All Forum Posts by: Theo Carrazco

I agree 100% an LL should be very concerned about an eviction. I guess I fail to make my point clear. To me a foreclosure at the end of all the smoke and mirrors is an eviction. Better yet, it is a glorified eviction. Is it not? Would be nice to see eviction prevention  just like we have foreclosure prevention assistance. Renters get no help. And to me are judged more harshly. Just an observation. 

Wow nicely put!

But... to me foreclosure = non-payment and eviction = non-payment. Not to blame non payment of rent on foreclosure. I'm just making the point that a short sale, a foreclosure means someone is NOT getting paid. And yes, banks can resell (But to that point, a landlord can re-rent just as a bank can resell), so again it is equal to me. BUT in my market in Florida, there are so many foreclosures, they all just sit and sit....the bank is NOT getting paid, and much worse, foreclosures from 2003 - 2008 have caused a huge ripple effect in banking economies which in turn effects everyone. So it is pretty serious to foreclose IMO.
Yet, it takes only 2 years to bounce back from a short sale or foreclosure, or bankruptcy and you can get another mortgage. BUT for those with evictions, I know landlords that will not rent to you if you've had 1 eviction in your lifetime. That's extreme in comparison. I'm just comparing what I believe to be apples to apples.

Honestly, I believe that punishments are much lighter for socio-economic classes and the challenges they face, where as punishment is much more severe should someone for a lower socio-economic situation dare break the rule. I believe as we continue this discussion I'm leaning more towards believing that the way we judge foreclosure vs eviction is unfortunately laced with a double standard.

Perhaps we reserve the benefit of the doubt to those with similar "circumstances" in similar socio-economic backgrounds, working similar positions,etc. And we believe they WILL pay their rent more faithfully than say, someone working paycheck to paycheck. I thought that way for a long time, until I saw white collar people, with the means to pay, NOT PAY! Its quite a head scratcher, especially when those who are evicted oftentimes CAN NOT PAY at that particular time. So punishment is reserved for those whom can't help themselves, BUT those who can avoid non payment, they get a second, third, fourth fifth chance. hm... what a world.

Excellent point, but the "economic"climate of an area affects both renters and buyers especially if they work in similar industries and have access to the same pool of jobs. My point is, you seem to excuse the owners due to economics, but you offer no excuse for renters? We know that mortgage payments are often much lower than what renters have to pay for the same property, and if renters and owners both are affected by down turning economies, why is a foreclosure not just as bad or worse than an eviction? Both can lose their job, both can get sick, both can sustain injury, divorce, etc. What divides renters and owners when life happens, whats the difference? Additionally, since mortgage payments are often substantially lower than what landlords charge for rent, you would think it would be easier for owner versus renter to keep up with payments, no?  Some renters have paid tens of thousands if not more in their lifetimes, having one slip up is cause for alienation? Some may have withheld rent for JUST cause. In real life, Landlords are absolutely NOT infallible, yet they are always in the right on paper when we see the word EVICTION its an automatic judgement. 

Charging a higher deposit seems more fair, than just totally ignoring their application as completely ineligible.
By the way, I love hearing your points of view, this topic is something I've been debating with myself about for a while. Quite a head scratcher.

Friends, I came across an ad, on Craigslist that made me think. The ad was of a modern home in a decent area. Of course, the rent was inflated but not by much. The ad listed renter qualifications,  and explicitly said "those with foreclosure are welcome to apply". and those with an eviction “need not apply”.  I’m baffled. Firstly, from the standpoint of a bank, which has lent out several hundred thousand to an applicant, they most certainly would consider a foreclosure to be 10X worse than an eviction (which often times is due to landlord/tenant dispute versus a few months late rent). I know of some landlords who evict on a whim, often after tenants have already vacated. This callous act causes severe damage to a renter's future ability to secure a decent shelter for their families.

It seems to be a statement of class preference versus actual qualification. Those who have foreclosed on a property more than likely lived anywhere from 5 months to 1 year mortgage free (again extremely worse than evictions which are most likely 1-2months of rent in arrears) I know many people (in Florida) who stall the courts and live 5 years in foreclosure and have the nerve to lease out the property and collect rent, paying the bank absolutely NOTHING. Many of those cases in fact "investors" the very people who would NEVER rent to someone with a past eviction, no matter the circumstance.

I don't understand why we throw those with an eviction to the side, while welcoming those who owe several hundred thousand for a home they obviously stopped making payments on and are not-paying the loan back after the foreclosure.

I just don’t understand how that is a more desirable tenant. At the very least, perhaps an eviction is the lesser of two evils? I welcome all opinions as I am trying to embrace a more fair, non classicist approach to this business.