All Forum Posts by: Kyle J.

@Yaniv Tivon With a HELOC, there's a lien on the property. The HELOC will need to be closed/paid off (so the lien can be released) at closing, so title can be conveyed to the new owner.

@Andrea Coulter I understand the desire to not want to reward the bad behavior of a non-paying tenant. However, I only invest in real estate for ONE reason...to make money. That’s it.

I’m not so sure “cash-for-keys” is NEVER the right decision. Sounds like you’re going to have a tenant in your property, not paying any rent, for possibly 18 months.

Are you telling me that if, way back at month two, you could have offered her “cash-for-keys” and got her out, that you wouldn’t have done it? I have a hard time believing that. (It certainly wouldn’t make sense financially for you not to do that.)

I know “cash-for-keys” can be a hard pill to swallow. But it’s just a business decision. Pay a little bit of money, get rid of a problem that’s costing you money, and that allows you to start making money again.

Ultimately, rental houses are just another form of investing. And if you’re investing but not making money, it’s not sustainable. Doesn’t matter if it’s real estate or the stock market. 

@Joyce Williams They both signed the lease. The property has not been returned to you. They still have possession/control of it. They’re both still responsible. 

Here’s another way to look at it. There’s only one way for a landlord to recover possession of a property from tenants who refuse to voluntarily return possession/control to the landlord, and that’s through the eviction process.

Now, I know from one of your other posts that you can’t evict tenants in NY right now even if it’s just for them being a holdover tenant. However, if you could, you’d have to name BOTH the husband and wife in the eviction lawsuit (even though he might have already moved out, since he’d still have a lawful right to return and occupy it).

Bottom line, they’re both responsible. 

Smart questions.  Assuming you gave proper notice, but they refused to move voluntarily, then they would be considered holdover tenants and you could then evict them.  None of our local, state of California or even the federal eviction moratoriums prevent evicting for that reason. 

Unfortunately, eviction (unlawful detainer motion) is the only way for a landlord to regain possession of a property when a tenant refuses to leave voluntarily.  However, my guess and hope for you is that it won't come to that because if a Section 8 tenant is successfully evicted, they risk also losing their Housing Voucher.  As hard as those are to get in California, most Section 8 tenants do not want to risk losing them. 

Which reminds me, here's one last tip...when you serve the tenant any notice, also serve a copy of the notice to the Housing Authority. 

Again, best of luck.

@Carl Mathis  There's a couple things you should definitely be aware of if you want to make sure they’re gone at the end of the lease. 

First, a 90 DAY NOTICE is required to terminate the tenancy of a Section 8 tenant in California.  Here's a couple sources on that because no other tenant in California requires that long of a notice:

California Civil code Section 1954.535 

https://www.attorneydavid.com/blog/terminating-section-8-tenancy-los-angeles/

So do NOT miss that deadline. (My second point will explain why.)

Second, know that if by some chance you miss that deadline and/or they do end up continuing their tenancy in your property beyond the 12-month mark for any other reason, they will likely fall under the relatively new AB1482 law.

This law grants additional protections to any tenant who has continuously resided in a property for over 12-months, and you will not be able to terminate their tenancy (even if they’re month-to-month at that point) unless: 1) you fall under an exemption to this law, or 2) you have “just cause”. 

You can read more about AB1482 and some FAQ’s on it here: 

https://cal-rha.org/legislative/ab-1482/

Hope this helps, and good luck. 

Sorry to hear that. Must be tough to be a landlord in NY right now.

Your Gov. Cuomo must be something of a folk hero to these tenants who are taking advantage and not paying their rent. 

Just FYI, all the local eviction moratoriums in my area, and the statewide one in my state, only prevent evictions based on the non-payment of rent. Even the federal eviction moratorium only prevents evictions based on the non-payment of rent. Evictions for everything else are still allowed.

In fact, not too long ago, I attended an online REIA meeting with an attorney and members from multiple states. The attorney was asked about the exact issue that this poster sounds like he is considering, which is issuing a non-paying month-to-month tenant a notice of non-renewal and then (if they refuse to leave) evicting for being a holdover tenant (which is not prohibited by the moratoriums) instead of the non-payment of rent (which is prohibited by the moratoriums). The attorney at this meeting gave his opinion that this would be completely legal. 

Now, with all that being said, I don’t know NY law and perhaps things are different there. Certainly if you have “several attorneys” giving you advice that is all consistently saying the same thing, follow that.

Some of us are just pointing out how it is in most of the rest of the country for other readers who may be going through the same/similar thing. 

Good luck to all of those who are dealing with these difficult situations/tenants. 

Just say no. There’s nothing else to say. Except maybe to remind him that’s the condition he rented it in and you don’t have any plans to upgrade it. 

As for the “little fixes” you’re having him do, I’m not sure what all that entails. However, in general, it’s not a good idea to have your tenant doing repairs on your property. Pay professionals to do any necessary repairs, and just collect rent from your tenants. It gets complicated when you try to make your tenant your repair person.  

I think you'd run into hurdles finding a hard money lender even willing to do a loan in that scenario, where you intend to personally owner-occupy the property.  

Simply collecting information from borrowers does not require a license in the State of CA. Lots of things need to be collected in the processing of loans, such as information from borrowers, information from insurance companies (evidence of insurance), information from HOA's, ordering appraisals, requesting credit reports, etc. In the institutional lending world, this is often done by people with titles such as Loan Processor or Loan Processing Assistant. Neither legally have to be licensed to do those things.

Loan Officers must be licensed, and I've also seen it be required by some lenders for their Loan Officer Assistants to be licensed.  Loan Officer Assistants can collect documents too, but they also can be involved in quoting rates/and arguably soliciting loans, which I assume is why some lenders probably want them to be licensed.