All Forum Posts by: Wesley W.

So, here's the update:  I sent them a notice via email and text asking them to take it down within 10 days (Aug 18th).  (I was away on vacation, so did not make a stop in person.)  They did, but were clearly not happy.

I stopped over yesterday (they were away on vacation for several days as well, apparently) just to "clear the air" and explain why it needed to be taken down.

Ironically, I got a call after leaving the property from another landlord checking their references, so it looks like they are moving over this issue - even though they haven't given notice yet, and didn't mention it during my visit.  I didn't mention the pool issue to the new landlord, as they didn't ask anything other than whether they paid rent on time.

@Kenneth B.

Sure thing!  Never a dull moment...

I sent a letter to them yesterday, giving them a week to take it down.  Not unexpectedly, they were not happy and are "looking for new places."  I checked with the municipality, and it's definitely a code violation.  My insurance almost certainly has an exclusion for the pool, and I cringe when I think about the impending water bill.  They filled 3 pools this season.

@Account Closed

 They are good tenants otherwise, yes.  They are a MTM lease, so I will just add an amendment over the winter so there is no question.

Thanks everyone for your continued feedback!  Someone once told me that your lease agreement will be continually updated as tenants find loopholes.  Guess this is one I missed.

P.S.  I saw the box the pool came in today; it measures 30" deep and 12 feet across.  Good grief!

Thanks for your feedback!

I think I am going to let things go this year (since we only have 3 more weeks of the pool season here in upstate NY), and over the winter - long after the days of summer are behind - send an ammendment to tenants ( all MTM) that pools will be henceforth prohibited, citing insurance and city code issues.

Hey folks,

I'd like to get input on those investors with rentals in regards to their tenants having those temporary (usually inflatable) pools in their yards.  You know the ones they sell at the box stores?

I never gave it much thought when my tenant got one, but then it broke - so he got another one (which was slightly bigger), and then that one got damaged, so he got his current one.  When I showed up to do some maintenance today I was suprised to see a 500+ gallon pool, complete with operating filter, in the backyard.  The pool is probably 2 ft high and maybe 10 feet in diameter.

For context, this is a small multi-family with a shared yard.  (Some may remember my post from last week about the tenant complaining about other tenants damaging the pool, however I'm not sophisticated enough to know how to link that thread here.)

I currently don't have anything in my leases about this, but am considering it.  If my insurance agent found out, I am sure I would get levlied a surcharge at the very least; not to mention my increased water bill (local custom landlord pays).  If you do have a lease that addresses these "temporary" pools, do you limit the size or exclude them outright?

Thanks in advance!

Thanks to everyone for your input.  I appreciate your insight!

Oh, and it's a shared yard if that wasn't obvious.

Hi folks,

I once again seek the collective wisdom of experienced landlords.  I own a small multi-family building, and here is the text I got today:

"Listen I'm having a BIG problem with the other tenants kids and cats ruining my daughters pool... Now this is the third pool this season I'm buying because the last two have been destroyed by these kids from upstairs and the kids next to me too... Please tell these people to leave my stuff alone.. Cause I'm at wits end with these parents letting these kids get away with anything."

He's referring to those inflatable pools about 8 ft. in diameter that hold a foot or so of water.

How involved would you get?  How would you address it?

Thanks in advance!

Hello All,

We're a week or so away from closing on another small-multifamily property that is, for the most part, (2 of the 3 units) occupied.

When we put in our offer, one of the units - a first floor apartment that takes up 50% of the square footage of the property - was vacant.  The PM (acting as agent for the seller) was in the process of screening tenants to place in the unit.

We asked them to "hold their horses" as we wanted an opportunity to find an screen our own tenant and would use our own MTM lease agreement to establish their tenancy.  The PM said he was willing to use our application and lease to place a new tenant.  We agreed, but were very specific that we wanted a MTM agreement only, NO LEASES.

Well, during due diligence under attorney approval we had the tenants fill out estoppel agreements, where they disclosed they were on a year lease that began when they took occupancy this month.  Prior to that, the "signed" lease agreement (ours that the PM used) was faxed to us, and the "term" field was left blank.  I assumed they were just being sloppy (which I see very often with sellers and their paperwork) and didn't fill it in because it wasn't a lease.  (I always fill it in for 30 days hence with my tenants upon signing.)

So, bottom line is that the PM either misunderstood our insructions (which I find hard to believe because we couldn't have been more emphatic about not having any year leases) or - more likely - he was worried he couldn't acquire this tenant without a year commitment.  Basically, obligating us to that term since the property was under contract.

As an aside - I opened with "2 of the 3 units are occupied."  Since we were under contract, a tenant vacated one of the upper apartments and we asked that it be left vacant.

Also - our local MLS contract does NOT have a stipulation that the seller may not enter into new agreements with tenants without the buyer's written permission (as I have seen in other markets).

My concerns are that this seller is marrying me to this new tenant from out of state, not vetted by me, and no payment history in this property.  And his unit comprises an inordinate amount of the rent for the entire building.

I'm not sure what I can ask the seller for to make up for this new increased risk.  Obviously, the tenant may now legally possess the apartment through June of 2016, and maybe he won't be a problem, but it's introducing another variable into my attempt to have a performing property.

I don't think this is a "deal killer", but I'd certainly be more comfortable with some type of overture from the seller to mitigate this situation.  Not sure what that would be.

What to do you think?  WWBPD?  ;)