All Forum Posts by: Jason L.

 I've re-read the lease my ex-PM had drafted with this tenant. The language around vacating the unit seems more centered around damages from just tangible negligence that would obstruct the landlord from getting the unit ready again. However it makes no mention explicitly of re-leasing. There is this line about vacating below, but again I think this is too vague in the sense of the tenant being liable for obstructing re-leasing..

I'll obviously update this language for the next tenant, but for the one I have now, it's kind of vague about whether she's actually in violation by refusing to let me show it. I agree with you that she probably wouldn't fight it, but I'm not overly confident in the verbiage of this lease agreement

I think at this point I'm just going to let her be (i.e. I'll keep nagging her but not threatening her SD or to change locks early). I think the goal needs to just be to get her out as peacefully as possible. The last thing I want is a tenant who feels they have nothing left to lose. I'll put up a listing using the materials I had from before she moved in and just say it is not ready to show yet. If all goes well and she moves out on the 31st like she's supposed to, then I might still be able to show it by say June 3rd or so and maybe have a lease signed by mid-June. I don't really know if I'll actually charge her for the time lost just because I'm unsure of the lease language, but 2-3 weeks is not going to kill me considering this is my least expensive unit.

Thanks for all of your feedback.

 The old PM lost the key (he was also my agent representing me at the close of the same house). If it makes it seem any worse, then we didn't find this out until AFTER I had let him go (in other words I let him go for other reasons but then found out he lost the key as the icing on the cake).

You might just be right about having me eat the cost of the key now (I was going to re-key when she moved out anyway). I might even be able to "negotiate" into paying for it, so that she might appreciate me doing her a solid by not charging her for her initial defiance. That said, a leopard doesn't change its spots. If she's being difficult with me showing the unit now, then it's probably naive to expect she'll suddenly start playing ball after I change the keys. And that's precisely why I'm apprehensive to supplicate to her.

I certainly have marketing materials to list it now for a mid-June move-in, but I guess I'm more afraid now as to why she's not letting me see it. What if she doesn't vacate when she's supposed to? What if the place is trashed? Might put those June 1st showings at risk of not happening. If an eviction was needed, then it might not be until July or August!

I think the next step like you said is probably to threaten her with the lock change charge before acting on it. Either that or to take @Nathan G.'s idea to let it simmer until she (hopefully) moves out on the 31st and then charge her for the incremental vacancy from the time I lost from not being able to show it.

The PM was also my agent when I bought the house (I'm a long distance owner). That would explain why I never had a key. Clearly I put trust in the wrong person and hence why I let go of him. That said, good luck getting him to pay for that lost key. His reaction when I told him a few months ago was essentially, "Oops." Unfortunately, a sunk cost at this point.

The tenant is legally required to allow the landlord to inspect and not cause hardship in the turn, which she's absolutely doing by not responding and not providing a key for inspections and/or repairs (I also gave her a lockbox which who knows what she did with). Your idea to just charge her the vacancy is intriguing though (and probably less hostile than threatening her with bringing out a locksmith before she moves out), but is that even legal? Why wouldn't every landlord just charge for vacancy with unruly tenants then?

 I was planning to re-key with a smart lock, so we won't need to change locks twice regardless (I'd still change the locks again after she left but it's a simple 2 minute procedure from there instead of calling the locksmith again). I just don't want to get involved in the game of supplicating to the tenant by offering to excuse the rent for the key. That's giving her too much power in this situation, especially when she's already been flakey with her communication. I did let her know we would give her notice on showings and give her a week to clean up her place, but like I said she's not responding to any of my messages.

 I really don't want to call attention to the fact that she has the only key. For a tenant who clearly doesn't "read between the lines" well, I would anticipate she would read this as more leverage over me than it realistically is. I've been trying to come from the perspective that we need her cooperation and would reflect it upon examining her SD. The fact that this hasn't gotten through to her could be one of two things: A) flakiness (she's had it before; may not be malicious), or B) she's hiding something and maybe already doesn't expect to get the SD back.

I think at this point threatening to send a locksmith at her expense might be the best of a bunch of bad options though. 

Interestingly, the ex-PM did collect last month and SD from her, but he actually did not collect the entire amount. She owes $850/month but she actually only paid $800 for her last month's (May) rent. This was confirmed by the ex-PM, yet she is trying to argue (without receipt of course) that she paid the whole thing. So technically she owes $50, but I'm guessing if she's going to battle me for the SD than I probably shouldn't expect that $50 on time either. I guess I could always take that out of her SD as well, but it's not enough to make the eviction process worthwhile.

Just to be clear, she's not otherwise late on the rent. She's just being difficult in regards to allowing me to show the unit again and we need her to be complicit with that. My concern right now is to just get possession back. I'd also like to start this showing this thing before she moves out. It seems like this would be legal as landlord so long as I give her notice in advance to remedy this.

I have a tenant who lives in one of my apartments who has given notice to move out on May 31st. I should note that I had a full-time property manager at the time she moved in (they have since been removed), and unfortunately they lost the only other key to the unit I would have had. So therefore this outgoing tenant currently has the only key to the unit.

I have reached out to the tenant twice to inform her that we are getting ready to re-lease her unit before she moves out. I was clear that her cooperation would be reflected when I evaluated her security deposit. She has not responded either time. The tenant has a history of being bad with communication, but I'm getting concerned given the circumstances. Because she has the only key, I'm concerned about what my options are to get access to the unit before May 31 when she (hopefully?) moves out. Remember I literally couldn't access this unit right now even if I tried. The only leverage I have is the security deposit, but once I threaten to not return it, she could easily just trash the place or even worse not leave at all.

One idea I've seen is to have a locksmith go change the locks while she's still living there (I'd give her notice I was doing this of course), give her a copy of the new key, and then charge her for the locksmith on her deposit. Again this could get tenant backlash on her way out, but at least I'd have my own key again and she could still presumably get back most of her deposit. Does this seem like a reasonable option? Can I legally have the locks changed while the lease is still in effect anyway?

Any other ideas out there?

 Agree with this. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all approach to tenants. I had a (new) tenant recently who called me the day her rent was due and said she had a car issue the previous week and needed an extra 10 days to pay the rent plus late fee. Since it was a first offense, I gave it to her. She did follow through and meet her new deadline. Was this a one-time issue? Time will tell. However, the cost of eviction was going to suck for me whether I started it on the 5th of the month or the 15th. So it was in my best interest as a landlord to try to work with the tenant, rather than just moving right to eviction. If the tenant had less equity with me though, then I probably would've just put the 3-day up immediately.

Another consideration: I can see if you were someone who managed many, many units that there's a point to where the tenants become far more replaceable than it does to a small landlord like myself (3 units). So perhaps if you own like 20 units or something, then I can see just taking a no tolerance on tenant shenanigans.

 Just to be clear with the intent of my post, this is not primarily a financial decision so much as it is an opportunity cost decision. This is not the same thing as if I had been working with an agent from the beginning (I mean I was, but I am leaning towards removing him because of disagreements and breakdowns in communication). The analogy I used earlier was that I'm on the 20 yard line in my search (having basically driven the entire field by myself), but to hire a new agent now would require me to pay them as if they ran the entire field all over again. At this point, I know what I'm looking for and I have the ability to legally make offers. All I really need help with is the closing steps. I'd happily pay for help with that, but at this stage it doesn't pay for me to offer a full commission for it. That money would have far more value to me as a discount off my offers. At the same time, I also don't want to insult other realtors in the area by asking them to jump in for a heavily reduced commission that was commensurate with the level of work left in my search. So it's a catch 22. But in an ideal world, my original realtor and I would have continued working together and he would have received the full commission. It just didn't work out like that.

Off topic, but I didn't work at the REIT as an agent. I worked as a financial analyst, who just so happened to have a license. I work outside the real estate industry now. I have kept my license active with this broker but mostly just to use for a referral on my rental properties. Anyway, that's why I left the commercial real estate industry. Not because I didn't like it.