All Forum Posts by: Richard C.

Another vote for your mortgage rep being an idiot.  But for a different reason.  There are other ways to get around that 25% down payment LEGALLY, and she should know them.

Matt,

There are many, many threads on this.  The bottom line is that it depends on what the actual statutes are in the state you are operating in.  Some states will take a more aggressive line than others about attempts to evade the intent of their licensing laws.

Some states create a clear distinction between "individuals" and "corporate entities" in their laws. Some of those also have criminal drug laws that forbid individuals from selling illicit narcotics. Do you think you are going to get around that with, "Happy Johnnie's Crack-r-us, LLC?" I assure you that the answer is, "No."

You have to look at the actual law in the state in question, not look up the word "option" in Black's Law Dictionary and say, "Ah ha!"

It is all about managing risk.  There is not one way to do it, not just the 2% rule or the 50% rule, there are many.

For example, I am barely getting 1%. Some might say I am therefore not adequately protected against risk. On the other hand, I am not at all highly-leveraged (LTV across my *very small* portfolio is way under 50%). That is a way to mitigate risk.

I have also, so far, not pulled a penny out.  We live on my salary; cashflow is rolled back in, in the form of saving for the next down payment, rennovations/additions to the houses, or principal pay-down.

These "rules" are rules of thumb.  Maybe if I am eyeing a piece of 2x4 it looks like I need 8 thumbs worth, and I only have 7 and therefore don't have enough.  I'm still going to actually measure in inches, and if it fits, it fits.

 Where's the defect?  

YES!  And frankly, he's toast.

Not unusual to have more than one person on the deed.  For that matter, my wife's name is on the deed to our primary, but only my name is on the mortgage.

She has rights.  He can't sell without her.

I guess a couple of other things. For an SFR, the ability to have pets is, in my area, assumed. It would be a significant disadvantage for me to try to rent with a no-pet rule. It is one of the big differences, in tenants' eyes, between renting an apartment and renting a house.

I rent with no utilities.  Standard practice for SFRs here.

Trash removal is very cheap compared to MA, and so is water in places that have town water, which many small towns do not.

I have yet to find a property management company worthy of the name.  Mostly it is a sideline to a handyman/cleaning/realty business, and it shows.

New Hampshire's laws are really pretty reasonable.  Not the sort of extremely pro-tenant laws you hear nightmare stories about, but not the sort of wild-west nonsense we hear about some places, either.  They strike a pretty fair balance.

There is a pretty long list of reasons to lawfully terminate tenancy, and another pretty long list of types of occupation that do not create a tenancy (including a specific exemption for vacation rentals I am sure one poster here wishes California had!).  On the other hand, there is a pretty long list of things landlords cannot do.  Evictions are pretty straightforward.  You can collect only first month and security deposit, no last month or crazy deposits.

Hard for me to answer how they compare to MA, since I don't own anything in MA.  

Rental market in NH strikes me as very variable on location.  Mind you, I have a grand total of three rentals, all within a 12 mile radius.  I'm in Southwestern NH (Monadnock region) and rents are stable and vacancies short.  No big run ups that will make you rich overnight, on either property appreciation or rent growth, but people have wanted to live here for going on 400 years now and that doesn't seem to be changing.

In terms of the culture or general attitude, it is mixed.  On the one hand, there is a lot of deference to property rights, generally.  On the other, "Live Free or Die" is understood to apply to renters as much as to property owners.  Some of the stuff I see people post on here that they do just makes me shake my head.  Insisting on inspecting a prospective tenant's current home before leasing?  Might be common elsewhere.  Here, everyone will laugh in your face and then tell all their friends about the weird, invasive SOB they just had to deal with.  And I make a point of figuring out what I think is a "reasonable" amount of notice to enter the house, and then double it.  Not kidding even a tiny bit.  I give a month of notice to change the filters on the furnace.

Hello Dunstan,

I have never rented in Netherlands.  I have in France (twice, in Paris and Toulouse), in Spain in Cordoba province, in Umbria, and in Malta.

I quite agree that we should not generalize.  Which is why I found Thierry's comment amusing.  The notion that European building are built to a higher standard is, to my experience, unsupportable.

Also keep in mind that even if none of the damage was caused by your roof, if the changes to your roof were unpermitted, your toast.  So find out whether you have a leg to stand on, first.  If your changes were not permitted, you are going to need to swallow your pride and do whatever it takes to settle this.