BiggerPockets

Candidate one appears pretty good and can move in now. Has rent and security money ready to go.

Candidate two appears excellent, but wants to move in a month. Can pay security deposit now.

Which do you choose?

the cute one.. I thought we did everything based upon looks...

To comply with the law, don't you have to take the first applicant who meets your minimum qualifications (in the order of the time they applied), regardless of whether the second applicant, who applied later, is more qualified?

So, you say Candidate one IS qualified. My earlier question stands: "If qualified, why are you not going with Candidate one?"

And then think this one: What will you be putting into the rejection letter for Candidate one, if you do not offer them the place?

For Candidate two, the rejection is based on the time the lease is to start - not so with Candidate one.

Jon,

One other point that may sway your decision.

When I see "excellent" tenant applicants (from credit and income perspective), I expect that they will become buyers. If this were a L/O, then they could cash you out sooner, so they would be good. On the other hand, they will likely not be long term tenants.

The tenant with lesser credit will need longer to become a buyer, and will remain a tenant for a longer duration. No guarantee they will remain your tenant for that whole duration, but you have that possiblity to consider.

Steve- questions; isnt at the very core of L/O the position that you do not want to be cashed out by your buyer?

When that happens you lose your asset to gain an additional option consideration.

I understand the differences. I guess I have heard from a lot of L/Oers that the marginal credit buyer was a better canidate.

Allows for an inflated monhtly and purchase price. Whereas the qualified buyer has many more choices.

if both tenants qualify, you gotta go with the one that applied first. Otherwise you ask for a discrimination issue.

You are free to select anyone who meets your requirements, if you have decided to rent only to people with black hair, then so be it! Someone with blonde hair might sue you, but hair color is not a protected class. And if someone sue you, you will need to justify your selection.

Maybe hair color is a bad example, but let's say someone has trash in their car and it was filthy inside, that is an indication of housekeeping and compared to someone with a clean and neat interior might be a better selection.

Most do select on a first come first serve basis, but that is not a requirement.

Is there anywhere where a rule about this is codified? Fair Housing Act? Or is it a state by state thing? (about the order of applications, selection)