data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/91897/918976bb8653ff0e02d38797f6964cf5f9c8813b" alt=""
4 April 2018 | 9 replies
Civil Code Section 1950.5(b) specifies what can be deducted.If the tenant waives the right to documentation receipts are not required.No later than 21 days after regaining possession, the appropriate security deposit amount should be returned.I give the tenants an option to do a pre-inspection about 10 days before move out.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8b607/8b607291843e4910c9842fe81205f1ee1b6b2083" alt=""
11 February 2016 | 24 replies
SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF PREMISES 600.5726 Recovery of possession following forfeiture of executory contract for purchase of premises; accelerated indebtedness.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a408/9a408a71ad0a19691d7bfefa8d139dd7654af847" alt=""
4 March 2016 | 36 replies
The lease allows possession as a renter, but is not connected to ownership.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0aef0/0aef0681da3e670bcdfae79158666f96f2f1c322" alt=""
5 November 2014 | 6 replies
@Alexander Merritt We frequently buy properties with tenants in-place - when you are buying MFH, you rarely take vacant possession ... nor would you normally want to have a big empty building ;-)You inherit the existing contracts (leases) with the purchase and must honour them.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d44e0/d44e004b1405ff9c414fcccabe39bb7a3fe42e51" alt=""
27 April 2017 | 16 replies
I suppose the problem is partially that he's extremely lazy (does nothing all day answers the door in his underwear) and also that maybe to him the trash in his yard are his worldly possessions that he can't live without.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ed3ea/ed3ea64a9a202cd07546dfc18c0e3a1ab32b131f" alt=""
29 May 2013 | 6 replies
That's certainly not the case for California, and OP needs to check how it's done in AZ.Sheriff here doesn't do jack unless we get a judgment of possession, late in the eviction phase.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/58e47/58e47eb73288baa09e31c8cd32ff1d0cfb8c2052" alt=""
21 February 2017 | 39 replies
In allot of cases insurance is simply a waste of money, If your renter is wise with how money works and doesn't have much value in his personal possessions then self insuring/no renters insurance would make the most sense.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/02af9/02af9405d7c45cd576e55f8e1c6c9ea4db747ee6" alt=""
23 January 2018 | 14 replies
.), before possession will be granted.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba845/ba84524af2292db46de23fe18b7757cf31b16c7b" alt=""
20 February 2021 | 84 replies
Toledo investors and landlords had our day in court today and really the day could not have gone better.We were awarded our preliminary injunction immediately stopping the enactment of the ordinance...we now have an absolute unequivocal ruling that the City of Toledo cannot carry forward with the threat to fine landlords who don't comply with their ordinance.This ruling is of course in advance of the Judge's final ruling on the case...for a permanent injunction of the entire ordinance.Of note - our esteemed Judge awarded our injunction citing validity OF ALL FOUR key justifications of the lawsuit:- The city of Toledo city council cannot hand over enforcement powers it doesn't possess as a legislative body (the cornerstone of unconstitutionality) over to the Lucas County Health Dept.- The city failed to have an agreement with the LCHD when they enacted the ordinance (they created one months later when we requested a copy for our lawsuit).- There is a violation of the equal protection of individuals (landlords) in enforcing this ordinance ONLY on owners 1-4 units and not on all rentals or all homes built before 1978.- The city fumbled the definition of Owner in their municipal code (we filed the issue in court about a week ago)...anyone who had a utility bill and controlled the property was considered an owner and thus exempt from the ordinance so totally muddying the waters two weeks before implementation was to occur.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b2ec1/b2ec17cc188d222682c6e1ae20fddcbef7d317ab" alt=""
30 May 2017 | 53 replies
You can also check that tenants will remain in possession.