All Forum Posts by: Ted Klein

Thanks for the reply. Her children are asking questions and I thought I might get some answers here. You are correct in that they need to contact an attorney.

However, can anyone explain why a new statutory warranty deed would be recorded in which the buyer and the seller are one and the same? I have heard about situations where there was a name change, but in this case, the names are exactly the same for both the buyer and the seller.

Upon the death of my sister, I have been researching properties owned by her and I have found quite a lot that I need help understanding.

She was previously married and legally divorced but began living with her new partner in 1999. I might add that they were never legally married, but likely would have been common law married in the state of Kansas except that the partner apparently was a bigamist as we have since discovered that he was married to another lady from 1990 until 2019. During their partnership, they were accumulating properties, and some were purchased as husband and wife, while he was legally married to another lady.

Kansas law states: A common law marriage will be recognized in Kansas if the couple considers themselves to be married and publicly holds themselves out to be married and if they are legally eligible to marry. No minimum period of cohabitation is required.

Since Bigamy is a felony in Kansas, and he wasn't legally eligible to marry, how would these properties be purchased together be divided since he was not eligible to marry.

The 1st statutory warranty deed shows that a property was purchased in 2000 in my sister's name as the only buyer. Then in 2006 there is another statutory warranty deed showing that the same property was sold by my sister "and her partner" in 2006 back to themselves. Not sure what the significance of this was unless it was to include the partner on the deed. Would there be any issue with the way it is written with the partner as a seller in the 2006 transaction as he was never on the deed in the first place.

 Can anyone help me understand why there would be two transactions on the same property? What advice can anyone provide on how to unravel this web of real estate purchases where they are both shown as Joint Owners with rights of survivorship, but they were never legally married. How would these properties be divided amongst her children?

I am looking for clarification on whether the closing costs on multiple refinances of a rental property might affect the Capital Gains. Is it only on the original purchase or are subsequent refinances included in the cost basis of the property?

@Kirsten Crotts I currently have property in Marysville and the $1600 - $1800 range is accurate. We have excellent tenants who take care of the place and have always paid on time or even early. As @John Barrett said crime and homelessness issues will vary from street to street. There are definitely some rough spots of town, going east and north would be your best bets.

The city of Marysville has taken a different approach to the homelessness issue in that the homeless are given an opportunity to accept assistance, if they refuse, then they can be arrested. It seems to be a win win in that the homeless are being given help and the city has less problems with it. As a quote from a local website states: "We offer significant and meaningful help to those who commit transient-related crimes and impose legal consequences for those who choose not to accept that help."

Not sure what part of town that @Eric Turner was referring to, but we have had nothing but a good experience in Marysville. @Kirsten Crotts if you want to PM me, I can give you more details :)

@Jeb Brilliant The property is in Washington state and yes as @Karen Margrave mentioned, it is a blue state and the laws actually favor tenants in some jurisdictions. I did take their application and was prepared to enter a lease agreement regardless of the one applicants lower than required income or their marital status. I was looking at a combined income over 100k which more than exceeds 3x monthly rent. In the end, they changed their minds before signing. 

@Karen Margrave I’m pretty diligent in my screening and make every effort to ensure I am not discriminating or even mention a protected class in my ad and qualification requirements. I typically get the email from a prospect and then send them a reply inquiring if they meet the following requirements

* 1 year Lease contract
* Verifiable income of 3x monthly rent
* Verifiable employment history
* Verifiable rental references
* No Evictions
* No Pets
* No Smoking
* Utilities: Tenant (Lessee) shall be responsible for Electricity, Water, Sewer & Garbage
* First Month rent of $xxx and a Security Deposit of $xxx are required at lease signing.
* Last Month rent of $xxx payable over 1st three months. 

I don’t think there is anything discriminatory in these questions. If the prospect meets the requirements then they get a tour and an application.

@Account Closed I’m pretty sure that I could study the laws more to be that nerd, but I have Invested time to read them enough and know where the resources are to answer most of my questions before hanging myself with irresponsible actions either in screenings or direct communication with tenants or prospects.

All to often I read threads on here that I’m sure were well intended but perhaps a misplaced word or two and the whole thing then becomes entangled in a diversion of the topic leading into many different avenues.

I don’t want this to seem negative as this diversion does create good communication and allows the community to share different perspectives that eventually enhance our businesses. Thanks for sharing yours :)

@Account Closed mentioned, it is really the risk of “person A” as having the real risk. As many others have mentioned, best case is all tenants over 18 on the lease agreement therefore everyone is responsible for the lease obligations. 

@John Teachout I agree with your comment. Somewhere in the thread people started talking about marital status being a protected class. Whereas the intent as you have stated was how to deal with a scenario where one of the tenants couldn’t afford the rent on their own. Given that my situation was dealing with an unmarried couple, I had worded the title to include the reference to an unmarried couple. Marriage had really nothing to do with the problem at hand.