Hey folks,
I am helping a "tenant" friend decide how much should he ask his landlord for the following inconvenience. Landlord's Listing Agent is preparing the house for sale while tenant is still living in the house. House is in SF Bay Area, California. Landlord's Listing Agent is requesting Broker's Open, 3 hour open house Sat/Sun for 1-3 weekends, several possible private showings.
What would you ask landlord for inconvenience? A months rent? In this area, one month rent is about $3000.
$3,000 / 30 days = $100 per day.
Landlord should offer rent reduction of $100 for each day that they are asked to "get out" of the residence for an open house/showing.
If the tenant does not wish to cooperate then they should come to a mutual agreement to terminate the lease, whatever that may be.
If the tenant digs in his heels then the landlord should delay the sale of the house until the lease expires and he can vacate the house in accordance with the law.
Life is one big negotiation. So negotiate!
DL
I was thinking of this same thing, but does a whole day's rent justify the inconvenience of only a few hours open house? It's not like the tenant is being asked to vacate the property for an entire day and sleep in a motel or anything. They just need to go out for a "long lunch" for a few hours and then come back. So, maybe $50 a day. I think that's reasonable.
Or, you don't pay for what is legally allowed in CA, but then tell the tenant you would pay them $100/day for any extra showings or open houses that fall outside of CA law. That's probably how I would do it.
They don't need to go out for a long lunch, or go out at all. The landlord's right to access the property in no way requires the tenant to vacate it, even for a few hours.
If someone offered you $50 a day to leave your house for several hours every weekend, would you take it? I'd tell them to pound sand, personally.
Not sure why the tenant would be worked up about all this. The tenant has only a few months left on the lease...Being a landlord If I had push back from the tenant I would wait and give them a 60 day notice to vacate. Sounds like in this situation there wasn't a good tenant/landlord relationship.
Frank
You would delay a sale by 2 months to avoid paying a few hundred dollars? Or eevn a couple of thousand?
I respectfully suggest that that is emotion speaking, not reason.
$3,000 / 30 days = $100 per day.
Landlord should offer rent reduction of $100 for each day that they are asked to "get out" of the residence for an open house/showing.
If the tenant does not wish to cooperate then they should come to a mutual agreement to terminate the lease, whatever that may be.
If the tenant digs in his heels then the landlord should delay the sale of the house until the lease expires and he can vacate the house in accordance with the law.
Life is one big negotiation. So negotiate!
DL
I was thinking of this same thing, but does a whole day's rent justify the inconvenience of only a few hours open house? It's not like the tenant is being asked to vacate the property for an entire day and sleep in a motel or anything. They just need to go out for a "long lunch" for a few hours and then come back. So, maybe $50 a day. I think that's reasonable.
Or, you don't pay for what is legally allowed in CA, but then tell the tenant you would pay them $100/day for any extra showings or open houses that fall outside of CA law. That's probably how I would do it.
They don't need to go out for a long lunch, or go out at all. The landlord's right to access the property in no way requires the tenant to vacate it, even for a few hours.
If someone offered you $50 a day to leave your house for several hours every weekend, would you take it? I'd tell them to pound sand, personally.
You are correct. I was merely saying that it would be an incentive to vacate the property for a better showing. I would think most people would be less inclined to see a house with tenants living in it.
Also, it depends on how long the LL is requesting me to vacate for? 1 hour? sure. that's a $50/hr pay check. 2 hours... possibly, that's $25/hr paycheck. It would also depend on the tenant. If they are usually out of the house during the weekend doing "stuff" anyways, then they would be paid for essentially doing what they would be doing anyways. I'm not saying that's always the case, but it could be.
I view this as no different than "cash for keys" that some LL's do to incentivise a tenant to leave the property. Yes it's a completely different scenario. I already know that. I'm just saying it's an incentive. The tenant has every right to refuse and that's their option. But they may also accept it.
I was thinking of this same thing, but does a whole day's rent justify the inconvenience of only a few hours open house? ... They just need to go out for a "long lunch" for a few hours and then come back. So, maybe $50 a day. I think that's reasonable.
Or, you don't pay for what is legally allowed in CA, but then tell the tenant you would pay them $100/day for any extra showings or open houses that fall outside of CA law.
The median home price in San Ramon, CA is $882,400 (per Zillow, but don't shoot me)
The median monthly rental in San Ramon, CA is $3,491 (again, per Zillow...)
The one year "outlook" for home appreciation is +4.0%.
Do the math.
The owner needs cooperation. The owner needs a nice, well presented, clean, tidy house to show.
If "staging" has a positive affect on home sale price then what affect might "anti-staging" (house is a complete mess) have on the home sale price???????
I'm guessing that May and June are the two highest volume, highest closed sale price months of the year.
The owner needs to negotiate.
DL
p.s. Realtors need to chime in here. @james wise ?????
Here is what I would offer, as a landlord:
1. Cleaning. Asking tenants to clean to showing standards every weekend is excessive, and I wouldn't trust it to happen anyway. So I would offer a weekly visit from a cleaning service;
2. Immediate return of security deposit, in cash, on move-out. I am selling the house and don't care about dings or scratches anyway, and certainly will have ample opportunity to see it anyway, during all these open houses;
3. Return of rent, on sale. I'd still collect the rent, and tell them (promise them in writing, actually) that I would refund it if the house sold.
As is common on BP when the issue is tenant relations, there is some chest-thumping going on in this thread. The bottom line is that the tenant has done absolutely everything required of him if he allows two showings with proper notice, fails to clean or make any special efforts, and hangs out in his living room watching the game during the showings. Everything that is required of him. That does not make him a professional tenant, possessed of an entitlement mindset (except insofar as he is in fact entitled to what he paid for), or someone who must be punished as proof the landlord cannot be pushed around (I'm wicked tough, respect my author-i-tie!)
The landlord wants something beyond what the contract requires from the tenant. He might have gotten that as a favor if the relationship had been good (another reason for landlords to knock it off with the "tenant training" nonsense) and he were asking for a less disruptive showing schedule. But since for whatever reason the tenant is not inclined to do this favor, the landlord needs to pay for what he wants.
The bottom line is that the tenant has done absolutely everything required of him if he allows two showings with proper notice, fails to clean or make any special efforts, and hangs out in his living room watching the game during the showings.
Hang out NAKED. The tenant has no obligation to watch the game with his clothes on.
DL
This can go two ways...either the "I rub your back you rub mine" and both people end up happy or eye for an eye kind of thing.
I think you're probably right to ask for some sort of incentive to go above and beyond vacating an excessive amount of "free" time you get during the month. $3,000 seems outlandish and, as the reponses have suggested, will most likely evoke an emotional response from the landlord.
Ultimately something more along the lines of $500 might give your friend enough incentive to leave for a few extra weekend hours throughout the month and not be out of line for the LL to pay for making his life/sale easier.
The unit is currently the tenants' home. And as such, gets to expect to have the home to live in, without being invaded.
And, imagine what it would be like to have a horde of complete strangers (and in SF right now, any open house will be a mass infusion of strangers) walking through your home, perhaps looking in your closets, your jewelry box, you medicine cabinets, checking out your stereo, your televisions, your computers....
As an owner, do you really want that liability? Sure, thump your chests, and expect a bill for everything that was damaged or missing.
And, whoops, there was that sex offender who now knows they have a teenager living in the house and which room in the house he/she lives in...
Having an open house with a tenant in place is utter insanity.
And, for loss of use of their home, and being "forced" to allow a horde of unvetted strangers into their home and their possessions, is worth some serious dough.
So, they should negotiate to be paid cash for keys to move - before the open house starts - or stick to their guns for a month's rent, and include very specific days and times that that allows people entry.
And if they're not okay with that, then go see a lawyer about negotiating a deal.
As a tenant now, I would never agree to letting unvetted strangers access to my home and belongings for hours on end, weekend after weekend. Let alone the loss of use of my "home."
I'd personally hold out for cash for keys.
Anyone here thumping their chests about how they'd threaten their tenant - put yourself in their shoes. Really?
And if my landlord threatened to kick me out - hey, sounds like a retaliatory eviction to me. And I would make sure that their open houses were delayed long enough that I could just finish my lease in peace. And I'd make sure it cost the landlord more than it was worth trying to bully me around.
...
2. Immediate return of security deposit, in cash, on move-out. I am selling the house and don't care about dings or scratches anyway, and certainly will have ample opportunity to see it anyway, during all these open houses;
...
So you have never seen a tenant conceal damage by hanging a picture, or placing a sofa or other large piece of furniture, over the damaged area(s)? And I guess all your tenants are perfect movers, never nicking or banging into walls, doors, fixtures, etc.?
What I'm getting at is the extent of damage cannot be certain until the stuff is out; only then can you see it all.
...
2. Immediate return of security deposit, in cash, on move-out. I am selling the house and don't care about dings or scratches anyway, and certainly will have ample opportunity to see it anyway, during all these open houses;
...
So you have never seen a tenant conceal damage by hanging a picture, or placing a sofa or other large piece of furniture, over the damaged area(s)? And I guess all your tenants are perfect movers, never nicking or banging into walls, doors, fixtures, etc.?
What I'm getting at is the extent of damage cannot be certain until the stuff is out; only then can you see it all.
I said (well, wrote) "on move-out." That means when I walk through that day and see everything broom-clean. No waiting 30 days or any of that nonsense.
Here is what I would offer, as a landlord:
1. Cleaning. Asking tenants to clean to showing standards every weekend is excessive, and I wouldn't trust it to happen anyway. So I would offer a weekly visit from a cleaning service;
2. Immediate return of security deposit, in cash, on move-out. I am selling the house and don't care about dings or scratches anyway, and certainly will have ample opportunity to see it anyway, during all these open houses;
3. Return of rent, on sale. I'd still collect the rent, and tell them (promise them in writing, actually) that I would refund it if the house sold.
As is common on BP when the issue is tenant relations, there is some chest-thumping going on in this thread. The bottom line is that the tenant has done absolutely everything required of him if he allows two showings with proper notice, fails to clean or make any special efforts, and hangs out in his living room watching the game during the showings. Everything that is required of him. That does not make him a professional tenant, possessed of an entitlement mindset (except insofar as he is in fact entitled to what he paid for), or someone who must be punished as proof the landlord cannot be pushed around (I'm wicked tough, respect my author-i-tie!)
The landlord wants something beyond what the contract requires from the tenant. He might have gotten that as a favor if the relationship had been good (another reason for landlords to knock it off with the "tenant training" nonsense) and he were asking for a less disruptive showing schedule. But since for whatever reason the tenant is not inclined to do this favor, the landlord needs to pay for what he wants.
I think professional cleaning(paid for by the owner) for open houses is a great idea.
Even $100/day of showing will be a drop in bucket if the house sells. It also gives the owner an incentive to restrict showings to qualified potential buyers. Since the availability of the house will be limited an agent open house may be a way to indirectly reach a lot of potential buyers at one time. A lot of time the people at an open house are at the "just looking" stage of the home buying process.
You're original post states the Listing Agent is requesting the showings and open houses. Is the landlord aware of what the agent is asking for?
I'd call my landlord and say 'hey, the agent wants to hold multiple open houses and showings, and while I want to cooperate, I think this is above and beyond what is allowed.'
If he/she is a good landlord I'm sure they would be willing to come to an agreement. If not, then show the law to the listing agent and landlord and stand your ground on it.
Of course, the last option would result in no compensation for you, if they stick by the laws and what is in the lease.
Curious if the tenant has spoken to the landlord or not. I did not see any mention of this in the thread. Unless I over-looked it.
It seems to me that if the tenant wants to continue living in the house after it sells and the lease is up, they should probably make an effort to be a "good tenant" during this process. The new owner will be seeing the unit, if its trashed with dirty undies stuck to the walls, do you really think that lease will get renewed?
Also if they fight the sale process, the sale drags on and the lease expires. Then the tenant has to move and the house will sell vacant. Why be confrontational at all? Help the sale, make friendly with the new owner, or start looking for a new place to live. Seems to me fighting this is a bad case of cutting off your own nose just to spite your face. The tenant ultimately loses.
That's the "entitlement" that was mentioned earlier. This sounds like greed to me, but it's going to bite the tenant in the *** in the long run. Just because a judge in 1 case said that the landlord in that case could only have 2 showings a month, etc., etc., doesn't make that law. If the tenant tries the court route, the lease will probably be expired before they even get in front of a judge. It makes no sense to me why the tenant wouldn't just cooperate. Maybe they won't have to move if they do.
$3000 is not "fair", it's closer to extortion. What if the house sells from the first open house? Even if there's 3 open houses, $1000 per day is fair to someone? Give me a break. That's insane. I'd be willing to rent my house out to a troop of circus clowns for $1000 per day. A pro cleaner hired by the LL + $100 per day the tenant is asked to leave sounds more the fair. Chances are the tenant was going to be out anyway, this way they get free maid service and get paid to go to lunch.
It seems to me that if the tenant wants to continue living in the house after it sells and the lease is up, they should probably make an effort to be a "good tenant" during this process. The new owner will be seeing the unit, if its trashed with dirty undies stuck to the walls, do you really think that lease will get renewed?
Also if they fight the sale process, the sale drags on and the lease expires. Then the tenant has to move and the house will sell vacant. Why be confrontational at all? Help the sale, make friendly with the new owner, or start looking for a new place to live. Seems to me fighting this is a bad case of cutting off your own nose just to spite your face. The tenant ultimately loses.
That's the "entitlement" that was mentioned earlier. This sounds like greed to me, but it's going to bite the tenant in the *** in the long run. Just because a judge in 1 case said that the landlord in that case could only have 2 showings a month, etc., etc., doesn't make that law. If the tenant tries the court route, the lease will probably be expired before they even get in front of a judge. It makes no sense to me why the tenant wouldn't just cooperate. Maybe they won't have to move if they do.
$3000 is not "fair", it's closer to extortion. What if the house sells from the first open house? Even if there's 3 open houses, $1000 per day is fair to someone? Give me a break. That's insane. I'd be willing to rent my house out to a troop of circus clowns for $1000 per day. A pro cleaner hired by the LL + $100 per day the tenant is asked to leave sounds more the fair. Chances are the tenant was going to be out anyway, this way they get free maid service and get paid to go to lunch.
What is fair for someone who I wish to get to do something he does not wish to do, and is not required to do, is whatever we agree on. That could be $100 or $3000.
There is no indication that the tenant wishes to stay after the sale or the end of his lease. So none of that stuff about "being a good tenant" applies.
I am a landlord and it has been a long time since I was a tenant. And I certainly understand a pro-landlord bias in an REI board. But being a tenant does not require that you be obsequious and kiss the landlord's hand.
If I were the tenant, I would flat out refuse to do any extra cleaning. My own house is clean anyway, but I wouldn't spit polish it for a showing. And if you want me to vacate for multiple showings, yes, you are going to pay for that.
In my own case, I am confident that any of my tenants would work with me and it wouldn't cost me anything more than I outlined earlier. But that is because I always treat my tenants as adults with whom I am conducting a mutually beneficial business transaction, not children or monkeys to be "trained."
It seems to me that if the tenant wants to continue living in the house after it sells and the lease is up, they should probably make an effort to be a "good tenant" during this process. The new owner will be seeing the unit, if its trashed with dirty undies stuck to the walls, do you really think that lease will get renewed?
Also if they fight the sale process, the sale drags on and the lease expires. Then the tenant has to move and the house will sell vacant. Why be confrontational at all? Help the sale, make friendly with the new owner, or start looking for a new place to live. Seems to me fighting this is a bad case of cutting off your own nose just to spite your face. The tenant ultimately loses.
That's the "entitlement" that was mentioned earlier. This sounds like greed to me, but it's going to bite the tenant in the *** in the long run. Just because a judge in 1 case said that the landlord in that case could only have 2 showings a month, etc., etc., doesn't make that law. If the tenant tries the court route, the lease will probably be expired before they even get in front of a judge. It makes no sense to me why the tenant wouldn't just cooperate. Maybe they won't have to move if they do.
$3000 is not "fair", it's closer to extortion. What if the house sells from the first open house? Even if there's 3 open houses, $1000 per day is fair to someone? Give me a break. That's insane. I'd be willing to rent my house out to a troop of circus clowns for $1000 per day. A pro cleaner hired by the LL + $100 per day the tenant is asked to leave sounds more the fair. Chances are the tenant was going to be out anyway, this way they get free maid service and get paid to go to lunch.
What people here may not know, is that SF has rent control. This tenant will be out the door as soon as it sells. So, there is no incentive to be a "good tenant" so he can stay. The new owner, if he even wants to rent it out, is not going to want to inherit a tenant who is paying under market rent that he can't raise.
Hey folks,
I am helping a "tenant" friend decide how much should he ask his landlord for the following inconvenience. Landlord's Listing Agent is preparing the house for sale while tenant is still living in the house. House is in SF Bay Area, California. Landlord's Listing Agent is requesting Broker's Open, 3 hour open house Sat/Sun for 1-3 weekends, several possible private showings.
What would you ask landlord for inconvenience? A months rent? In this area, one month rent is about $3000.
Andy, I just found this article that explains the different laws that may affect your friends regarding the owner selling the place. The owner may be required to pay them to move out & quite a tidy sum (like $5,000). Also, there can be long notice time to vacate. Seems to be tied to when the building was built. Anyway, you should check this out:
http://sfappeal.com/2013/09/tenant-troubles-my-lan...
I suggest that you tell your friend to stop being such a "tool" and help the guy out by being a responsible adult, keep the place clean and leave while the open houses are going on!
Wow, is this what we've come to?
Yeah, we've gotten to the point where people expect to get what they pay for. How horrible.
I actually dealt with a similar situation when my landlord wanted to sell. In this case however, we had just moved in not two months prior, and because the potential buyer was REI, he knew this. So we explained that the house was still a mess, sorry about that, but we'd try to get the living room and kitchen tidy for them to look at.
They were very, very understanding. We didn't ask for any extra compensation, because the REI guy made it very clear we did not have to leave and that he was actually interested in keeping us beyond our lease if it looked like we were good tenants. He actually turned out to be a really nice guy and if we don't buy a house in the next 18 months, we'll probably just stay, as long as he wants to renew.
In your case however, I would definitely talk to the landlord and explain that this is above and beyond. I'd be very upset if I was asked to leave my home for most weekend hours, for three weekends in a row! That's my only time off, and you want me to NOT spend it hanging out in my pjs and playing video games? Yeah, I'd be mad. I earned the right to be a super lazy girl on weekends and now I have to get out and go somewhere. For three weekends in a row. That's annoying and aggravating.
The fact is, according to the laws in SF, what the listing agent wants IS above and beyond reasonable accommodation by the tenant. Yes he/she should keep the place clean, but I don't think there's anything wrong with asking for financial compensation for this. I don't understand how this makes the tenant "a tool". The landlord is asking them to go above and beyond the rental laws and agreements in their area; the tenant is entitled to some kind of compensation.