All Forum Posts by: Jack B.

Dag nab it my broker said rates are higher this morning. Yet somehow AIMloan is lower than last week...?

Interesting replies, yes I have considered just eating the cost and not worrying about it since I want the house more. AIMLOAN did come down to 3.75% today though so I have emailed my broker asking if the rates came down since we last spoke. If I can get it under 4% from him I'd def. go with him.

At a 3.75% rate we are talking about 25K over the life of the loan.

Paid cash for my first house then financed my last two with the same broker. Right now he can get me 4% while Sebonic claims they can get me 3.7%. Their reputation is meh, though. As an alternative, I could get 3.87 from AIMLOAN, however; is it worth it?

It's a 483K purchase. It's about 14K difference over the life of the loan. So I ask, is it worth it switching lenders?

One thing I like about my broker is he is very knowledgeable and he answers the phone. I've even been in a bind on the weekend needing a pre-approval letter to go along with an offer and he was on vacation out of state and hooked me up in minutes. Part of me wants the lower interest rate, but part of me wants the guy who I know has gotten it done without problems in the past and is available to me as my lending expert damn near 24/7.

Yeah, they seem to be caught up on some liberal argument of "live and let live in her house" and "she has a right to enjoy the property and have live there other than her" and "you're going to lose a great tenant due to enforcing rules they agreed to abide by and are a big financial risk to you if not enforced".

No, she doesn't have a right to move other people in there without going through the agreed through process, it is a violation of the lease terms that are set forth in the WA State Attorney General recommended lease agreement, and the legal risks are what concern me. I have no problem with her having someone live there as long as they meet MY standards on the BGC, and sign the lease.

That's it. Something so simple, yet so difficult for many "investors" to understand. You seem to mistakenly think I'm somehow depriving her of her right to have someone live there folks. I'm not as I've explained over and over again. Instead I'm met with ridiculous comments about how I should just post up outside and track their every move. I was merely looking for advice on how to best determine what's going on, and I've since realized that I can just ask the neighbors who I have contact info for. Sheesh...

Look at this post by @Rhett Tullis

This is the kind of stuff I worry about having some unknown person living there. But according to the logic of some, I shouldn't do a check on him and get him on the lease. Doing so is depriving him of his "rights". Wow...

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/133962-tenants-bf-has-apparently-moved-in-unannounced

Dude, again, why is it wrong to put him on the lease after a background check? Do you not understand the difference? I'm not saying she can't have a live in boyfriend. I am saying I want to find out if that is the case and get him to fill out an app, pass a bgc, and get on the lease, you know, like how she agreed to do so if it ever came up, on the lease that she signed. Not that difficult to understand. Sweet Jesus if this is the level of advice that comes out of BP, thanks but no thanks...

You make a lot of assumptions and evidently didn't read the thread completely. I asked if I should drive by there during a specific time frame to see if that was the best way to go about identifying unauthorized occupants so I can get them checked out if they are in fact living there. I later posted after the onslaught of poorly thought out advice that I have the neighbors contact info and can just find out from them, without having to go down there.

And you assume she is a great tenant, even though I've noted that I've had problems with her already, even on the day of the move in and that she is on a MTM lease, no eviction necessary, only 20 days notice to vacate. 

The only silliness (thanks for the insult) here is people like you with a clear lack of reading comprehension, poor understanding of the legal risks, and low critical thinking skills giving advice, and your only argument to the obvious risks I pointed out is straw man attacks accusing me of sitting outside the house and keeping a record of all comings and goings and that I'm some how going to lose a tenant over enforcing a lease term that is a big risk to me financially. So I shouldn't enforce anything at all, because people auto magically move out when you do? lol

Again, wanting to find out who is living in MY house that she is RENTING under the terms of the LEASE AGREEMENT isn't depriving her of her right to enjoy the house. Not that hard to understand.

Again, if I don't check out other occupants living there, why bother having checks and leases at all?

Again, how does enforcing an important term of my lease and offering to get the occupants on the lease deprive her of her right to enjoy the property? Perhaps try to answer those things instead of hurling insults for things you clearly don't understand.

Straw man argument is what he posts. But I'm a bad guy for wanting to find out if someone else has moved in against the terms of the lease and wanting to get them checked out and get them on the lease. Instead I should burry my head in the sand and not do any checks on anyone at all, live and let live. Because inquiring as to a serious violation and offering to get anyone living there on the lease is denying her of her right to life. Thanks Mike, I've really learned a lot today...

Real estate, leveraged real estate, especially bought at the bottom of the market in a high equity growth area, can make one very wealthy very quickly. I made most of my money in my career, but a significant amount in real estate as well in the past five years which have been good to stock and real estate markets alike.

That said, once you've made your money, and the Cash on Cash returns drop to the point that you can get the same return (as a result of property appreciation) or nearly the same return in a REIT index fund, wouldn't that be better? Less risk, more diversification, same returns, and much much less exposure to liability.

I'm not one of these people who thinks it won't happen to him. I was sued once for a car accident that wasn't even my fault. While everyone told the truth on the scene, the guy who rear ended me with an 18 wheeler and pushed me into the car in front of me changed his tune after the fact. The person in front of me sued me AND him, claiming I hit them first, then he hit me into them again. It turned into a 2 YEAR legal battle. My insurance company refused to pay them anything which is why I got served with a lawsuit instead. My insurance company said it was extremely obvious that they were lying as their stories constantly changed. 

They even told me in 2 years the only story that never changed was mine. There was damage to either one of their vehicles an SUV and a Semi Truck, since my car was plastic and they had solid steel bumpers on both of them. My car however, was trashed, crushed like a pop can and I was in the hospital. They walked away with no injuries or damage to their vehicles, then deny fault/sue me. Yep...

Luckily the Cop who did the report remembered the accident and between that and the police report, along with the guy who hit me agreeing to come clean if I signed an affidavit for him because she was starting to make up stories about him coming out of his truck and physically attacking her! Not aggravated enough yet? She was an illegal immigrant with no drivers license, and she got to sue me and the guy who rear ended me. In the end it thousands in attorneys fees for my insurance company. I ended up getting a settlement from the guy who hit me and the suit against me was dismissed while it continued with against him.

I worry that being in real estate exposes me to too much liability. It's too easy for someone to take your money over some frivolous thing, all aided by the liberal justice system (take from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't, for BS things). Think I'm wrong? My friends mom borrowed a ladder from her neighbor. She fell off the ladder climbing on the roof and sued her neighbor, winning a 250K settlement. It's that easy folks...I can't imagine all the ways a tenant can "slip and fall" and get a large payout...

I only read the first and last pages of this thread, but WOW. Between the fact that my returns have come down to about what I could get with a REIT index fund since the property price has appreciated significantly, and this kind of crap in an increasingly liberal political environment, I'm really wondering if I wouldn't be dodging an eventual bullet by getting out now. Less time, less risk, more diversification, for the same return. It's starting to look more and more attractive.

Not outside the house. In the driveway, with her car blocking them in, as if they were there before she got home (it's a long slim driveway).

I don't see how it's "gun shy" to expect people to be screened and be on the lease, abiding by the terms of the lease they agreed to, that they may be in violation of. Judging by the number of people messaging and voting me up as result of my last post, it seems I'm not the only one who thinks my stance is reasonable. And just yesterday I read another thread on here where this "good advice" was also corrected by others.

Again, you have not really presented a cogent argument about the screening and liability issue, and why even bother to do any screening if I just look the other way to something like this. The "live and let live" argument, while simple and feel good, really doesn't address the issue. What if he is living there and can't pass a BGC and that's why he is under the radar? What if he has a history criminal history involving meth labs and he starts one in there? Are you saying I should just blindly look the other way on a piece of real estate that I have nearly 200K of my money into, when my tenant could be in violation of the lease agreement, which could put me at legal and financial risk? You consider that reasonable but simply even sending an inquiry to the tenant about it offering to put them on the lease once they pass the BGC is somehow unreasonable? Risking everything to overlook it is reasonable, but inquiring about it and enforcing it as laid out in the lease is going to lose me what exactly? Likely nothing, but at worst, a violator of a lease, that has already broken other rules and been warned and is potentially violating another one and will likely violate more?

 I get not wanting to be a hover landlord, but merely noticing things and wanting to investigate before they become a problem isn't being a hover landlord. It's called managing. I have a vested interest in that property as I have a lot of money in it. Again, wanting to screen people, and get them on the lease, which specifically has clauses about this, isn't unreasonable. These are terms the tenant agreed to. Why even have them in there if they will not be enforced? I find it odd that you think looking the other way is somehow good advice and wanting to enforce an important clause in my lease that may be in violation is being a hover landlord. I don't share your sentiment that it's good advice to look the other way, thanks for your opinion though. I'm going to pursue it by asking the neighbors who I have contact info for about what's going on there. This will save me the trip and is one of the reasons I build relationships with neighbors where I own property. They are my eyes and ears when I'm away.

Good post here by @Nathan Gesner 

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/251...