All Forum Posts by: Joseph Ben-Avi

Thanks Joe. 

The appliance was a dishwasher, it was probably around 5-7 years old if I had to guess, but regardless wouldn’t fall under an emergency.

It’s not a problem that they replaced the dishwasher, it’s the issue that if I was notified of the cost I could have easily go to Best Buy myself and buy one for less then half of what was spent, including labor involved.

I’m not a lawyer, but the wording in our agreement are pretty straight forward, including what you said about an emergency. 
It just seemed to me that there was very little worry about landlord funds in that case. I’m was curious if other investors feel the same way with their managers, but willing to accept that for the benefit of minimizing direct involvement.

Hello all,

Recently I was notified by our manager that a certain component in an appliance in one of my rentals needs repair. After reviewing the monthly statement I realized that the expense was well above the dollar limit that requires a prior approval by me.

When asking the manager for explanation as to why was the expense so high and why it was approved without my consent, she replied that the they had purchased a whole new appliance, rather then repairing it (without much info as to why it couldn't be fixed) and that I was notified of the need to repair/replace. However, I was never notified that the expense was above my set limit $ amount requiring my approval.

Is that a common practice by managers? If I was aware of the $ amount they were about to spend I could have furnished the need in a fraction of the cost myself. Is me knowing that an item needs repair/replace wave the need for approval by me when it exceeds the set $ amount?

I understand that part of hiring a manager is to reduce my day to day involvement with the rental, but $ limit on expenses is there for reasons exactly like this one.

I haven't discussed the issue further with my manager as I want to get some insight from more experienced investors on the forum.

Thanks!

Our current structure is simple, the three of us are partners in one multi member LLC and we own one property. We didn't examine the possibility of an umbrella policy which actually does sound simpler.

Seems like at this point in our business there is not a great benefit from opening another LLC.

For knowledge purposes, what are the pros and cons in having a holding LLC or, like your last example, single member LLC's that join one multi member LLC?

Thanks!

What were trying to do is limit liability in case of a lawsuit. In that sense if the LLC is sued for any reason the most we can lose is that one property under its name.

As far as registered agent in OH I’m pretty sure an entity can be considered as one, just not sure if the owner entity can be it.

Reece are you suggesting to limit the holdings of a single LLC to a certain $ amount and not amount of properties? (In your exemplar 1 mil).

Thanks for the replies guys.

Hi all,

I have been viewing this forum for almost a year now and learned a great deal of information, thanks to all of you here that help out. 

Today I have a simple question that I couldn't find an answer to. Me and 2 other partners own a property with our LLC, and we currently looking at creating another LLC and purchase a second property. Is it legally viable to own the new LLC with our current one? Sort of creating a single member LLC that is owned by one main holdings company (our original LLC).

If I am right, then since the new LLC will be a single member LLC it does not really require an operating agreement, correct?

And the holdings company (again, our original LLC) can also act as the registered agent?

The LLC's are all located in Ohio, and we are pretty familiar and comfortable with the process, I just want to be sure that wer'e doing it the right way.

We will probably open a new bank account to the new LLC just to keep things clean and organized.

Can anyone share their experiences and make any suggestions in a similar situation?

Thanks!

Joseph.