but here is the rub....if a fully functioning toilet with an intact wax ring was damaged due to the extra weight...a new one will also get damaged...I cannot replace this thing every other week...it is not due to neglect that it is breaking but due to the extra pressure. What all would you do?

So this is a question for John or anyone who understands the benefits of renting to people on a month-to-month basis.

I know that there are people who do this but it confuses me. I assume the benefits are that if you discover they are not suitable residents that you can be done with them quickly, by giving them notice.

Of course, this implies that they do not hold over. Because then you would be back in an eviction situation. So this might work best with tenants who have less than stellar credit but are not saddled with any evictions, right?

So, leases are best for most tenants with reasonable credit and income, since you want to keep them around and the lease creates a positive cash flow stream that can be counted on.

Month-to-month is best for questionable tenants with credit issues and possibly other issues but no evictions to their name. This way if you start to have issues with a tenant, say loud parties, late rent, etc., you can be done with them fairly quickly and easily without being tied to them via a lease.

But once that person has an eviction they have shown that they will hold over and put you in the position of evicting them, while they live in your property for free. At this point, having a lease or not having a lease is a moot point...since the tenant in question isn't abiding by a whole slew of agreements they have made.

Does that seem right? Any other good reasons for having the month to month vs. long term lease that anyone can think of? I kind of want to get an idea in my mind of what situation I should offer a tenant based on where they fall in the prospective tenant spectrum.

Thanks in advance for all advice and feedback.

I think you make a very valid point. If someone can't pay the rent I think that at least the honorable thing to do is move....leave. Allow the landlord to re rent the property as fast as possible. If that means you get to put your stuff in storage and live in your car till you can get right again so be it. I have been in hard financial situations and have done some crazy things to survive that DID NOT include living somewhere for free while someone else footed the bill. Thank you for your feedback.

Sorry if I am confusing people. I guess I wasn't clear. I am not in any way trying to steer them to another property. I don't intend on giving them housing advice. I was just trying to get in the frame of mind of the tenants. Let's just forget about that part..it was a two minute internal dialogue I had with myself...and you all here on Biggerpockets.

So anyway, you would not consider the co-signer as long as there had been an earlier eviction...is that what you are saying?

Sorry it came across that way. Part of my process when I am not sure what to do is that I "put myself in their shoes" to determine if I think they are acting in a financially responsible fashion.

For instance, in my situation, I didn't have a two bedroom apartment till I was 27. I just couldn't afford it, and I made more than them, and this was many years ago...don't ask me to tell you how many. : ) It is not about trying to judge them but more about trying to determine if what they are asking for is beyond their reach.

The father in this young couple has had an eviction in the last three years. He has two jobs but one he just got (the second one) and the first one he has only had for a year. They are not married and I have had boyfriend girlfriend tenants that broke up and then one left leaving the other holding the bag and then they couldn't pay.

I want to reiterate...I would absolutely have refused them if they did not show up with a co-signer. This is due to the short work history, the past eviction, the lack of credit history or landlord recommendations for the mother. I am just now trying to figure out if I should accept them with a co-signer.

Also, I would love to hear what experienced landlords would do in this case? Rent to them or decline them?

Hi there!

So I have a new applicant for my small house in a blue collar neighborhood. It is a very young couple with a child. Because of their lack of credit history (hers) and previous credit issues (his) I told them within a few minutes that I would not be able to rent to them.

They asked if I would consider a co-signer and I said I had never considered doing that before and I would have to think about it and of course it would require the co-signer to have excellent credit.

They came back with the young girl's Big Brothers/Big Sisters mentor that has known her since the age of eight. This woman and her husband have impeccable credit. They have been married over forty years, owned their own house for 36 years, he has worked at the same job for 29 years and makes over $60,000. This older couple has agreed to co-sign for the younger couple on this lease. I am torn over what to do.

The younger couple both have jobs (he has two jobs) and their income to rent ratio falls under 30%. But I am wondering if the older couple are making a mistake.

I look at the younger couple and think that if I was them I would be living in a small one bedroom apartment and just dealing with it...saving up money etc..which would be in this neighborhood about $675...instead of looking at my two bedroom house (800sq feet) at $850.

I would love to hear experiences you all have had with co-signers good and bad.