"Are you the owner?"
Orlando, FL · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 282 votes
This time around I've noticed more and more applicants asking me this right off the bat. They've told me they don't want to deal with houses run by a PM.
I've never probed for the reasons why. Is this because of the high app fees PM companies charge, or are these deadbeats, etc. who don't feel they can get by the PM's screening process?
I've been asked this question, too
Some tenants are looking for free ride and they know that mom-n-pop LL are more sensitive to sob stories and excuses
IMO anyway
I tell them that I work directly for the owner (an entity that pays me), but I've never been asked specifically about a property management company. In having discussions with people that live in my target area, it seems like the individual owners are worse as they do not have the resources/time to care for the properties (or that is the speculation of the tenant at least).
My mentor has 40 single family homes he owns and manages himself. He makes it very clear to every new tenant that he is the owner and will take care of them if they take care of him (pay rent, respect property). He knows them all by name and is very personable with them. He really likes this philosophy, he has so many renters that were miss treated and disrespected by other owners and property management companies, that he gets a lot of respect from his renters. He has his own renters referring their friends and family to him for his other properties because of his relationship.
I'll make it clear though, he still runs a business, not a charity, pay rent or your out.
in my area, a lot of tenants ask that bc they're worried about credit checks...i don't check credit bc i know the people that live in my aparments wno't have great credit anyways,so it's a waste
i used to tell them i worked for the owner, but i grew out of that phase pretty quickly...now i take a stance similar to jonathan's buddy...if you treat me right, i'll treat you great..if you dont pay, you're out...no remorse on my part..
I just say "it's owned by my company". That could mean I own the company or I simply work for it. They can draw their own conclusions. I don't specify.
And I only give them my first name, never my last. Try suing somebody with only a first name! ;-)
This is exactly what I think it is.
Because in every other respect, as has been mentioned on this thread, it would seem better to rent from a PM, since so many self-managing LLs -- especially the "accidental landlords" -- don't seem to know what they're doing.
And I only give them my first name, never my last. Try suing somebody with only a first name! ;-)
Do you sign the lease with only your first name? I try to keep myself anonymous to my tenants, but I don't know how I would avoid giving them my name. Also, I have to give them an address, currently I am using my residence, but that is soon to change to a PO Box, how do I keep from giving them this information and still sign a contract with them?
Probably because they've had bad run ins with properties managed by a PM. They really suck in my area, I read the reviews.
Nope, I don't sign the lease at all. Either my property manager (as my agent) or my LLC manager signs it. My name doesn't appear anywhere on the thing.
Nope, I don't sign the lease at all. Either my property manager (as my agent) or my LLC manager signs it. My name doesn't appear anywhere on the thing.
Nope, I don't sign the lease at all. Either my property manager (as my agent) or my LLC manager signs it. My name doesn't appear anywhere on the thing.
I've given up trying to remain anonymous. My state law says you have to put your real address (not P.O. Box) on the lease. Even if I were to ignore that and list a P.O. there and in the public records, or use a land trust, I assume they could just copy down my license plate # when I am at the rental and use that to figure out where I live.
I manage one of our rentals. But I still do not sign that lease. My LLC manager does. I don't attempt to be completely invisible, but I do diminish my role significantly.
We have that law in California as well. But since I hold our properties within an LLC, the address on the lease is that of my resident agent, not me.
We have that law in California as well. But since I hold our properties within an LLC, the address on the lease is that of my resident agent, not me.
Can you point me to this law in California, online possibly?
Most I talked to say to not give out you primary residence. You don't want your tenants stopping by your place. If you manage your property yourself then you are the PM.
How about answering the topic by:
I will be your PMer, but I do know who the owner is.
I think the less info your tenants know about you the better.
Most I talked to say to not give out you primary residence.
It's California Civil Code Section 1962. http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1962.html
Your tenants must be provided an address for service of process, should the situation arise. Rental payments and other correspondence may go to another address, such as a P.O. Box, Private Mail Box, under the bus bench on Main St. next to Al's Liquor Store, etc.
Mitch, but doesn't your name/address show up in the state corporation website? I created an LLC and the FL site shows my registered agent but it also shows my own home address as the "principal mailing address"
I manage one of our rentals. But I still do not sign that lease. My LLC manager does. I don't attempt to be completely invisible, but I do diminish my role significantly.
We have that law in California as well. But since I hold our properties within an LLC, the address on the lease is that of my resident agent, not me.
:protest: When I do a search for my company on the California Secretary of State web site, all I get is my resident agent's name and address.
Furthermore, they couldn't post my name and address if they wanted to because THEY DON'T HAVE IT. Since my LLC is manager-managed, not member-managed, I don't have to provide my personal information on any articles of organization or statements of information. :rock:
This, folks, is why it pays to hire professionals (attorneys, CPA's, etc.) who understand your goals and help you achieve them. The DIY approach is fine, but you had better really understand what you're doing! :idea:
:protest: When I do a search for my company on the California Secretary of State web site, all I get is my resident agent's name and address.
Furthermore, they couldn't post my name and address if they wanted to because THEY DON'T HAVE IT. Since my LLC is manager-managed, not member-managed, I don't have to provide my personal information on any articles of organization or statements of information. :rock:
This, folks, is why it pays to hire professionals (attorneys, CPA's, etc.) who understand your goals and help you achieve them. The DIY approach is fine, but you had better really understand what you're doing! :idea:
Mitch, do you mean yours is multi-member LLC and and you set it up so that another member's info appears instead of yours?
Mine is a single-member LLC (homeowner's insurance here won't allow multi-member). I wonder if that's why my information is showing? I used MyLLC dot com to create the entity. And mine is manager-managed (that was what they recommended), so I am the sole manager.
No. For now, my LLC is single-member (we'll see how this changes once we move it into our trust). What I have is a manager-managed LLC, so the manager (a friend of ours with years of operational management experience) is the "public face" of my LLC. California has her information and that of my resident agent. My information is not required.
No, incorrect term. If you are the sole-member AND you are the manager of your LLC, then you are "member-managed", not "manager-managed". To be "manager-managed", you must have another person performing the day-to-day duties who is NOT also a member.
In short, if a member, any member, manages an LLC, it is "member-managed". If there is any NON-member managing the LLC, it is "manager-managed".
It's confusing for a reason. That's how attorneys make the big bucks! ;-)
No. For now, my LLC is single-member (we'll see how this changes once we move it into our trust). What I have is a manager-managed LLC, so the manager (a friend of ours with years of operational management experience) is the "public face" of my LLC. California has her information and that of my resident agent. My information is not required.
No, incorrect term. If you are the sole-member AND you are the manager of your LLC, then you are "member-managed", not "manager-managed". To be "manager-managed", you must have another person performing the day-to-day duties who is NOT also a member.
In short, if a member, any member, manages an LLC, it is "member-managed". If there is any NON-member managing the LLC, it is "manager-managed".
It's confusing for a reason. That's how attorneys make the big bucks! ;-)
OK, thanks. It sounds like you have a different set up than I do.
Even though I am the only person in the LLC, I was advised to have it manager-managed, with myself as the manager.
I think you should get another opinion, but I'm positive what you have is a "member-managed" LLC, not a "manager-managed" LLC.
If you are the sole-member and ALSO the manager, you are "member-managed". There's no two-ways about it.
The only way to be "manager-managed" is to have a NON-member managing your LLC. That can't be YOU because you are a member. An exception is if your LLC has multiple members. Then one member can be appointed the manager.
I think you should get another opinion, but I'm positive what you have is a "member-managed" LLC, not a "manager-managed" LLC.
If you are the sole-member and ALSO the manager, you are "member-managed". There's no two-ways about it.
The only way to be "manager-managed" is to have a NON-member managing your LLC. That can't be YOU because you are a member. An exception is if your LLC has multiple members. Then one member can be appointed the manager.
I'm going to have to get a 2nd opinion. Luckily I haven't used this LLC to buy any houses yet. Hopefully I can have the articles amended if necessary.
I told MyLLC dot com that it was going to be a single member LLC and they still recommended using manager-managed. They said that if it was member-managed an outside creditor could take control of the the LLC, getting around the charging-order protection.
However the charging order protection from outside creditors for single-member LLCs is gone now in Florida anyway, thanks the to the Olmstead decision.
I guess it goes to show that you shouldn't listen to LLC mills when getting advice. :roll:
Is the person you're talking to at myLLC.com an attorney? It sounds like they've only got half the facts straight, which is the same as being wrong.
Having a "manager-managed" single-member LLC (like me) doesn't help with charging order protection because the manager isn't a member. You must have TWO or more members to have charging order protection (at least in California and Florida). A SINGLE member and a manager won't cut it. If myLLC is telling you to be the manager of your own single-member LLC and call it "manager-managed" for charging order protection, I'm afraid they really don't know what they're talking about or know just enough to be dangerous.
I wish one of the attorneys here on BP would speak up. I'm basically learning this stuff myself, so I'd hate to give out bad advice, but this is what I've been told by my attorneys so far.
BTW, I went with a "manager-managed" LLC, vice "member-managed", for privacy reasons, not because it enhanced asset protection (unless you want to count the added privacy as another layer of asset protection itself).
Is the person you're talking to at myLLC.com an attorney? It sounds like they've only got half the facts straight, which is the same as being wrong.
Having a "manager-managed" single-member LLC (like me) doesn't help with charging order protection because the manager isn't a member. You must have TWO or more members to have charging order protection (at least in California and Florida). A SINGLE member and a manager won't cut it. If myLLC is telling you to be the manager of your own single-member LLC and call it "manager-managed" for charging order protection, I'm afraid they really don't know what they're talking about or know just enough to be dangerous.
I wish one of the attorneys here on BP would speak up. I'm basically learning this stuff myself, so I'd hate to give out bad advice, but this is what I've been told by my attorneys so far.
BTW, I went with a "manager-managed" LLC, vice "member-managed", for privacy reasons, not because it enhanced asset protection (unless you want to count the added privacy as another layer of asset protection itself).
No, the person wasn't an attorney. They advised me to use manager-managed which they said was okay even for a single member LLC.
I am stuck using single member LLCs because the insurance carriers here won't write a policy for an LLC-owned house with more than one member. I know I won't get the charging order protection, I just want to be sure I get the corporate veil protection in case something happens on the premises.
I'm going to call the Fla. Div. of Corporations this week and see if they can give me some answers about manager-managed.
Please let me know what you find out.
Looking into it some more, I've found some states, namely Illinois, will allow the sole-member of an SMLLC to elect "manager-managed" status IF the fact he will be acting as the manager is written into the operating agreement.
So perhaps you can do that in Florida as well, but I still don't see the advantage of it. Charging order protection is not enhanced, at least not in California or Florida, by simply electing manager-managed status. As I said previously, I do it for privacy, not because it adds protection.
Here's more (confusing) info: http://www.llcformations.com/pdf/Issue%2039%20-%20mgt%20strs%20for%20smllcs%20owned%20by%20ivls%20-%201-21-07.pdf