All Forum Posts by: Ralph S.

It all depends on the buyer, seller and agent involved, but I think in general, neither buyer or seller are best served by allowing an agent to act in a dual capacity.

As a former broker, I would welcome dual agency. For me, it would be a case of denying services to the buyer/seller I'm negotiating with, giving me an advantage (even if only in my mind).

In states that allow the dual agency, most, if not all, have expanded the agency options to include Designated Agency, where a broker can have two agents within the same brokerage where one represents the buyer, the other the seller. Who in their right mind would choose to give up full representation? Only those, like me, who feel it would be an advantage. For those less knowledgeable, it could be a disaster.

Dual agency for the agent is a reduction of their responsibilities and a doubling of their commission. And, for the buyer and seller, whos costs remain the same, they get what?

For the average Joe, don't.

I side with Joel pretty much. But there has to be, somewhere, sometime, a turn in thinking about these REOs. Used to be, a REO was distressed in terms of ownership, and the discount was less for the distress of the property, and more for the as-is nature of the sale. Today, more and more of the REOs held vacant have deteriorated to where the property themselves are distressed as well, which is a double whammy when it comes to pricing.

As a recent seller and buyer, I was pleased to see REOs and Shortsales on the appraisal of the home I bought. As a seller, I instructed our agent to provide the appraiser with an ample number of rock solid non-REO comps (the buyers later said they thought it wouldn't pass appraisal and they could negotiate a lower price, but that didn't happen).

Sooner or later, the RE industry (read that as Banks, Realtors and Appraisers) need to put aside this "it's a buyers market, buyers get what buyers want" mantra and all homes must be compared to SS and REOs because they are a larger segment of homes sold. Bull-pucky.
Every home sold is unique, and every buyer and seller are unique. In ever sale there must be two parties, buyer and seller, who both agree. When the seller is hounded by so called professionals and experts chanting "it's a buyers market, you must...," and pricing based on REO's and SS, well, it doesn't serve anyone. The industry, by painting every listing and sale in terms of REO and SS pricing is fueling the problem.

The guy who bought our house was single in his first, lowball offer. His agent said our price was too high. It's a buyers market, after all, and he can't afford what we were asking. We countered just under our listing price and he bailed. Two weeks later, he comes with another offer, we counter and get a contract.

Distressed properties need to be seen separately to non-distressed properties. In effect, two separate markets, with very different buyers, and pricing in each market. The average Joe and Mary Sixpack, and their two kids are not suited, or well served, when they are talked into buying a distressed fixer upper.

When we first chose a Realtor to list with, she gave us the "it's buy...." and that's about as far as she got before I shut her down. The guy who first came in with the lowball, then came up. HE HAD TO MARRY HIS GIRLFRIEND TO QUALIFY FOR THE LOAN. From listing to close, in 3 months.

Shove that up your buyers market.

Two markets, two types of buyers, two levels of pricing. Every home is unique and should be marketed to an appropriate buyer. End this generic buyers market mantra. Get REOs and SS off the appraisal unless it is a SS or REO. Stop the industry from perpetuating the problem.

Where'd this soap box come from?

Doesn't sound like the ducks are lined up. Doesn't sound like the current owner has legal justification to terminate the lease early as they are not the ones moving in.

I just spent a little time on the CA DCA (Dept of Consumer Affairs) site looking at their Landlord "Book" as they call it.

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/index.shtml

And looking at the CA Civil Code 1940-1954

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=./civ/01001-02000/1940-1954.1

I couldn't find any reference to serving a notice to terminate a lease for anything other than the tenant violating the lease.

I don't think the current owner can do anything. If he serves, and he can, he doesn't care, but it may not hold up in court. Better find a local authority on this one. It wasn't easily located, but I still think they can be served, it may just have to wait until after closing.

And, yes and no as far as in CA. BS in Bus/RE, Humboldt State. 1981. Yeesh. That's 30 years ago this month..... Thanks for reminding me.....

If the tenants are on a lease, then there are usually only a couple ways a LL can serve such a notice to terminate tenancy (notice to vacate), such as if the new owners will be moving in. Otherwise, the lease remains with the property, not the owner, and any new owner must honor the existing lease, terms, and do on. So, make sure the ducks are in a row on that one.

The same would be true if the seller serves notice that the tenancy is terminated as of a certain date. What you are referring to, a notice to vacate, is really a notice terminating tenancy as of a certain date. Once that has been established, selling the property doesn't have any impact on the termination date.

Both of these, lease and notice, are tied to the property and the rights of the tenant to occupy. Who the LL or owner is is not relevant as long as all laws are complied with.

More simply put, and ownership change changes nothing as far as a tenant and their right to occupy, or the end of their occupancy, is concerned.

I would just make sure the seller, in their notice, includes verbage that lets the tenant know the property is being sold and whatever reason the new owners have for terminating the tenancy. I think the only real risk is that the tenants will think, incorrectly, that the notice is void when the property is sold. You want to make sure they understand that is not the case.

Not a lawyer, not legal advice, just as I understand it.

Legal beagle stuff aside (which you really need to do), I wouldn't approach them at all. See how fast they come to you.

Introduce yourself to ALL the neighbors, give them your contact information, get the sad story you may not know, like how this all came to be, and let them know what has happened (you now own the place). Tell them how you've been watching the place, too, and about your interests in buying it, and what your plans are. Chances are, someone you talk to will be fairly good friends with the old owners, and they (the neighbors) will be on the phone with the old owners before you get to the next house.

Let the neighbors break it to the old owners if they don't already know. Let them hear it from a friend, not a letter or a phone call from someone they don't know. Having them say you seem like a nice guy could go a long way when the ice is finally broken.

Post whatever notice on the door that is required by your state that you will be entering the premises. Even landlords can enter, inspect and repair with proper notice. Probably isn't more than a 12 or 24 hour notice.

Cut the lawn, do some yard work. Change the locks, get the utilities turned on, shovel some poo, check out plumbing, electrical and so on. Post your name, address and phone number in a window.

If anyone has any interest in the contents, you'll know sooner than later and maybe all the legal fears are just fears.

Not a lawyer, but hopefully one won't be needed, either.

hmmmm.
Bird Dog Organizations?
Makes you think.
Hand-in-Hand with Wholesaling..........
hmmmm.

The NAWBD?

The National Association of Wholesalers and Bird Dogs.

Call it "Nobody" for short.

Certification courses.....$$$
Membership and Annual Dues......$$$
Continuiing Education......$$$

Gotta publish an ethics standard that "Nobody" follows!

Courses, forms, mentoring, websites, infomercials.

The mind races.

It's own PAC! Advertising campagns explaining that NO, Wholesaling is NOT Illegal!

Hire a couple out of work RE Gurus as pitchmen. I wonder if Armondo's going to be available anytime soon?

Just imagine who'd make up the the Board of Directors. That would really put the *** in Association, wouldn't it?

Could it be, the time has come? Born from the depths of the real estate crash, a new force bringing together and orgainizing a cottage industry, joining forces to save the housing market!

NAR did it. Appraisers, Inspectors, rehabbers, remodelers, and home builders all have national associations, even multiple associations.

Gotta get Flippers in there, too. Maybe an associate membership for flippers.

YES! In just a few short weeks, you too can become a Certified Nobody!

I'm sure there is something productive I could be doing this morning. Sorry if I hijacked the thread with my wandering mind.

How long has this tenant been there? Just moved in?

Go to the PD, ask to speak to the public affairs officer or the precinct captain. Explain your problem.
If there were people arrested, then make sure you get in line for restitution when there cases go to court.
If she is a new tenant, ask the PD about her. She may have passed your background check, but that just means she's never been caught/arrested/etc. She may still be well known to them. Sounds like she's associated in some way with a gang.
Ask what it would take to have your rental declared a nuisance property. It's normally a local municipality thing, not a state law. It basically says the residence is a nuisance due to requiring an unusual amount of police or other services. Here, it's actually the job of the precinct captain to make the call. They can remove her, but it all depends on your local municipality and ordinances.

Let the cops know you want her out, and you want their help. Be the good guy wanting to do the right thing and they should help.

Check with a lawyer about the tenant being a hazard to the property. Note the damages so far and the unreported water. There may be emergency legal actions you can take if you can show that her being there presents an eminent hazard to your property.

Now I'm going to blast you. Don't take it personally.

Know your state and local laws. NEVER listen to the tenant tell you what you have to do! You have to be the authority. Can't let the tenant catch you flat footed or talk you into wasting time doing the wrong thing.

And, that landlord reference thing could be just another stall tactic to make you think that if you do nothing, she might just go away. Don't let that influence you. Act now.

Good luck. It's going to be an expensive lesson in in the value of tenant screening.

Dorraine
Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place for your information. Unlikely that Landlord Tenant law will spell out what is covered elsewhere. It won't be unique to LL/Tenant, but be covered in general business requirements similar to any business that has confidential information. Assuming you're licensed, then you've been taught on handling confidential information in your licensing requirements. It's the same for any business.
The best answer, though, is also in this thread. Before you give out any information that a tenant/client/customer might consider confidential, you have to have their consent. That's why most rental applications are often called credit applications and have a section that authorizes investigation/inquiry. And, as already stated, get a copy in writing before giving out any information.
If I only had a nickle every time a tenant's employer told me to fax them a copy of the application before answering my questions.........

Joel, I both agree and disagree. In your comments, there is a who's responsible, or who's in charge question unanswered. Most of your comments boil down to a measure of the landlord, their integrity, reputation and ability to manage their own business effectively over time.

I'll never lower myself, but expect them to rise to meet my expectations. Easy to say, tough to manage.

There were really two things different here, when I compare this experience with most other tenants. Character, hers, and my breaking one of my golden rules.

She is still going to rate high in my opinion. Her major failure being rent payment history. When her tenancy was finally terminated, she actually moved in with family to avoid eviction. That was unexpected and rare in my experience. There is a lot I still respect about her, and in almost every other way she was everything I hope to find in a tenant.

As to the whole Professional Tenant thing, I found I don't fear code enforcement, they and the police are my friends. And I follow the letter of the law. Nothing to fear, and it just becomes part of what you sign up for when you do this. Ha! Not so much as a missing window screen! I'm still jazzed about that one.

And to Phillip, as much as I'd like to say those two are mutually exclusive, (landlord vs counselor), they cannot really be separated. Simple self interest (avoiding the cost of vacancy and eviction) dictates treating each case according to its own merits, and I have no illusions about being in it by myself. I've become an unwilling expert in local social programs and charities. Can't pay your utilities, go see these people, if they won't help, go see those people. Rent's late, here's five day notice, go see those people. Helping an otherwise good, low income tenant through a tough spot is better than dealing with the alternatives. Just makes good sense. She just made a little too much to qualify, and had an ongoing problem. It wasn't just a rough patch.

Wouldn't change a thing. The "friendly, not friend" policy still firmly in place. Just a rough day on the conscience.