All Forum Posts by: Heather Frusco

@Guy Gimenez I understand; in your original post you mentioned that you 'strike down any indemnity provision', I'm sorry but it is literally standard in all property management contracts I've seen (and I've seen a lot) or most other contracts in any other industry for that matter... just as a point of reference your BP terms and conditions will even have a hold harmless clause... so not quite sure about that statement. I see your point on wanting to protect yourself but, if you were looking to me to provide you with a service and made a fuss about abiding by certain indemnity clauses which are key to protect me... no offense but I would want nothing to do with you - similar to one of my tenants trying to 'strike out' clauses in one of my leases - I would want nothing to do with that and I'm sure most businesses will take that stance as well. 

@Ralph R. you have to read the my post, we did have liability issues - or would have if we didn't have it set up with the property management company as an additional insured - pursuit for tenant damages for temporary living expenses costs and they had another one in the works for damages for personal items lost. In our experience had we not named the property manager as an additional insured not only would the property manager not have worked as easily with us but would have forced that tenant lawsuit onto us and would have also in turn submitted another lawsuit for damages to their company; would of had two on our hands - in our case it was extremely helpful to have the property manager named as an additional insured and made the process smooth - or at least as smooth as it could be. Having gone through it, I call it as I see it and there is a lot of 'fluff' in this post or assumptions in this post - don't see any reason not to name your property manager as an additional insured but I do see and have experience many of the benefits. 

@Guy Gimenez you was just sharing my experience with actually having gone through it. You seem to have an apparently biased opinion but have failed to list one true and real reason as to why this would not be beneficial for an owner... you list many grievances and speculations... but nothing of substance and validity. Just my two cents.  

@Matthew McNeil this is a pretty straightforward and standard requirement by most property management companies which have been around for a bit. We actually had an apartment fire at one of our properties in Tennessee about 6-7 years ago which was under a property management company which did require to be added as an additionally insured. We did because our insurer didn't charge any extra for it but didn't understand why at the time or at least the full scope of it... and I'm sorry to say that some of things that most are saying on here like those by @Guy Gimenez and @Ralph R. are simply not true or misrepresented... our coverage didn't decrease and the payout didn't go to the property manager. Instead our insurer did the typical assessment after our deductible and after a bit of back and forth, cut the check for repairs directly to us. To add to matters, after the tenant moved out our property manager was sued for the cost of temporary living expenses by the tenant which they were completely justified in not covering, our insurer kicked in to cover those legal expenses which wound up being dismissed. Our manager was super helpful and went above and beyond, providing statements to the insures and explaining every step and reassuring us through the process and then also after the fact. 

After it was all said and done, we obviously inquired more on the additionally insured clause with our insurance agent and they explained that we were lucky it was set up the way it was by the property manager otherwise the property manager could have sued us for damages, something which the lead property manager confirmed would likely have happened. 

Currently, we work with 3 property managers all but one require us to name them as an additionally insured... the third does not require it but just has it listed 'as needed' and to be honest with you... after going through our earlier experience we now actually place any property manager we use as an additionally insured regardless if they require it or not, it really only goes to protect us as owners and keeps the property manager on my side. Hope this helps.   

@Mike Buckley share it. 

@Jennifer Pauyo love from Jersey. 

@Quentin Collins pass on that. On demand isn't going to give a return and will in all likely hood actual eat into it over time. 

@Peg Chamberlain very refreshing and informational point. I'll bite... are you able find all of the posters addresses on this post and post it on here for us all to see? ... It should be rather quick since you are able to see it online, please share so that we may see your point.

But... in the off chance that you can't then you'll know why Landlord privacy is preferred. 

@Mandela Muhammad I have to agree with most on here that you're story doesn't really add up. What property manager charges a 300% mark up? I'm not saying that can't happen but when you put together your other pieces like $100 per showing... are they charging a tenant placement fee or are you just having them show the unit for you? Just saying the story doesn't really add up...

Could you share the name of the property management company you use where they are based? 

@Mandela Muhammad why don't you manage it yourself?

@Rachid B. you have done it correctly by keeping the water in your (your sons) name and then billing the Tenants directly. If they are all jointly and severally under one lease then... one for all and all for one and they need to work it out amongst themselves and they are all responsible. However, you mentioned that they have separate leases. You can send a 'Notice to Quit for Reasons Other than Non-payment of Rent' as @Patricia Steiner mentions but that is ill advised - most realtors fall short in knowing tenant/landlord issues. Your strongest position is to bill your Tenant as you normally do in addition to base rent and then file a 'Notice to Quit for Non-payment of Rent' this will be the most enforceable and quickest way to remove the tenant in most, if not all, states. Additionally, review your lease and see if it gives order of payments received i.e. '...payments received will be applied to admin. fees, then to returned check charges, then to other amounts (excluding rent), then to rent' - this will further strengthen your position for the 'Notice to Quit for Non-Payment of Rent', regardless however this is the way to go. I also concur that a PM will certainly be able to assist you better than most. I hope this helps.