Applicant with recent eviction

13 Replies

I already know the answer to this one.

But would anyone here consider a applicant with a recent eviction?

I am looking at a couple, both have jobs, that can support the rent. Have a recent kid, and seems to want to turn their life around.

Would anyone consider it, and if so what would be the determining factor.

I would consider it if they pay 12 months up front, otherwise nope.

I've encountered plenty of people who want to do stuff. I can't count the number of people who have told me "I want to get into RE investing" after seeing what I'm doing. After 4+ years of hearing this, not one of them has even attempted to start investing.

This couple may have the best intentions, but you're still dealing with somebody who recently had to be forced to move out of another apartment for some reason.

@Gabe G. go with the answer you already knew before you posted. I agree with @Michael Siekerka - the only additional thing I'd add is to require 2 full months security deposit.

But, that that point we're talking about unrealistic scenarios - might as well charge them 1 unicorn horn and a big foot tail.

No. A prior eviction, especially a recent one, is a huge red flag and one of the few absolute disqualifiers when I am screening potential tenants.

Anyone with a prior eviction will likely know more about the eviction process than most landlords, especially when it comes to stall/delay tactics.

Besides, if they both have jobs that can "support the rent", then why did they recently get evicted? They've already cost one landlord a lot of money by forcing him/her to evict them. Don't let them cost you money too.

please rent to them. Right away. The last thing I need is for them to apply at one of my properties!

No, without a ton in advance and verification of employment for both

Nope, an eviction is a deal breaker for me.

An eviction is very different from an eviction filing, which can have extenuating circumstances, verifiable by speaking with that landlord. In the former case, as @Kyle J. said, they were forced out and cost the landlord money. Pass.

I want to thank everyone for the response. I did more research, past the normal screening, the screening tool showed no evictions.

So I found someone on here, that uses doxpop here in Indiana. And found 5 cases for this tenant and 3 EVICTIONS in the last 2 years.

You were right, I was wrong to even consider someone with a recent eviction. While the damage hearings were dismissed, it's obvious this tenant, gets into a new place, pays for a few months, then doesn't , and gets a few free months of rent.

This was a lesson I learned without costing me money, which is always better than the ones that do cost me money. I appreciate the help and responses.

@Gabe G. I use NTN for my background checks and have great success. I do, on occasion, accept a tenant with an eviction provided they have a "story" and some documentation to back it up as to why it happened. In addition, I get no less than 3x the security deposit just to help ensure I'm covered.

I once rented successfully to a tenant with a previous eviction. I considered the circumstances and my risk before doing so. This was a case where a mom cosigned for her daughter on a lease and the daughter defaulted. The landlord filed the eviction but didn't know how to serve mom. Daughter didn't tell mom. It went on mom's record without her knowledge. So.... I told mom, if you provide full restitution to the previous landlord and get documentation to prove it, I will rent to you, but I will also require extra security deposit from you. Imagine the surprise of the "mom & pop" landlord who finally received their money 8 years after the fact! The tenant was one of my best and when she moved, she got a full refund of her security deposit.

My advice would be to NEVER let a non-qualifying Applicant buy their way into your property.... you are only delaying the inevitable. Stick to your "Tenant Screening" requirements and wait for a well qualified tenant to come along, you will be much happier in the long run (and so will your bank account). In this business, a bird in the hand today isn't always better than 2 in the bush tomorrow.

Just my .02, but YMMV!

Bill

(response to the "Tenant From Hell" thread)

Originally posted by @William C.:
If his previous Landlords were as "Professional" as the article claims HE is, this would be a non issue, and he would have gotten no where within the legal system.

While I certainly don't claim to be an expert, or, "Guru" by any means, I have been a Landlord for 28 years. I have also been a Deputy Sheriff for 10 0f those. In my 28 years of Land Lording, I have never had to evict a tenant (although did secure 2 Unlawful Detainers on tenants during that time but they moved before the Court dates) and never received a bad check (some of that is luck).

The problem I see with this Scenario is with the Landlords, and more importantly, how they present themselves and conduct business, not the " Tenant from Hell". The first problem I see is an inadequate Applicant screening process.

The second problem of the Landlords is that they evidently have nothing in WRITTING from the Tenant stating that the property was in "good and satisfactory condition" at the time the Tenant signed the lease, or, no video documentation to back that up.

I have a clause in my Lease that basically states that the Tenants have had an opportunity to inspect the property and that by signing the Lease they agree that everything appears to be in satisfactory condition.

We also do a joint "Walk-Thru Inspection" of the property at the time of the Lease signing, where I have a list of each room and its contents that convey, i.e. appliances, windows, light fixtures etc., right down to door stops in each room, to include cleanliness and damage. I have check=off spaces for any damage, if something is not clean, and if there are any visible signs of mold any where in the unit, and the Exterior of the property as well. Both the Tenants and I sign and date this at the time of the Walk-Thru. I also document a room-by-room "Video tour" of the property, clearly showing its condition right before the Tenant's Lease signing. By law, the tenants also have 7 days to submit to me a list of any things that may need attention, or, which they may find substandard, for me to correct.

I do keep my properties in top notch condition, and when people view them they can tell by the condition that I'm not a slum lord, I and have no problem letting them know that. I also relate the story of the local Police Officer I had as a Tenant that I sent down the road after 30 days, because he didn't have the Cajones (sp) to tell his girlfriend she couldn't smoke in the non-smoking unit. I also tell them about the many tenants (who chose to abide by the Lease) that we've had for 5,6 and 7 years. This is a business and needs to be conducted as such.

I have a property for rent as I write this, I use a "Tenant Phone Screening Sheet" for everyone that calls, It has 15 questions on it ranging form their income, to previous two address and how long at each, reason for leaving, credit & criminal history. income questions, etc.. I ask every caller the same questions and document it, and if they don't meet the minimum requirements for the property that my company has set, then they are not eligible to view the property ... period. If they meet these minimum requirements and view it and would like to submit an application on the property they may do so, and we then run them thru our credit reporting agency (as well do our own due diligence on the applicant).

I've had this property advertised for 3 weeks, and have screened close to 70 people interested in it and have only shown it to 2 of those 70. I've taken as long as three months to place a qualified applicant in a vacancy in the past, and it doesn't bother me in the least, because once we have one in place they are usually long term, unless they choose otherwise, which is not very often. You have to be able to incur holding costs with a rental in order to find quality tenants.

My philosophy is simple: I'd rather have a unit vacant and not be getting any income for it, than just throwing anybody in there who comes along with some cash in their hand, then still not getting any income from them while I'm having to evict them because they weren't a quality tenant to begin with, and having them tear up the house during the process too boot!

Had a lady a couple of years ago that couldn't qualify due to lack of verifiable income, she absolutely loved the property and wanted to pay me 1 years rent in advance ... cash, I wouldn't do it because I saw the light at the end of the tunnel.

Sorry for being so long winded, but hope this post may be of some help to inspiring Landlords, or, to those who may need some guidance in their practices.

Create Lasting Wealth Through Real Estate

Join the millions of people achieving financial freedom through the power of real estate investing

Start here