All Forum Posts by: Jennifer T.

I hear what you're saying, but do it differently.  Charging only 10% to the tenant just doesn't seem to be worth the trouble anyway.

I often provide washers and dryers, but will tell the tenant and put it in the lease that those are only for their use and will not be repaired or replaced.  Mainly because washing machines can so easily be destroyed by improper use.  Ask me how I know that, haha.  Ovens and refrigerators I repair or replace if something happens to them.  Though, if the damage is tenant-caused...just like anything else...they would be responsible for the charges.

I only have one unit with a dishwasher.  ((Knock on wood)) it has never needed a repair.  But, at this point, it's getting up there in age anyway.

For plumbing, tenants are responsible for the whole cost if they caused the damage.  I typically pay for a plumber to come out and look at it and then will discuss with the tenant, depending on what is found.  I have an extensive lease and literally say that only toilet paper can be flushed down the toilet.  I even specifically give a warning about no "flushable" wipes (because, per my plumber, they can cause problems) and no sanitary products.

I can see the pros and cons.  The "pro" is people can self-weed themselves out.  However, I mainly don't put my qualifications in the listing because I already get a lot of people who don't seem to read the ad.  With the "limited time span" people seem to have for reading ads, I'd rather they focus on the benefits and pertinent details of the property, ie rent amount/number of bedrooms/area. 

I will get into qualifications if a potential tenant asks or comes to a showing/open house and requests an application.

It depends. Keep in mind that rough areas can look great on paper, but the reality is far different. A great ROI for a rough neighborhood is assuming things go smoothly, ie low vacancy rate, consistent rent collection, and normal maintenance/repairs. But the reality is that C and D-class areas are generally more problematic with rent collection and tenant-caused damage. Sometimes purposeful damage. Sometimes damage because they either don't know how or don't care about how to properly take care of a house.

I had tenants in a C-class, though safe, neighborhood earlier this year who completely ruined the kitchen counter tops because they put hot pots/pans directly onto it and would also cut directly on it without using a cutting board.  I'm sure they did not mean to cause all that damage.  Especially after I subtracted it out of their security deposit.  But that was some pretty obvious stuff they didn't think about and/or couldn't be bothered with.  And you're more likely to get those types with C/D rentals.

One of the most non-sensical things I keep hearing is that, once eviction moratoriums are lifted, it's going to cause a wave of evictions that will overwhelm the system.

Yes, that is probably true.  And?  So what?  How EXACTLY does extending eviction moratoriums solve this proooblleemmm?  The longer it goes on, doesn't it actually make that problem exponentially wwooorrrssseee?  Of course it does.

Poor politicians.  SO HARD to follow obvious, logical conclusions!  I'm sure they are the same ones who think most tenants are unicorns that will magically pay months of past due rent when they get their "supposedly lost" jobs back, as opposed to just disappearing when they FINALLY get their notice of an eviction court hearing. 

For my area (Orleans Parish), eviction court has been back open since early June.  The state-ordered eviction moratorium ended back then also.  I've had a couple close calls, but haven't had to try and evict anyone yet.  As such, I'm not sure what the local backlog looks like, but it is something I'll be worried about if I need to go the eviction route.

Not a lawyer, so take this with a major grain of salt.  But I'm not sure you would even have standing to sue the former employer.  Because they did not make the check payable to you, they made it payable to your tenant.  Your tenant then made a side deal with you to essentially have you cash this check for them, ie using it to pay the rent.  Their boss was not a party to that.

If you took the boss to small claims court over the check, at the very least, I'd think the tenant would have to be there also for their testimony which defeats the whole purpose of the tenant not wanting to be involved in the court system. 

It's a nice intent on your part to try and help, even if that is more hassle for you.  Plus it's that sense of justice that the wrong-doer be the one to pay.  But this would be a lot of hassle and probably an unsuccessful one.  Your tenant needs to be the one to sue and while it id understandable he choses not to, that is ultimately his choice.

I have solar panels on my personal home.  It is net metering, in New Orleans, and they get sun all day long.  They generate a lot of power, but I have never had a "zero" electricity bill.  I save about 50-60% on my electricity bill each month.

I don't use them on any rentals.  If I was even able to charge any extra rent, I don't think it would be very much.

As a caveat, our energy provider (Entergy) charges some of the highest per KwH rates in the country here.  Perhaps if the rates weren't so outrageous, my electrical bills would be closer to zero.  

"Reality" shows are...NOT.  It doesn't matter the genre/subject matter.  Some of the kernels might be real (emphasis on might).  Some of the conversations might not be totally "scripted", but the performers are influenced on what to say and there are re-takes.

It's also fun that, sometimes, the only rehab costs included are for the materials.  Like labor is magically free.

To me, a big problem with FHA loans is that the property itself also has to qualify for the loan, ie it has to be in pretty good condition and the smallest things can disqualify a property. It will limit the "stock" that is available for you to purchase with this type of loan. Especially on a multi because sellers have already been using them as rental properties and I rarely see those in great condition. Though I also tend to buy rentals in C areas, so that could be part of it.

It's been 9 years since I looked for owner-occupied loans, lol. But, back then, the only down payment difference between an FHA and conventional loan was 3% vs. 5%. If you can swing a 5% DP and still have reserves, I'd recommend not focusing on it having to be an FHA loan.

Good luck! I started my REI journey 9 years ago when I bought a shotgun double in Mid-City. I still live there and rent out the other side, but I got hooked on RE and the income I could achieve. Since then, I have added four more duplexes and one SFH to my portfolio. I only wish I'd started at the age of 27, instead of 37, lol!

I think assuming only $300/year in maintenance for each house is way too low.  Especially considering the tenant class.  Just one medium repair or a couple minor ones could exceed that.

As for cash-out refi's, they are rarely the homeruns people think they are. Especially for "low dollar" houses because you're not going to have a lot of room between your "all in" cost and the ARV. Another issue for "low dollar" houses is the cash-out refi loan is often less than $100K. Banks and lenders all have minimum loan amounts. The lowest I have personally seen is $30K, but it's usually much higher. It's definitely not impossible, but it is tougher if the loan amount is going to be below $100K. And that's the LOAN amount, not the value of the house. Cash-out refi's typically only allow 65%-75% of the ARV. That's a big chunk of the equity you've gained that stays with the house, but doesn't get paid out to you. Plus, any time you have a property loan, you're paying hundreds for an appraisal and a few thousand in loan fees, which may not make sense to do if the "cash-out" back is slim.

Definitely not trying to discourage you!  These might still be great deals you should jump on.  But I wanted to alert you about potential obstacles you may not have thought of. 

I have a similar line in my leases for my properties that have an icemaker in the fridge.  Though I also don't usually buy refrigerators that have icemakers, because they aren't needed and it is one more thing that can break.