I'm looking to rent my primary residence and purchase a larger home. Becasue the home has a pool I'm wondering if anyone has a sfr with a pool in california and if there is any advice on how to structure the lease agreement regarding tenate responsibility. I was thinking of offering use of the pool if they agreed to pay for half of the service fee or not allowing use at all?
Any ideas or thoughts would be appreshiated.
It may be hard to enforce that clause. With that being said, it's probably best to have something with regards to liability issues with the pool. You may need to have an attorney look it over. Also, you may need to look into your insurance policy regarding liability coverage with the pool.
Be careful with who you rent it to especially if it's a family with small children. Extra precautions will need to be made if you go down that route.
Hope that helps!
Unless you want to deal with green water and cleaning up the mess between tenants, bite the bullet and pay for a pool service. We used to own a house in Bakersfield with a pool. I'll really try to avoid that in the future! What a pain and expense to maintain!
Here's a recent story on a court ruling out of California that has to do with pools/rentals and landlord responsibilities:
It's worth reading.
Around here houses with pools received $100-$250 more in rent a month. At the same time every house I have seen comes with a pool service. In California you are required to have a fence around pools. Many people have double fences, one around the pool directly and the other around the yard.
Paying for the pool service is the cheapest option even though it seems more expensive. Many tenants simply will not maintain it, and getting them to consistently pay half the costs may be difficult.
Join the Largest Real Estate Investing Community
Basic membership is free, forever.