All Forum Posts by: Katie Rogers

Judging from her comments, it appears that her English may genuinely be insufficient to understand whatever she received from Mr. Hughes.  Since Mr. Hughes does not dispute that she paid hundreds of dollars for the information, perhaps he should go ahead and send her the information in DVD form.  It's the same information, right?

The list is a great reminder of possible amenities, but I would be careful about making tenants feel they are being nickled and dimed.  

For example, in my town the city regs require one off-street covered parking spot for each unit.  Therefore, the spot (whether carport or garage) comes with the unit.  There should not be an extra charge.  If you allow pets, great.  Have a pet deposit, but I wouldn't charge extra rent on the pretext of a pet.

I like vending machines.  They give the tenants a choice of either buying from the machine or buying from a regular store while giving the landlord a little extra income.

I also like the idea of a survey.  Sometimes, providing more amenities at no extra cost to tenants more than pays for itself in tenant satisfaction and loyalty.

In C or D neighborhoods, I have seen multi-family units here and there that seem misplaced.  The landlords and tenants have found a way to break the viscous cycle that keeps most C and D properties looking like C and D properties.  All tenants appreciate a nice place to live with a landlord who appears to put people before profit.  When that happens, the profit naturally follows, and with fewer landlord headaches. The problem with most C and D properties is they suffer from the broken window syndrome.  Like attracts like and begets like.

Well Adam,

What about the new owner's perspective?  Well, what about it.  Judging by the comments, everyone is thinking about the new owner's perspective and no one is thinking about this couple who have possibly been defrauded.  So the first step is to get some real facts, and find out if they are actually squatters before giving them a prejudicial and derogatory label.

What if what happened to them happened to you and your family.  What would you do if you were in their shoes. Please do not respond by saying you are too smart to have something like that happen to you.  Bernie's clients probably thought they were pretty smart, too.  I, for one, would not want to be part of a fraud that was committed toward another person, not would I want to profit by another person's pain. 

Your scenario is not a proper analogy, and therefore is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Personally, I choose to be the sort of landlord who also makes the world a better place by providing nice rentals that people can call their home at a fair price, resulting in a win-win for everyone.  There are plenty of landlords on BP who feel the same way.  I just wish they were the majority.  Judging by this thread, they are a very small minority.

You need to get a hold of some real facts.  With real facts in hand, you can step back and look at this problem from the couple's perspective.  You have already said there are multiple generations living in both units and have been for upwards of 40 years.  That does not sound like a couple looking to sell their home or renege on a mortgage.  So I would want to know exactly what happened that it ended up "bank-owned."  Perhaps someone needs to go after the bank, and make this couple whole.  Maybe you should be having a compassionate conversation with this couple from the perspective that you are all victims together who should be seeking the fairest solution for all concerned, as opposed to threatening an eviction proceeding.  Reading most of the comments really shows where the bad rap landlords in general have comes from. 

Seller's pay the the agent's commission (even though the funds come from the buyer, really it is the buyer paying) because the agent does the work of advertising and showing the property.  Renter's agent works for the renter, so the renter should pay the commission.  

You said she had paid on time and even a little early every month.  It is not for you to question why she could only manage $975 out of $1000.  A lot of tenants would not have paid as much as 97.5% of the rent if, for whatever reason, they could not manage the whole $1000.  Your late recognizes this reality.  I would not have charged any late fee.  I think you should return $75 of that final $100 just to remove the bad taste you have probably left in her mouth over this incident.  Since your relationship with this tenant is mediated by a PM, she really has no reason to share her personal details with you.  Maybe she thinks you would not care anyway.  She may be hunting for a new place even now, one with a less unreasonable landlord.  Think about you would feel if you were in her place.  I agree with others that your late fees are excessive and may make you vulnerable to legal action in the future.  

In many states, you cannot simply get your real estate agent's license.  As part of the process, you must also work for a broker for a required minimum number of years.  It might be hard to find a broker to take you on if you really only want to work for yourself. In that case, you will not be able to get a license anyway.

Two evictions seems a bit much.  If there were one, I would ask why.  I might have had an eviction myself a long time ago.  I rented an apartment from a property manager.  The unit had a serious problem, and I asked for a different unit.  The PM agreed and I moved about a week after moving into the first unit. The PM said all monies paid would be credited to the second unit including the non-refundable part of the deposit (obviously this was not in California).  A few weeks later she sent a letter asking for a new non-refundable deposit.  I refused.  She insisted.  I refused again.  She said okay then, half the non-refundable deposit.  I refused.  She threatened me with an eviction.  I paid the half, but I consider this a form of extortion.  However, had it not been for other personal reasons, I might have called her bluff.  And then who knows?

Joel Owens said, "Unless people have been attacked in real life they have no clue what it is like. It is fast, unforgiving, and usually over in the blink of an eye."  This is very true.  Consider also that even if you use your gun in clear self-defense, your legal nightmares are only beginning. Even if you are not prosecuted, the perpetrator/victim's family could bring civil suit against you.  You will be tried in the press.  Half the community will defend you; the other half will have all kinds of advice about what you could've, should've done.  That half will demand at least civil punishment.

My problem with most buyer's agents is that they want to sell me the property rather than advise me on the merits or demerits of the property.  They have difficulty not resorting to the emotional arguments that manipulate most buyers into buying something they will regret or paying too much.  They want me to "love" the house, when all I am interested in is whether the numbers will work whether I am buying an investment or my personal residence.  They also seem incapable of explaining how an atypical or creative deal will benefit the seller. Agents will not do any homework like look at the public records or check the permit status, but they want to be paid as if they did more than open the front door.  They rarely present true comps, only the comps their office software generates.  They seem unable of looking at those comps and figuring out which ones actually compare to the house in question.  Unsurprisingly, they like to pick merely the highest comps. It is extremely hard to find a good buyer's agent.