All Forum Posts by: Jason L.

 

The story I got from their email was that applicant was caring for an elderly relative who was being verbally abused by an uncle. Their story is that he used the gun to intimidate the uncle into backing off the elderly relative. I agree that there's more to this story than they're telling me, but they seem to suggest this was not a violent crime. But who knows? The fact that the story is so vague makes me think it's probably not worth all the work I'd have to do confirming the story enough to feel good about renting to them. 

 The story I got from their email was that applicant was caring for an elderly relative who was being verbally abused by an uncle. Their story is that he used the gun to intimidate the uncle into backing off the elderly relative. I agree that there's more to this story than they're telling me, but they seem to suggest this was not a violent crime. But who knows?

At this point, I'm leaning towards rejecting the application because of the ambiguity and the fact that the listing has been getting other leads. In some other instances, I think I might be willing to vet them further. However, it seems like a lot of leg work to confirm their story with the court records when the house has been getting other leads that are assuredly less "complicated".

In fairness, they're not. They toured the house yesterday and then told my leasing guy about their situation before running background on them. I use Cozy for applications and background checks so they have to spend $40/each to apply. They wanted to make sure I would even consider them before paying that. I think that's completely understandable, as I don't see the need to waste both their money and their time (my leasing guy recently brought a paid applicant to me with an unsatisfactory credit report, who I auto-denied after they paid for the application. I told the leaser not to waste people's money like that since I was obviously never going to accept their application). If I decided to move forward with them, then they would absolutely be required to apply, background check, provide the court docs, etc. before I would approve. 

A couple applied to rent one of my houses (note: this is through an independent leasing services and I have not met or spoken to the applicants myself). They sent a long intro letter saying the boyfriend was convicted of a felony in 2014 for possession of a firearm. Their story was along the lines of: "He wielded a firearm to defend his elderly relative from an abusive uncle but never actually used it."

I'm conflicted because it was non-violent (shades of gray at worst), 5 years ago already, and they're assuring me his record is clean since (I have not run their background check yet since I wasn't going to make them pay for that unless I thought I'd actually rent to them). However, it feels like a lot of work to vette them and I'm probably going to require a larger deposit regardless.

Where do you stand on renting to a felon like this? Is it worth vetting further (pulling court records and/or police reports?) or hard no?

I stuck with my gut and decided not to proceed with the co-signer. Thanks to all who shared their posts in here.

I haven't spoken to the old landlord yet. I actually hired a third party leasing service for this house (I long distance manage but obviously can't be there for showings). I denied their application just on the credit alone. Then they went back to my leaser to plead their case. The point of this post is simply debating if it's even worth doing all of this due diligence just because their parents are willing to co-sign. If the sentiment about co-signers was that they were enough to make it worthwhile for the landlord, then I would've had the leaser do the further screening (interviewing the old landlord, talking to the parents, etc). To this point though, I remain unconvinced that the co-signer really makes leasing the house to them all that much more appealing. Open to being wrong though.

Their explanation of bad credit was along the lines of "overcoming obstacles" a few years ago but nothing related to medical problems. I'm assuming just dumb with money when they were younger (they are in their early 30s now). They do seem like a nice couple (I've even parsed all their social media I could find on Google and there is literally nothing but photos of their family on it. Nothing incriminating whatsoever), but I'm nervous for all the reasons you mentioned about having to chase rent with the parents. It's certainly better than an instant denial, but I am still unsure how much cushion a co-signer really gives a landlord in the event the tenants go sour.

Even if their co-signer has great income and credit and I get a higher deposit from them, is this really a better situation than just waiting longer for a more textbook applicant to come along (the house has already been vacant for 4 weeks)?

I had some applicants apply to one of my listings who seem like nice people but have terrible credit (480). I denied their application for not meeting the minimum qualifications. They are now saying that their parents, who have an 800 credit score and good income, are willing to co-sign on the lease. I don't have any experience with applicants using co-signers on a lease. Is it worth pursuing or should I stick with my gut to deny the application?

Space Coast Credit Union gave me 3/4 above Prime up to 70%. Cost like $500 to open.

 I read the landlord laws to mean you have to give them the claim letter first, then give them time to respond/not respond, and then finally send the check. I guess including the check with the letter is an interesting high pressure strategy (since it disincentivizes them to wait the 15 days required) and it does save a second Certified Mail fee (and god forbid a third if they don't pick that letter up either), but I'm not sure it's within the bounds of the Florida statutes. Do you have any specific material on this?