All Forum Posts by: John Clark

"He/she should be able to do typical repairs (woodworking, painting, tuck-pointing, light electrical & plumbing, etc). Looking to spend around $20 to $25 per hour for the right person. "

___________________________

LOL -- Not going to happen. Tuckpointing requires setting up scaffolding, then cleaning and pointing, and then tear down scaffolding. First, you're not doing that in an 8-hour week. Second, you're not doing that for $25 an hour.

Then you have to define "light electrical" and "light plumbing." Replacing a flap in a running toilet? Sure. Replace the toilet? Meh, I can see it. Find and solder a leak? Nope. Replace a fan/light combo? Maybe, but he'd need an assistant most likely. Add a new outlet? Nope. Not at $25 an hour.

Then define "woodworking" please.

Here's my philosophy regarding employment. People work WITH you, not FOR you. Unless you share the wealth (pay them well), you get lousy workers.

Go to the web sites for the Cook County treasurer and the Cook County assessor. Should be able to find information there.

" so what’s the ideal way to come out it so that I don’t get into legal troubles? "

-----------------------------

First, see a lawyer BEFORE you do anything. Tell him your plan and approach (strategy and tactics) and ask him what pitfalls you have to be wary of. Laws vary by state, and there are situations and exceptions to every law/rule/guide you can come with. That means you start with the lawyer.

Second, I DO like Noorden's practice of telling the seller that he might assign the contract. Transparency is best. Just accept the fact that if you can't assign and you don't buy, you have lost your earnest money. Don't whine about it.

Third, see a lawyer BEFORE . . .

Fourth, accept the golden rule -- if you think you won't be bound to buy as a general matter should you feel like it -- and draft a contract accordingly -- then don't whine when the seller feels that he's not bound to sell as a general matter should he feel like it. 'Cuz I got dollars to doughnuts that a judge will let the seller say "here's your earnest money, I'm selling to someone else" even if you assigned your so-called "contract" to a third party.

Fifth, see a lawyer BEFORE . . .

And when all is said and done, see another lawyer for a second opinion.

"If I put in my contract that I can cancel the contract at any time for any reason what so ever, I am covered."
--------------------------
Wrong. If you put into your contract that you can cancel for any reason whatsoever, without loss of anything on your part, then the contract is a sham contract because there is no reciprocal obligation, no reciprocal consideration. Sham contracts are not contracts, which means you run the risk of assigning a "contract" to a third party while the seller sells to a fourth party, and defends his action on the grounds that you never entered into a contract to purchase. Then you just bought a whole lot of trouble with your assignee.

You might be able to limit your liability to your deposit, but that's an obligation. It also means that the contract wasn't "cancelled." Words have meaning. People rely -- right, wrong, or indifferent -- on what posters post and the words they use. You made the whole contract-with-assignability seem trite. It's not. Cavalier attitudes get people in trouble

I know, I am a lawyer, with over 30 years experience, and I've had to dig people out of transactions such as you describe. Get paid very well for it, too.

Your approach to such transactions shows that you're playing with fire. That's not a nice thing to do when a newbie asks for advice.

"Also, when I was on the phone with the water company last week, they will only put the water in the name of the person listed on the deed. "

----------------------------------

Yup. That's why I said to have all bills go to you. Only way Water Department will do it. Just cover the first $Z dollars on each bill (as I described) and make the tenant responsible for the overage.

Oh, and by the way, any good seller's attorney will insist on the right to approve the assignee of a contract, and if not approved, the signing buyer is responsible for purchasing. So if you can't assign, or try assigning to a turnip in order to get out of a deal, you are still liable.

"

"When you get a property under contract, you are committing to buy the property."

Not true at all. We are mainly flippers, but because we get too many leads in, obviously we can not buy all the houses we get under contract. So in fact we do it the other way around. We tell them flat out that we have no intention of buying the house ourselves, and that we are going to wholesale it. We then add to this by telling them that we still may buy the house if we are able to, but count on us wholesaling it. 9 out of 10 times, the seller prefers us wholesaling it.

No drama 100% honest and full transparency.

Most wholesalers (if not all) are dishonest deceptive and manipulative. We always flat out tell the seller we will wholesale the house. And again they always rather us wholesale it than anything else. Its all about how you pitch it to them!

--------------------------------------
You are ignorant of the law. Once you contract to purchase the property, you are committed to purchase it unless the terms and conditions of the contract permit you to not go through with the purchase (e.g., bad inspection, failure to obtain financing after good faith effort to procure financing, etc.). Unless you have a contract provision that permits you to back out if you cannot wholesale the property, then you are committed to buy it.

So kudos to you for being honest and forthright with your sellers, and for including a clause in your contract that permits you to assign the contract. Do not think for one minute, however, that because you announce your intention to wholesale that your obligations under the contract magically disappear.

"as you can tell, I am looking for general and specific advice/guidelines."
--------------------------------
Specifically, I say that you should avoid Chicago in general. Both the new mayor and the new City Council are ignorant of both finance and economics, and will probably introduce rent control in the near future by seeking to have the state-wide ban repealed and then imposing a local ordinance. Then you'll have massive property tax increases to pay for all the pie in the sky spending, and finally a Detroit-style cratering.

Try Texas.

You could, and in my mind should, install the separate meters, and see about designating one unit as being responsible for common area usage.

Have all bills go to you. At lease renewal time you tell the tenants that you will pay for water and sewer up to $X plus tax on that $X, per billing term and they are responsible for all amounts over that $X plus tax per billing term. You pick up the trash tax. If they owe you money, you'll give them a copy of the bill so they can check your figures. At the end of the day, you are continuing the practice of landlord paying for water, but giving them a motive for conserving water. Should you ever decide to convert the place to condominiums, your water infrastructure will be in place. You'll also know your costs per unit better, and can adjust rents accordingly.

"She is on sec 8 and to tell you the truth I just want access to my unit to move on she has no money it would be a waste of time."

------------------------------------

So I assume section 8 paid and you're only out her co-pay?

Has section 8 stopped paying?

Bring an eviction case for prior and current rent. That will force her to clarify her residency tout suite.