During a turnover, the repair-vs.-replace call is usually where money gets wasted — either you patch something that fails again in three months, or you replace something that had years left in it.

Across our 236 doors in Memphis, mostly single-family, we use a simple test before we spend anything:

1. Age and condition: if it is near the end of its normal life and already showing wear, we lean replace. A cheap repair on a worn-out item is usually just a delayed replacement.

2. Cost of a second visit: if a repair fails, we pay for the part, the labor, and another trip — plus the tenant hassle. When the repair is more than about half the cost of a solid replacement, we usually replace.

3. Will it survive the next tenant cycle? If not, replace it now while the house is empty. Doing it with a tenant in place costs more and takes longer.

We run turnovers on a 21-day scheduling system, so the decision has to be made fast and stuck to. Vacancy and turnover time cost more than most repairs, so dragging the decision out is the expensive part.

One habit that helps: we find and test contractors months before something breaks, in small paid steps, so when a turnover decision is made we already know who can do the work and how they work.

What is your rule — do you repair first and replace only when it fails again, or replace once and move on?