All Forum Posts by: Jon K.

Not only that.

SCREEN HIM. Well! Even more since he's offering you a huge carrot.

Anyone qualified doesn't offer up CASH for a YEAR first thing before they even fill out an application.

He has likely been evicted, or worse, and wants you to not run his application because he's dangling a cash carrot in front of you.

And, no business has to pay a year's worth of rent upfront for a tax write-off. He's telling you a load of crap.

Screen him well, no matter how much cash upfront he offers. Run his background, credit, application, verify employment, verify rental references, etc. and follow your normal lease requirements. Cash upfront is not something a qualified tenant offers you from the get-go before even applying.

It's less popular in smaller cities, but still possible.

Make sure you're not violating zoning or local laws ("bed and breakfast rules," "hostel or boarder houses, etc."). Also see if your taxes are affected in your area (local sales tax plus income tax if it's a hotel, or just income tax if it's a rental). Also check with your insurance and make sure such a thing is covered.

A lot of people rent out rooms to visiting oil men or medical students. And, also, a lot of cities HATE Airbnb type sites that take business away from local hotels. So, make sure you're violating any HOA, city, or local ordinances in doing such rentals.

Good point.

Farm land rentals have their own issues.

And, rentals at $5000 or more in most areas are "high-end" and it takes longer to find a tenant willing and able to pay that. For farmland with a "high-end" rental house in (I'm assuming) a rural area, I would probably pay a realtor 1/2 or maybe even 1 month's rent for a 1-2 year lease for a qualified tenant. 1/2 month's rent is much more reasonable, though it is quite difficult to find tenants for $5000+ properties, let alone rural farmland rentals, so I might just do it if it was a very well-qualified tenant and a 1-2 year lease.

This.

Why make your tenants have background checks if you're going to let them move in their boyfriends/girlfriends/friends who are violent offenders or sex offenders?

Every adult living at the property should be on the lease. Simple.

Either have standards or don't have standards. If tenants get background checked and rental history checked, why let sex offenders who have been evicted 10 times move in with them? I would say that it's easy for a tenant to claim the person was "just a temporary guest" though too.What does your lease and/or city say about guests and what's considered a guest? Tenants can have guests-- people who move-in should be on the lease. Tenants can live with whoever they like, but all adults have to be on that lease. More people living there can mean more risk (prior evictions, sex offenders), more utilities, more wear and tear, more parking needed. You want to know what adults are living in your building long-term and screen them like you do all over tenants.

What if the guest becomes the tenant by default and you have to do an eviction?

If you document that he's there or tell the tenant you know he's there, did you just "accept" him as a tenant? What if the "real" tenant moves out, then you have to evict this guy and have problems because you "accepted" him as a tenant by telling her you know he's there-- no rental or criminal history check completed? And, if you told her you know he's there, you just said "I know you're violating the lease by allowing an unauthorized occupant, but I'm not going to do anything about it." I wouldn't tell her I know he's there unless I plan to have him officially screened and added to the lease. If he has nothing to hide, he shouldn't have a problem with being screened.

Are you paying utilities or are they?

If you don't follow your lease terms about unauthorized occupants, they'll start breaking other rules or adding more people. First it's the boyfriend moving in. Then it's his entire family, then their friends, or more roommates. Tenants can live with whoever so long as all adults meet the rental criteria and they don't go over max occupancy per bedroom per the city.

I've seen that mentality too, unfortunately. It's that sort of "entitlement mentality" and outright laziness and lack of personal responsibility that gives welfare entitlement programs like section 8 a bad name. There are some hard-working people temporarily getting section 8 as a hand-up, not hand-out. Unfortunately that seems to be the minority of the recipients that I've seen in my area. Too much of an entitlement attitude in my area-- why work and have a job if society will pay your rent/food/etc.?

No way.

I would never do section 8.

I wouldn't want to have to deal with section 8 rules and non-sense if I didn't have to. I would rather rent to hard-working responsible people who have something to lose and won't be as likely to trash my place.

The tenant pool has less to lose, in general-- less wages to garnish and often weaker credit/rental histories. The mentality of some section 8 tenants is just a disgrace too-- do nothing, let everyone else pay, cause problems. Obviously some section 8 rentals are by sweet old ladies who take good care of their place and are polite and clean, but I've also seen inner-city section 8 where that's not the case.

Also, what's your maximum occupancy per bedroom? Some cities let you limit the total number of people per bedroom-- fire hazards, etc. I doubt 6 people in 3 bedrooms is over occupancy in most cities, but you could check. I wouldn't, for example, let 10 people live in a 3 bedroom house-- my city lets me limit it like this. Regardless, I wouldn't rent to section 8 anyway. No way. Not unless my property was a "lower income property" in the ghetto or low-class area.

Ah, they probably found a place they liked better elsewhere and used any excuse they could think of.

No deposit and 1st months rent? No lease.

Then if they want to back out, they're out at least first month's rent and deposit. No excuses accepted- money in hand, lease signed.

I would never accept partial deposits. They could easily not pay it (isn't it hard to evict for lack of deposit payments there?) or damage the place the first month they live there then walk away. And if someone is that broke, that's just red flags all the way across. Unless we're talking a $4000 rent and $4000 deposit... reasonably affordable places a tenant knows they'll need a deposit upfront in order to move into.

True. If they're easily garnish-able with easy to find office locations, it's a little harder for them to move and not pay. But usually a tenant who wants to leave will just leave-- or annoy you until you let them out of that 2 year lease. Having longer to find new tenants without a vacancy is nice, but not as nice as the ability to kick out a bad tenant with only 30 days notice if it's month to month.

Call his bluff on ...what? Him verifying with his landlord that 30 days notice to vacant is required? That's a good thing for a tenant to do if he doesn't know how much notice is required (and like plenty, doesn't seem to read the lease).

The tenant hasn't had trouble paying rent, other than one time forgetting it was rent date.

Why force them into an annual lease? I've had month to month tenants stay for years. Increasing the rent for month to month tenants is fine. If this tenant pays and pays on time (his one late excluded) and doesn't cause problems, I wouldn't seek to get him out if the rent was comparable. If the rent is too low, yes, I would increase it for month to month tenants.

In my area, well over 50% of the overall rental tenants ARE smokers.

Urban areas often see more smokers. Sometimes very rural areas also have smoking/cigars. The greater the income, the less likelihood of smoking, so I've found. Upscale high-earning tenants often will pay more to live in a 100% smoke-free building, even in urban areas. It's the low and middle income rentals, especially section 8 and 'slum' areas, that you'll have a huge percentage of tenants as smokers.

If the OP has a non-smoking building, yes, the carpet has to be replaced or try and use "After Fire" to rid it of the smell."

Or, allow smokers in there again (with all the risks and damages that causes).

My properties are and always will be non-smoking homes and grounds--- but I eliminate way over 50% of potential tenants by doing this. Suits me, as smokers are often poorer. And that smell is near impossible to remove from a home and disintegrates resale value.