Would You Rent To This Applicant?

122 Replies

Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair :

Stick with the minimum requirements you set when screening tenants. Its good to be empathetic but don’t get caught up in their situations. 

If you require a minimum credit score of 650 and the tenant has a 635.. stick to your minimum. If you have minimum household income requirements such as double or triple the rent.. stick with it! Her alimony isn’t set in stone... what if the husband doesn’t pay?

There were times I felt bad turning down a renter, especially after they’ve paid a $40 application fee but I have to remind myself these are the rules of the game.

If you decide to turn her down, you can always pass the buck of blame to someone else. For example, I tell my renters that I just manage the place and the “owner” makes the ultimate decision.  In your situation I would say “ I pleaded on your behalf and explained everything to the owner but they decided not to waive the minimum requirements, If I could rent it to yah.. I definitely would.. I’m sure you’ll find a place better than this one anyhow.” 

Since you are giving that advice what is the difference between a 650 and a 635 credit score.

Heard a story from a real estate agent awhile back, one of her clients rented out class A condo to someone with bad credit, paid 6 months or a year in advance, they were dealing drugs in the unit, left place totally trashed 50K in damage. A lot of nice people have credit problems though, their not all monsters.

Originally posted by @Ihe O. :
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:

Stick with the minimum requirements you set when screening tenants. Its good to be empathetic but don’t get caught up in their situations. 

If you require a minimum credit score of 650 and the tenant has a 635.. stick to your minimum. If you have minimum household income requirements such as double or triple the rent.. stick with it! Her alimony isn’t set in stone... what if the husband doesn’t pay?

There were times I felt bad turning down a renter, especially after they’ve paid a $40 application fee but I have to remind myself these are the rules of the game.

If you decide to turn her down, you can always pass the buck of blame to someone else. For example, I tell my renters that I just manage the place and the “owner” makes the ultimate decision.  In your situation I would say “ I pleaded on your behalf and explained everything to the owner but they decided not to waive the minimum requirements, If I could rent it to yah.. I definitely would.. I’m sure you’ll find a place better than this one anyhow.” 

Since you are giving that advice what is the difference between a 650 and a 635 credit score.

 The difference could be attributed to many factors, such as maxing out a credit card, being late on a payment, having your credit run multiple times. A 650 credit score ranks higher than 40% of US consumers, whereas a 635 credit score ranks higher than 36% of US consumers. 

Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair :
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:

Stick with the minimum requirements you set when screening tenants. Its good to be empathetic but don’t get caught up in their situations. 

If you require a minimum credit score of 650 and the tenant has a 635.. stick to your minimum. If you have minimum household income requirements such as double or triple the rent.. stick with it! Her alimony isn’t set in stone... what if the husband doesn’t pay?

There were times I felt bad turning down a renter, especially after they’ve paid a $40 application fee but I have to remind myself these are the rules of the game.

If you decide to turn her down, you can always pass the buck of blame to someone else. For example, I tell my renters that I just manage the place and the “owner” makes the ultimate decision.  In your situation I would say “ I pleaded on your behalf and explained everything to the owner but they decided not to waive the minimum requirements, If I could rent it to yah.. I definitely would.. I’m sure you’ll find a place better than this one anyhow.” 

Since you are giving that advice what is the difference between a 650 and a 635 credit score.

 The difference could be attributed to many factors, such as maxing out a credit card, being late on a payment, having your credit run multiple times. A 650 credit score ranks higher than 40% of US consumers, whereas a 635 credit score ranks higher than 36% of US consumers. 

Not that I consider it relevant for a rental applicant  - I don't -  but the difference could simply be down to putting a large item that you can perfectly afford on  interest free credit at Loews.

For all you hobby landlords out ther seeing dollar signs you need a reality check. When a tenant pays rent in advance that money remains the property of the tenant. It legally must be kept in a separate account and can not be touched by the landlord except for the monthly withdraw of rent. Legally the tenant may demand the return of any cash left in the account at any time and remain as a tenant in the unit provided they continue to pay rent. If they stop paying the landlord may evict.

For all those of you seeing a cash bribe as a plus, shake your heads. If stupid was painful people might learn faster.

Personally as a landlord that has seen a lot my unit would remain vacant before I took a chance on this potential train wreck. Can't believe anyone would be so blind as to not see the writing on the wall with this one. Funny how flashing some cash causes temporary blindness. 

Originally posted by @Ihe O. :
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:

Stick with the minimum requirements you set when screening tenants. Its good to be empathetic but don’t get caught up in their situations. 

If you require a minimum credit score of 650 and the tenant has a 635.. stick to your minimum. If you have minimum household income requirements such as double or triple the rent.. stick with it! Her alimony isn’t set in stone... what if the husband doesn’t pay?

There were times I felt bad turning down a renter, especially after they’ve paid a $40 application fee but I have to remind myself these are the rules of the game.

If you decide to turn her down, you can always pass the buck of blame to someone else. For example, I tell my renters that I just manage the place and the “owner” makes the ultimate decision.  In your situation I would say “ I pleaded on your behalf and explained everything to the owner but they decided not to waive the minimum requirements, If I could rent it to yah.. I definitely would.. I’m sure you’ll find a place better than this one anyhow.” 

Since you are giving that advice what is the difference between a 650 and a 635 credit score.

 The difference could be attributed to many factors, such as maxing out a credit card, being late on a payment, having your credit run multiple times. A 650 credit score ranks higher than 40% of US consumers, whereas a 635 credit score ranks higher than 36% of US consumers. 

Not that I consider it relevant for a rental applicant  - I don't -  but the difference could simply be down to putting a large item that you can perfectly afford on  interest free credit at Loews.

Even with your example, I can argue that if you can perfectly afford something, why not just pay it off? What if after this large purchase you get laid off from work and you can afford these interests free payments anymore.

Since differing credit scores have a myriad of affecting factors, i chose to screen my tenants against minimum credit score as it provides an objective reference point for me to make decisions rather than leave them up to questionable, subjective interpretations of ones credit score.

Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair :
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:

Stick with the minimum requirements you set when screening tenants. Its good to be empathetic but don’t get caught up in their situations. 

If you require a minimum credit score of 650 and the tenant has a 635.. stick to your minimum. If you have minimum household income requirements such as double or triple the rent.. stick with it! Her alimony isn’t set in stone... what if the husband doesn’t pay?

There were times I felt bad turning down a renter, especially after they’ve paid a $40 application fee but I have to remind myself these are the rules of the game.

If you decide to turn her down, you can always pass the buck of blame to someone else. For example, I tell my renters that I just manage the place and the “owner” makes the ultimate decision.  In your situation I would say “ I pleaded on your behalf and explained everything to the owner but they decided not to waive the minimum requirements, If I could rent it to yah.. I definitely would.. I’m sure you’ll find a place better than this one anyhow.” 

Since you are giving that advice what is the difference between a 650 and a 635 credit score.

 The difference could be attributed to many factors, such as maxing out a credit card, being late on a payment, having your credit run multiple times. A 650 credit score ranks higher than 40% of US consumers, whereas a 635 credit score ranks higher than 36% of US consumers. 

Not that I consider it relevant for a rental applicant  - I don't -  but the difference could simply be down to putting a large item that you can perfectly afford on  interest free credit at Loews.

Even with your example, I can argue that if you can perfectly afford something, why not just pay it off? What if after this large purchase you get laid off from work and you can afford these interests free payments anymore.

Since differing credit scores have a myriad of affecting factors, i chose to screen my tenants against minimum credit score as it provides an objective reference point for me to make decisions rather than leave them up to questionable, subjective interpretations of ones credit score.

It’s called strategic debt. I can pay off my car but the loan is 1.9% and my portfolio is up 22.90% ytd. 

Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair :
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:

Stick with the minimum requirements you set when screening tenants. Its good to be empathetic but don’t get caught up in their situations. 

If you require a minimum credit score of 650 and the tenant has a 635.. stick to your minimum. If you have minimum household income requirements such as double or triple the rent.. stick with it! Her alimony isn’t set in stone... what if the husband doesn’t pay?

There were times I felt bad turning down a renter, especially after they’ve paid a $40 application fee but I have to remind myself these are the rules of the game.

If you decide to turn her down, you can always pass the buck of blame to someone else. For example, I tell my renters that I just manage the place and the “owner” makes the ultimate decision.  In your situation I would say “ I pleaded on your behalf and explained everything to the owner but they decided not to waive the minimum requirements, If I could rent it to yah.. I definitely would.. I’m sure you’ll find a place better than this one anyhow.” 

Since you are giving that advice what is the difference between a 650 and a 635 credit score.

 The difference could be attributed to many factors, such as maxing out a credit card, being late on a payment, having your credit run multiple times. A 650 credit score ranks higher than 40% of US consumers, whereas a 635 credit score ranks higher than 36% of US consumers. 

Not that I consider it relevant for a rental applicant  - I don't -  but the difference could simply be down to putting a large item that you can perfectly afford on  interest free credit at Loews.

Even with your example, I can argue that if you can perfectly afford something, why not just pay it off? What if after this large purchase you get laid off from work and you can afford these interests free payments anymore.

Since differing credit scores have a myriad of affecting factors, i chose to screen my tenants against minimum credit score as it provides an objective reference point for me to make decisions rather than leave them up to questionable, subjective interpretations of ones credit score.

Why not pay it off. Because I understand what net present value is and If interest free credit had no value it wouldn't be there as an incentive.  

As you say credit scores have a myriad of affecting factors. Well most of which have nothing to do with the likelihood of the tenant continuing to pay rent for the very simple reason that that's not what a credit score measures. That's why I ignore them but even if I didn't it would be why I wouldn't be dogmatic about them.

@Tim Porsche

Pros and cons aside, I would rent to her, based on info you listed.

Life happens. I had a very similar tenant 2 years ago and took a shot, best renter I have had and she is still there.

I would not except a years worth of rent upfront though, same point as Thomas stated. 

Originally posted by @Cara Lonsdale :

 This was not presented as a woman who is looking to leave the place in shambles.  It looks like a woman escaping a bad situation in need of someone with a level head to see the situation for what it really is.  She may have had a partner who didn't care about his finances (or respecting his wife), but it appears as though she left in order to CHANGE her situation, and elevate it.  That doesn't sound like what you are describing.....and holy cow, it sounds like you need a hug.  I am sorry your experiences have been so drastic.  I appreciate you sharing them with the group.  It really does help to hear about the extremes.

 This is a strange mix of pop psychology and patronising comment. Interpreting the tenant's domestic circumstances, relationships or other such stuff is not the issue. Assessing likelihood of consistent rent payment and upkeep of the property is. As has repeatedly been pointed out by myself and other posters, there is a very good reason this prospective tenant is willing to pay a year's rent up front: she knows that she will be perceived as a bad risk by a knowledgeable landlord based on case facts. There is a very bad reason that a landlord might take her up on this offer: a landlord's short term hunger for cash. When the cash runs out there are no guarantees than another payment will ever be voluntarily be paid.

Whenever a prospective tenant offers to prepay rent I know its trouble. Landlording is about choices: choices of properties, choices of management policies, and choices of tenants. If you choose tenants who flash cash you will be self selecting troubled individuals to reside in your property. Good luck @Tim Porsche

Originally posted by @Stephen E. :
Originally posted by @Cara Lonsdale:

 This was not presented as a woman who is looking to leave the place in shambles.  It looks like a woman escaping a bad situation in need of someone with a level head to see the situation for what it really is.  She may have had a partner who didn't care about his finances (or respecting his wife), but it appears as though she left in order to CHANGE her situation, and elevate it.  That doesn't sound like what you are describing.....and holy cow, it sounds like you need a hug.  I am sorry your experiences have been so drastic.  I appreciate you sharing them with the group.  It really does help to hear about the extremes.

 This is a strange mix of pop psychology and patronising comment. Interpreting the tenant's domestic circumstances, relationships or other such stuff is not the issue. Assessing likelihood of consistent rent payment and upkeep of the property is. As has repeatedly been pointed out by myself and other posters, there is a very good reason this prospective tenant is willing to pay a year's rent up front: she knows that she will be perceived as a bad risk by a knowledgeable landlord based on case facts. There is a very bad reason that a landlord might take her up on this offer: a landlord's short term hunger for cash. When the cash runs out there are no guarantees than another payment will ever be voluntarily be paid.

Whenever a prospective tenant offers to prepay rent I know its trouble. Landlording is about choices: choices of properties, choices of management policies, and choices of tenants. If you choose tenants who flash cash you will be self selecting troubled individuals to reside in your property. Good luck @Tim Porsche

Actually you don't know that. 10 years ago I offered to prepay rent in exchange for a discount and the landlord was dumb enough to offer me 10% so I snapped it up.

This tenant is offering it because she knows that she is dealing with people who would rather rent to somebody who is a paycheck away from  being insolvent because they have a fancy credit score than rent to someone that has $60 grand in the bank.

Originally posted by @Ihe O. :
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:

Stick with the minimum requirements you set when screening tenants. Its good to be empathetic but don’t get caught up in their situations. 

If you require a minimum credit score of 650 and the tenant has a 635.. stick to your minimum. If you have minimum household income requirements such as double or triple the rent.. stick with it! Her alimony isn’t set in stone... what if the husband doesn’t pay?

There were times I felt bad turning down a renter, especially after they’ve paid a $40 application fee but I have to remind myself these are the rules of the game.

If you decide to turn her down, you can always pass the buck of blame to someone else. For example, I tell my renters that I just manage the place and the “owner” makes the ultimate decision.  In your situation I would say “ I pleaded on your behalf and explained everything to the owner but they decided not to waive the minimum requirements, If I could rent it to yah.. I definitely would.. I’m sure you’ll find a place better than this one anyhow.” 

Since you are giving that advice what is the difference between a 650 and a 635 credit score.

 The difference could be attributed to many factors, such as maxing out a credit card, being late on a payment, having your credit run multiple times. A 650 credit score ranks higher than 40% of US consumers, whereas a 635 credit score ranks higher than 36% of US consumers. 

Not that I consider it relevant for a rental applicant  - I don't -  but the difference could simply be down to putting a large item that you can perfectly afford on  interest free credit at Loews.

Even with your example, I can argue that if you can perfectly afford something, why not just pay it off? What if after this large purchase you get laid off from work and you cant afford these interests free payments anymore.

Since differing credit scores have a myriad of affecting factors, i chose to screen my tenants against minimum credit score as it provides an objective reference point for me to make decisions rather than leave them up to questionable, subjective interpretations of ones credit score.

Why not pay it off. Because I understand what net present value is and If interest free credit had no value it wouldn't be there as an incentive.  

As you say credit scores have a myriad of affecting factors. Well most of which have nothing to do with the likelihood of the tenant continuing to pay rent for the very simple reason that that's not what a credit score measures. That's why I ignore them but even if I didn't it would be why I wouldn't be dogmatic about them

Credit scores are a tool used to determine how likely someone is to default on a debt. So when we see someone with a credit score of 800, we can assume that this person is not as likely to default on their debt compared to someone with a credit score of 650. Its a tool used to quantify risk.

It can be said that rent can be comparable to one’s debt payment, ie: mortgage payment vs rental payment, both need to be paid if you want a place to live. So, your statement that credit score has nothing to do with the likelihood of the tenant continuing to pay rent isn’t entirely true. Credit score is one many factors to consider when renting to a tenant, but not an the only thing to consider. It must be taken in consideration with ones job history, income, and other influencing, financial attributions. 

The credit score is a number used to determine a credit rating for borrowers. It places a percentage rating on the probability of a individual defaulting. Since a landlord is usually the first debt a individual will default on it is the percentage probability of a landlord not receiving rent in the next 2 years.

With a credit score between 600 and 650 ther is a 23% chance of default. 550 - 599 is a 39% chance of non payment leading to possible eviction..

For a landlord the credit score is a percentage probability (likelihood) of a tenant becoming delinquent.

Originally posted by @Josh Green :
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:

Stick with the minimum requirements you set when screening tenants. Its good to be empathetic but don’t get caught up in their situations. 

If you require a minimum credit score of 650 and the tenant has a 635.. stick to your minimum. If you have minimum household income requirements such as double or triple the rent.. stick with it! Her alimony isn’t set in stone... what if the husband doesn’t pay?

There were times I felt bad turning down a renter, especially after they’ve paid a $40 application fee but I have to remind myself these are the rules of the game.

If you decide to turn her down, you can always pass the buck of blame to someone else. For example, I tell my renters that I just manage the place and the “owner” makes the ultimate decision.  In your situation I would say “ I pleaded on your behalf and explained everything to the owner but they decided not to waive the minimum requirements, If I could rent it to yah.. I definitely would.. I’m sure you’ll find a place better than this one anyhow.” 

Since you are giving that advice what is the difference between a 650 and a 635 credit score.

 The difference could be attributed to many factors, such as maxing out a credit card, being late on a payment, having your credit run multiple times. A 650 credit score ranks higher than 40% of US consumers, whereas a 635 credit score ranks higher than 36% of US consumers. 

Not that I consider it relevant for a rental applicant  - I don't -  but the difference could simply be down to putting a large item that you can perfectly afford on  interest free credit at Loews.

Even with your example, I can argue that if you can perfectly afford something, why not just pay it off? What if after this large purchase you get laid off from work and you cant afford these interests free payments anymore.

Since differing credit scores have a myriad of affecting factors, i chose to screen my tenants against minimum credit score as it provides an objective reference point for me to make decisions rather than leave them up to questionable, subjective interpretations of ones credit score.

It’s called strategic debt. I can pay off my car but the loan is 1.9% and my portfolio is up 22.90% ytd. 

I’ll play the devil’s advocate :) 

What happens to your stragtegic debt if the economy crashes again and the renters you relied on loses their jobs. Whose gonna pay for that mortgage then? 

My argument isn’t about taking on debt.. it’s analysizing ones ability to make their debt payments. 

Put me in the don't rent to her column. As other posters have said, she definitely has financial issues. Bankruptcy, delinquent credit card payments, not enough minimum monthly rental income, "hopes on future alimony checks", supposedly a $60 grand savings account that was not used to catch up on any bills. Don't be desperate, be patient and find a potential tenant that does not have that much drama. Her problems are not your problems, you could be setting yourself up for a lot of future sad stories.

Originally posted by @Stephen E. :
Originally posted by @Cara Lonsdale:

 This was not presented as a woman who is looking to leave the place in shambles.  It looks like a woman escaping a bad situation in need of someone with a level head to see the situation for what it really is.  She may have had a partner who didn't care about his finances (or respecting his wife), but it appears as though she left in order to CHANGE her situation, and elevate it.  That doesn't sound like what you are describing.....and holy cow, it sounds like you need a hug.  I am sorry your experiences have been so drastic.  I appreciate you sharing them with the group.  It really does help to hear about the extremes.

 This is a strange mix of pop psychology and patronising comment. Interpreting the tenant's domestic circumstances, relationships or other such stuff is not the issue. Assessing likelihood of consistent rent payment and upkeep of the property is. As has repeatedly been pointed out by myself and other posters, there is a very good reason this prospective tenant is willing to pay a year's rent up front: she knows that she will be perceived as a bad risk by a knowledgeable landlord based on case facts. There is a very bad reason that a landlord might take her up on this offer: a landlord's short term hunger for cash. When the cash runs out there are no guarantees than another payment will ever be voluntarily be paid.

Whenever a prospective tenant offers to prepay rent I know its trouble. Landlording is about choices: choices of properties, choices of management policies, and choices of tenants. If you choose tenants who flash cash you will be self selecting troubled individuals to reside in your property. Good luck @Tim Porsche

 I think you have misread and/ or misinterpreted my posts within this thread. I am not advocating to rent to this woman. In fact, in my first post, I strongly caution against it unless some very specific financial documentations can be made. 

The comment you are quoting is a direct response to a very harsh depiction of this tenant that wasn't indicated by the original poster. My point is that just because she has a bad credit trail, doesn't automatically equate to damage to the property and an expensive eviction ahead. That's all. 

Additionally, in my earlier post I mentioned that you cannot require or even ask for prepaid rent beyond the legal limit in your area. In AZ, that is 1.5 times the rental rate. So prepaying the year is a nonstarter for me. 

Let's just all take a cleansing breathe. 

Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair :
Originally posted by @Josh Green:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:
Originally posted by @Ihe O.:
Originally posted by @Peter Sinclair:

Stick with the minimum requirements you set when screening tenants. Its good to be empathetic but don’t get caught up in their situations. 

If you require a minimum credit score of 650 and the tenant has a 635.. stick to your minimum. If you have minimum household income requirements such as double or triple the rent.. stick with it! Her alimony isn’t set in stone... what if the husband doesn’t pay?

There were times I felt bad turning down a renter, especially after they’ve paid a $40 application fee but I have to remind myself these are the rules of the game.

If you decide to turn her down, you can always pass the buck of blame to someone else. For example, I tell my renters that I just manage the place and the “owner” makes the ultimate decision.  In your situation I would say “ I pleaded on your behalf and explained everything to the owner but they decided not to waive the minimum requirements, If I could rent it to yah.. I definitely would.. I’m sure you’ll find a place better than this one anyhow.” 

Since you are giving that advice what is the difference between a 650 and a 635 credit score.

 The difference could be attributed to many factors, such as maxing out a credit card, being late on a payment, having your credit run multiple times. A 650 credit score ranks higher than 40% of US consumers, whereas a 635 credit score ranks higher than 36% of US consumers. 

Not that I consider it relevant for a rental applicant  - I don't -  but the difference could simply be down to putting a large item that you can perfectly afford on  interest free credit at Loews.

Even with your example, I can argue that if you can perfectly afford something, why not just pay it off? What if after this large purchase you get laid off from work and you cant afford these interests free payments anymore.

Since differing credit scores have a myriad of affecting factors, i chose to screen my tenants against minimum credit score as it provides an objective reference point for me to make decisions rather than leave them up to questionable, subjective interpretations of ones credit score.

It’s called strategic debt. I can pay off my car but the loan is 1.9% and my portfolio is up 22.90% ytd. 

I’ll play the devil’s advocate :) 

What happens to your stragtegic debt if the economy crashes again and the renters you relied on loses their jobs. Whose gonna pay for that mortgage then? 

My argument isn’t about taking on debt.. it’s analysizing ones ability to make their debt payments. 

In the situation of true strategic debt, the debt can be paid off at anytime. I’m not suggesting having 20k in an illiquid investment and getting 20k in unsecured or “bad” debt. 

The ability to pay debt is certainly important. In the situation with the tenant, she has 60k in the bank. If rent is 1k a month, she has 5 years worth in the bank. In my situation, if I were to lose my job I could either pay it all off or I could (And would) likely just make payments from my investments. The whole purpose of strategic debt is to put the money to work in a way to outperform the debt load. 

I think this question is highly dependent on your local laws.  In Texas, where there is no limit to security deposits.. where you don't have to keep them in separate accounts, and and where you can keep all or part of it for unpaid rents...  the answer maybe different than say.. Chicago or California.

I would imagine most people looking to rent have some sort of issue with finances otherwise they'd buy a place, but I know people from some areas just have the mindset that a home is just something you rent. I have a tenant from NYC and she's mentioned that renting is just what she's used to.

It does seem like she's offering a good deal to alleviate your fears, but like others have mentioned dealing with the nonsense the government imposes between such an agreement between two consenting adults might make it a PITA, and if she's a skillful mooch in an anti-landlord state she may be trying to bait you into a problem.

The one item that can not be taken into consideration is the fact that she has 60K in the bank. She has the ability to give away, gamble away or shoot the 60K directly into her arm any time. The only money you can count is the employment income she presently receives.. 

Originally posted by @Thomas S. :

The one item that can not be taken into consideration is the fact that she has 60K in the bank. She has the ability to give away, gamble away or shoot the 60K directly into her arm any time. The only money you can count is the employment income she presently receives.. i

 She could just as easily lose her part time job.... 

interesting how people see the situation so differently 

When I've read the OP, my first reaction was - of course, rent! It's a no brainer ;)

When reading comments, I'm realizing that it's not so obvious for everybody.

Any income can disappear - my tenant once lost a job he was at for 23 year.....next - eviction.

10 month worth rent - I'd put in my trust account, not as security deposit but rent in advance. Yes, there is tax implications, so what? We still pay taxes and if she does it on January 1st - it's still the same as she would pay monthly. However, it secured the lease for these 10 months.

As someone said, IF she requested her money back?!? No, she should move out first, sign the lease dissolution and pay all the damages ......my contract includes quite few fees for early termination if the lease.

Next, her credit. I assume, nobody ever get divorced here.....good for you! But when people divorce, banckruptcy, foreclosure, default on their credit cards do happen. More of that, it's good for the landlord! Why? Because she won't be able to buy her next house any soon. She will rent,....and if you're lucky - from you!

I'd take such a tenant without thinking twice - in 3-4 years she'd pay off my condo ;) 

It's amazing how people discuss stupid difference between 650 and 635 FICO but won't see the whole picture.

Who cares about credit in these situations? People's life is going down totally, divorce and banckruptcy wipe off whole previous good things. If you're not helping people, be smart at least to help yourself. Such tenants are priceless! 

I have multiple wealthy clients that cannot qualify for loans or credit because of a lack of a credit score or lack of w-2 income. 

Looking at assets is definitely important. Say a client made $3000 a month from 1 job and rent is $1000 and they had zero in the bank but a 780 credit score. That client would be far more high risk imo than one with 60k in the bank and an explanation of the hard time they’ve hit. Again, maybe I’m just sensitive to the situation having recently gone through it. 

No chance.  Hard criteria for my applicants: 600+ credit, income 3x rent, no past evictions, good references.  I'd rather wait another week or so and get a quality tenant that doesn't force you to post the question on BP.  You'll know when you have a good one... Takes a little patience sometimes, especially around the holidays.   

Originally posted by @Irina Belkofer :

interesting how people see the situation so differently 

When I've read the OP, my first reaction was - of course, rent! It's a no brainer ;)

When reading comments, I'm realizing that it's not so obvious for everybody.

Any income can disappear - my tenant once lost a job he was at for 23 year.....next - eviction.

10 month worth rent - I'd put in my trust account, not as security deposit but rent in advance. Yes, there is tax implications, so what? We still pay taxes and if she does it on January 1st - it's still the same as she would pay monthly. However, it secured the lease for these 10 months.

As someone said, IF she requested her money back?!? No, she should move out first, sign the lease dissolution and pay all the damages ......my contract includes quite few fees for early termination if the lease.

Next, her credit. I assume, nobody ever get divorced here.....good for you! But when people divorce, banckruptcy, foreclosure, default on their credit cards do happen. More of that, it's good for the landlord! Why? Because she won't be able to buy her next house any soon. She will rent,....and if you're lucky - from you!

I'd take such a tenant without thinking twice - in 3-4 years she'd pay off my condo ;) 

It's amazing how people discuss stupid difference between 650 and 635 FICO but won't see the whole picture.

Who cares about credit in these situations? People's life is going down totally, divorce and banckruptcy wipe off whole previous good things. If you're not helping people, be smart at least to help yourself. Such tenants are priceless!

What makes you think I didn’t consider the whole picture? 

I see a bankrupt applicant with maxed out credit cards, but supposedly has $60k in the bank (not yet proven). She makes $1700 a month, but how much of this is is actually leftover, and is enough leftover to pay for rent? Its not stated. She may get awarded alimony but until then cant be proven. 

What did I miss?