All Forum Posts by: Jason Moore

@David Semer: You hit the nail on the head with "these days you want to make sure to follow the letter of the law". Obligatory "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer applies to the following: 

At the risk of raising the ire of @Thomas S., I would recommend against continuing with the eviction. Emotional Support Animals are covered under the Fair Housing Act. They're not Service Animals (as covered under ADA), though for the purposes of housing the two classifications are currently nearly indistinguishable. In my opinion, if you pursue an eviction against this tenant - you could open yourself to legal trouble. Under the Fair Housing Act, Landlords are required to make "All Reasonable Accommodations" for Emotional Support Animals. Since you've already checked with your Insurance Company (and they've specified Pit Bulls are not a restricted breed), your hands are fairly tied in dealing with this issue. I can't imagine that the legal system would view "neighbor complaints" as constituting an "unreasonable accommodation". 

Regarding the comment from @Angela Smith about pet fees being applicable: You absolutely cannot charge pet fees/rent/deposits for either of these classifications (SA's or ESA's). Both are covered under US Law - and doing so would open you up to serious legal consequences. PM me for more information - just trying to be helpful here.

Where you do have some rights, is asking the tenant to provide detailed documents from a medical professional that each individual animal is a "necessary Emotional Support Animal". This will cause the tenant to have to undergo some legwork to do - but unfortunately it will be fairly easy for them to get this documentation. We're in the early days of Tenant/ESA rights - and thus it's essentially the Wild West out there. For $50 a tenant can go online and get a "medical professional" to provide them with a document stating the animal is an ESA. Unfortunately, I'm afraid this is your only recourse at the moment (unless someone more knowledgeable than me cares to chime in).

For the record - I'm 100% in favor of Registered Service Animals. They have to undergo extensive training and are not only highly specialized and highly necessary - but also highly expensive. Only dogs and miniature horses (believe it or not) fall into this category. ESA's are another racket entirely. I can understand the necessity behind them in certain cases - but unfortunately the system is far too easy to abuse at this point. Feeling blue, but your beloved ferret always cheers you up? Congrats!!... he's now an ESA. He's disgusting (because you don't clean his cage), dirty (because you never bathe him), and tears the carpets to shreds (more on this in a second)... but don't you dare think, Mr. Landlord - about charging a pet deposit for him... because he's an ESA!

Here's the small bright-spot in all of this: Any damages that happen as a result of an ESA (or Service Animal for that matter) are absolutely a reason to withhold a portion of the Security Deposit. There is nowhere that says a "Reasonable Accommodation" would be the replacement of all carpeting - because the aforementioned ferret tore it up. If the ESA causes damage to your home, you can deduct accordingly (as you would with any pet). If they do damage above/beyond what the Security Deposit covers - that's a small claims case you can easily win (though collecting is another matter entirely). 

Ultimately - speak with an Attorney if you want to continue with the 72-hour notice. Don't take advice from strangers on the internet who have a limited understanding of the law in your municipality. You're halfway through the battle with the statement you made about following the letter of the law... now just seek the advice of a professional about doing it.

Cheers!

@Jo Zhou:

Obligatory "Not a lawyer, not meant as legal advice" disclaimer to the following. It's information based on my understanding of the law as it's currently written/applied.

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I did a cursory scan of the whole thread & didn't see it pointed out anywhere.

In my opinion, we're dealing with 1 of 3 situations here - resulting in 1 of 2 solutions:

#1: The Pit-Bull is a registered service animal (not a "pet"): This is the most unlikely of scenarios. Actual service animals require extensive & specialized training to provide a very specific service to their owner. As such, they are often VERY expensive. In the unlikely event it is a fully registered service animal (paperwork filed with the State, available for your viewing) - then your Insurance Company could be in violation of Title II of the ADA (lawsuits are still working their ways through the Court system). In the VERY unlikely event it is a registered service animal, your best course of action would be to rent to the tenant - and seek out an Insurance Company that allows this breed. Even in the event that the Insurance companies prevail in pending litigation - it's best that you (as a private landlord) err on the side of caution. Disclaimer below**

Now let's get down to the likely reality of the situation:

#2: The Pit Bull is an "Emotional Support Animal". This type of animal is not covered under the ADA - it is covered under the FHA. According to the FHA, a landlord MUST make a "Reasonable Accommodation" to allow for an Emotional Support Animal. Being canceled by your Insurance Company, and spending time sourcing (and possibly paying higher premiums to) another insurance company is NOT a "reasonable accommodation". PERIOD. Being left without insurance and thus potentially exposing yourself/your business to increased personal/business liability as a result is NOT a "reasonable accommodation". PERIOD. In this situation, after providing proof that your current & preferred Insurance Company will cancel your policy if you accept a Pit Bull - your legal liability is absolved. PERIOD. (Sorry for all the underlines/CAPS - not yelling at you by any means, just trying to convey emphasis... darn internet and its lack of person-ability).

#3: The Pit Bull is a PET. As has been covered at great length in this thread, pets are not a protected class. You are 100% free to refuse to rent at your discretion. PERIOD (sorry, couldn't resist).

**Disclaimer to point #1: If you are unable to find an Insurance Company who will cover your dwelling with a Pit Bull animal on-site, or if you are required to pay a substantially higher premium as a result of the Pit Bull animal - I think a very strong case could be made on your behalf that this is an un-reasonable accommodation that you would be required to make to rent to this tenant. If the Insurance Companies eventually lose any litigation regarding this matter, I believe the liability would ultimately fall to them for failing to provide you with options for coverage. That said, you would need to be able to show that you sought alternative means of coverage, and were either subsequently denied - or would have been required to pay substantially higher premiums. I would also strongly recommend consulting with an Attorney if it is indeed proven to be a Service Animal.

At the end of the day: most of what I've covered will likely be irrelevant. What you're likely dealing with is either 1) An emotional support animal (not covered by the ADA) or 2) Simply a pet. If either of those cases is the reality - I'd tell them to go ahead and contact their lawyer... and have him/her follow up with mine. If one of these 2 instances is the reality - find yourself a new PM.

Best of luck to you, it's always an interesting business.

Cheers!

@Andrew Syrios - If you have a home that experienced a situation like that in KC, I can probably narrow down the location to a handful of Zip-Codes. I know that you want to send a message to whomever did this that their target(s) are no longer residing there, but I can't recommend strongly enough to NOT put a large "For Rent" sign in the front yard. In those parts of KC, you may as well be erecting a billboard with a giant neon arrow pointing to your house that says "FREE STUFF HERE!!". The violent crime that occurred at your house is thankfully more of a rarity in KC than some areas - but I'm afraid a sign like that will be your welcome into the world of "crime of convenience". 

The neighbors around that house all saw a big moving truck being loaded after that event - the "For Rent" sign is the last assurance they'll need, to know the place is now empty. They'll consider you the big, bad faceless Landlord who's ridiculously wealthy and won't be hurt to replace a stove/refrigerator/furnace/etc. Someone who lives near the neighborhood that drives by there will think the same thing. 

Things definitely aren't as bad as they were back during the recession, but a HW Tank is still an easy payday with very little effort, if someone thinks there's no chance of getting caught. Have a cage over your A/C unit? If not - get one. Have Security hooks for every door but the front? If not - get them. Put up new miniblinds if needed, and leave 1 or 2 lights burning at all times (LED's won't move the needle on Elec. usage much). If you're in one of the Zip Codes I think you are, the LAST thing you want is to advertise your house as empty.

Whatever you decide, best of luck to you. Cheers!

Hi Kristi,

I think there's pretty strict guidelines about soliciting/advertising on the forum (especially through PM), so I'll just say - I think I can help you.

Feel free to reach out via PM anytime. Cheers!

 I don't believe that sentence will get you in trouble in any of the 50 States - including MA (neither does the Attorney who reviewed my listing language). Has the home been through the Federal Inspection process conducted by the local Housing Authority? If the answer is "No"... it's simply a statement of fact to advertise that the home is not currently set up to work with the program. Is it a bit ambiguous? Yes. Is it in any way discriminatory? No. Would I accept an application from a Vouchered tenant? Of course. But my home would still not be set up to work with the Voucher program.

Keep in mind, nowhere in my post did I advocate for saying "No Section 8". It was my intention to point out that you are allowed to specify whether the property is currently set up, and are under no obligation to perform any actions to accomplish setting it up without reasonable reimbursement for expenses. A good example would be if a handicapped tenant were to want a ramp installed at one of my properties, I'm legally obligated to allow them to do this. However, I'm not under any obligation to allow it at my expense. I'm not required to physically install it myself, nor am I required to pay an outside Contractor to do it. The burden of responsibility falls to the tenant to see that their needs are met - the Landlord simply must allow them to do so.

If the Housing Authority were to set up the HAP Contract & inspect the house without my involvement (impossible), they're more than welcome to do so. If either the HA or tenant were willing to reimburse me reasonable expenses for the time/cost associated with accomplishing these things (unlikely), I'd be happy to work with them. An argument could be made that you aren't obligated to show up to the inspection (and thus the home would fail), but that's just an argument that *could* be made - and I wouldn't advocate for engaging in an argument with a Federal Authority.

Regardless, for OP it sounds like you're likely obligated to accept the Voucher. You've allowed the home to be inspected, filled out the necessary paperwork - thus actually receiving HAP payments requires very little on your part. You cannot discriminate against a tenant based on where the rent is coming from (source of income). That said, absolutely check with an Attorney in MA - it's entirely possible that the correct answer hasn't been posted anywhere on this thread (though with all the knowledgeable users here, I imagine it has).

Cheers. 

A couple of points I'd like to throw into this thread:

1) Many states have statutes that bar Landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants, based on their source of income. This means that a potential tenant with a Section 8 voucher could be considered a protected class - period.

2) A potential tenant who requires you to complete/submit paperwork about your property, remove your property from the market for 2-4 weeks while an inspection is scheduled, take the time to travel to your property to meet with the Sec. 8 inspector, followed by additional time spent waiting around while he/she conducts their inspection, all without any from of compensation... is not a protected class - period.

In my listings, I state that my properties are "not set up to work with the Housing Voucher program". This does not mean I'm discriminating against the Section 8 tenant - rather I'm saying that I won't jump through the hoops required by the Section 8 program to place a vouchered tenant in my home at my own expense. Accepting a tenant backed by a Section 8 voucher, and agreeing to spend time/effort above & beyond what would be required by any conventional market tenant are 2 mutually exclusive things.

I'd be happy to accept a Section 8 tenant, so long as the following was understood in advance:

1) The Housing Authority (not me) must fill out all paperwork regarding my home, and send to me for easy electronic signature.

2) I must be compensated for the time my home is removed from the market, while awaiting the Federal Inspection - assuming I find a qualified conventional tenant willing to rent during the inspection waiting-period (a per diem for potential rent-loss). 

3) The inspection must be scheduled with consideration for my convenience, and I must be compensated for the time taken to travel to the property and meet with the Inspector.

In other words, my total "charge" as a PM to process all paperwork & handle the Section 8 scheduling/inspection would be a reasonable $100-$150. I'd have to pass that expense on to someone, and since I won't pass it on to my Clients - the Housing Authority or tenant would get the bill. Then there's the likelihood that I find another qualified tenant while waiting for the paperwork to be processed & the home to be inspected - this could tack on another $200-$500 to the total cost, as my Client could be receiving that rent from someone else while waiting on the local Housing Authority to conduct inspections.

Ultimately, the Housing Authority would refuse to pay the bill for my services - or compensate my Client a per diem for lost rent. The idea that a tenant who's on Section 8 assistance pays that bill?..... highly unlikely. In either case, there's no requirement for me to spend my own time/money to accommodate anything above what I would normally do for a conventional market tenant - and there's no requirement to remove the property from the market without compensation (assuming I find another qualified renter).

Jeez... this got long. Regardless, hope this helps someone understand that no: you cannot discriminate against Section 8-backed tenants in many States. That said, yes: you can demand additional compensation for the additional time/effort it takes to accommodate a Section 8-backed tenant. If they or the Housing Authority refuse to provide reasonable compensation - you may choose not to accommodate them.

Cheers!

Hi Jessica,

I own a PM Company in KCMO (and thus have a Brokers License), so we're subject to the same statutes/regulations under MO law. Essentially, I think I'd be a good "source" to answer your question.

Short answer: "No"... it's likely* not legal for you to do this, and the partner with his Brokers license is putting it at risk by allowing you to act as "manager" for the units.

Long answer: The reason I say likely* is... Who is advertising the units for rent? What phone number do prospective tenants call for information? Are you opening the door/showing them around? Who is reviewing the Lease Agreements & signing on behalf of the "Landlord"? If the answer to any of those questions leads to you, that would require you to have at a minimum a Salespersons license in MO (held by a Broker**). It doesn't matter if you're an "employee" of the Broker - you can't advertise/answer questions/show the units/sign any Lease Agreements on his/her behalf without a Salespersons license... period. 

Now for the good news: if you're simply acting as a rental collection service, or Contractor who handles repairs - you're fine without Licensing. Just don't refer to yourself as a "Property Manager" - because you're not. Keep in mind in no way am I saying your aren't doing most of what a PM would do - you just aren't allowed to legally have anything to do with Leasing, so I encourage you not to refer to yourself as a PM to shield you from liability.

As for the years of licensing it would take to accomplish becoming a PM (getting back to my "held by a Broker**" bit).... more good news is that you can reduce this to weeks. I know that in MO, you've got to have a couple of years behind you as a "Salesperson" before you can get your Brokers license (and thus have your own PM company) - but as long as the partner who has their Broker's license is willing to hold your Salesperson's license... you can manage as a fully legal PM to your heart's content. I'd recommend getting the proper E/O insurance (both for yourself and the Broker), as well as a good amount of General Liability insurance for yourself - but this ends up being peanuts compared to what you would spend if someone wanted to take you to Court over a minor trifle... and had the evidence to prove you weren't licensed to perform the duties of a PM. If the partner who has the Broker's license isn't willing to hold your Salesperson's license...... well, that tells you a bit about what bus they'd throw you under in the event of a lawsuit.

Here's the tl:dr - get your Salesperson's license. Have the partner with the Broker's license hold it - and you're good. This requires a few weeks of classes, followed by passing a test - followed by another week of classes. If you started at the beginning of October - you could be done by December... and the question you asked wouldn't be a concern going forward. If you really want to do this (become a PM) you're going to have to do it anyway. This gives you a good start, will provide you with some great experience - and will allow you to learn the ropes for a couple of years before you can become a Broker yourself. 

I wish you nothing but the best in your endevours.... just want to make certain you get started on the right foot.

Cheers.

@Nerissa Marbury many Municipalities offer online tools for searching public record of both Civil (Eviction) & Criminal Court cases. In Missouri (where I live) there's actually a comprehensive Statewide database of all Court records that's completely free to use. When screening out-of-state applicants, I've sometimes had to pay a small fee and sometimes had to go through a simple registration process (depending on each Municipal/State site) - but nothing that has been overly burdensome.

I'm not sure what's offered in your area, but a quick Google search with terms like "(area in question) court records" or "(area in question) public records" should yield some info.

I don't know what tools Cozy.co uses to screen applicants, but twice they approved applicants that I turned down - based on information I found with a less than 5-minute web search. In my experience, their screening reports were just not as comprehensive as I needed them to be.

Cheers!

@Michael Glaser: Yep, that definitely sucks. Did you have to ultimately have someone present for the Sheriff-assisted Eviction? If so, this person should have noted what items were removed by the tenant during their moving process - and responsibility (if they are a property manager) *could* be placed on them for not keeping a mindful eye on property which belongs to you. If the tenant moved on their own (without watchful eyes) prior to the Sheriff-assisted eviction, that's a different story.

In my experience, the Police are happy to take statements/evidence of theft of your property... and that's about it. Unfortunately, the burden of proof will fall to you to show that it was your tenant (beyond a reasonable doubt) that stole the refrigerator. Even if you're able to prove that it was the tenant (or someone affiliated with him) that stole your fridge, you have as much chance of collecting for the theft as you do for the loss of rent when he wasn't paying. Sure - you could go to trial, attempt to sway the judge/jury that you have enough proof that this individual stole your property... but then what? Spend $$$ in legal fees just to spend even more trying in vain to collect from a worthless individual who couldn't even keep to your Lease Agreement?

You have to decide whether it's worth it to spend your valuable time going after someone who has no value whatsoever to offer you. A refrigerator in a rental is about $500, which I know isn't a small amount of money - but in the grand scheme of investment-property ownership... it is small potatoes. Assuming you don't have $2K+ in damages to repair, it's a bitter pill to swallow - but I say move on. Even if you were to have an open/shut case against your tenant for the theft - it's still up to you to collect (after having spent countless hours & money on court costs). Your time is valuable, your effort is valuable - don't waste it on someone who has no value to offer.

Ultimately, just re-read the last sentence of your most recent post... sounds like you already know what to do.

Cheers!

@Michael Glaser: I hate that "tone" can't be conveyed with a keyboard. Yeah... I see that my comment could come across as patronizing when read back without the sentiment I meant behind it - but it truly wasn't meant to be. It was more coming from the place of making sure you were "pausing" to make measured decisions about the next several days - no offense meant, apologies on that one.

So have you filed the Writ of Execution? This is key to knowing where you're at with the process. 

You're dealing with Wyandotte County... I hate to say it - but I doubt your house was broken into. More likely the tenant is prepping his defense for the place having some damages/missing items (nobody breaks into a house to leave it unscathed). This was my concern about making the tenant aware of when the axe was falling - but let's move on based on what we know now:

Post a notice that based on the lack of communication, you believe the property has been abandoned - and you are planning a "property welfare inspection" in 24 hours. If the tenant is still residing at the home, and wishes to have this inspection rescheduled for a later time - he must contact you at "XXX-XXXX, at least X hours prior to the inspection". In KS, a Landlord has the right to enter a rental property with sufficient notice, so long as the tenant does not unreasonably withhold consent. Assuming you receive no contact from the tenant - send someone in (as there are definitely grounds for you to believe the home has been vacated). Assuming you do receive contact from the tenant - cover all the issues you have concerns about in that conversation. At the very least, this conversation/inspection will give you an idea of what you're looking at as far as repairs/damages.

Cheers!