Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here
Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties. Try BiggerPockets PRO.
x
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Sammy Msouty

Sammy Msouty has started 2 posts and replied 8 times.

Thank you Bryan!!! This has been helpful.

I actually do currently have wording like that in the lease so I will be charging them for the damage.

and yes, there is a shower and they continued to use the bathtub anyways.... 

Gotcha. So it sounds like the default is that it's likely normal wear & tear (or poor installation) and that I would need to pay for the tub replacement unless I can somehow prove they hit it with a hammer, dropped a bowling ball in there, etc...

Separately, I can charge them for the water damage since they didn't notify me and have admitted in writing they knew for 4 months. 

Did I miss anything?

Thank you Bryan.

Are you saying that if a tub is installed properly then I shouldn't expect it to crack after 10-15 years? I'm going in tomorrow to get it replaced so I'll be able to see if enough support was installed underneath it. If I see that it was installed properly (and can prove it) would that help my case in saying this isn't normal wear and tear and charge them?

For more background, I purchased the home around 5 years ago and we know that the house was gutted and remodeled in 2009. So I'm completely speculating about when the tub was installed. 

They did admit in the email exchange in the last couple of days that they've known about this for 4 months.

They are also claiming they told me 4 months ago (a lie) but they don't have anything in writing informing me about the cracks 4 months ago.

That makes sense. Do you think I can also charge them for the tub replacement itself?

Tenants say there is a water leak. We go to the upstairs bedroom and the bathtub has 4 cracks that are clearly leaking water. The cracks are so extreme that it almost looks like the bottom is going to fall out because they create a nearly complete semi-circle around the edge. 

No one informed me and one of the tenants admitted to seeing it at least 4 months ago.

My question is can I claim it is not wear and tear and that they are responsible for it? I would guess the tub was installed 10-15 years ago and is likely fiberglass. I do not know if there is adequate support underneath and that it was installed properly.

If it is considered normal wear and tear then can I charge them for the water damage since they didn't report it in a timely manner? I have language along those lines in the lease.

Thank you.

PS, I live in Indiana.

We originally had 3 people sign a year lease. We've only taken payment from tenant A the entire year, including the original security deposit. 

Tenant A is now leaving but Tenants B and C want to renew with a Tenant D (a person they found). 

Do I give Tenant A the entire security deposit back and then charge Tenants B, C, and D another security deposit? If so, should I do a full inspection and subtract damages from the deposit amount? Also, is it reasonable to ask for the 2nd security deposit before I refund the first one?

Or, should I simply state the deposit remains since only one of the original 3 tenants is leaving and say that they have to figure it out from there (e.g. Tenant D pays his share to Tenant A). Would I be legally vulnerable since it was Tenant A who actually made all of the payments on behalf of Tenants B and C?

Thank you!