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 don't see an issue of letting the tenants know you're the owner, unless you rent to some psychos or something, you should be fine. In fact, the advantages of them knowing you're the owner far outweigh the risks. If you have issues with privacy and don't want someone showing up at your front door in the middle of the night, you explicitly make it clear to them that is absolutely not acceptable.
If you have issues with privacy and don't want someone showing up at your front door in the middle of the night, you explicitly make it clear to them that is absolutely not acceptable.
Well, that's definitely one approach, but the LAPD has made it clear to the local gangs that drive-by shootings are absolutely unacceptable and look where that got them! :wink:
Seriously, there's more to privacy than simply avoiding a psycho tenant, usually an EX-tenant. Surely, if somebody wants to find me badly enough and has the $300-500 or so to pay a private investigator, they'll find me. But I'm not going to make it as easy as simply pulling my name off the lease or doing a quick search on the Internet.
I also want to make it more difficult for a gold-digging tenant, guest, or visitor to file a frivolous lawsuit because they think all landlords are millionaires sitting on a pile of cash and gold bricks ready to dole out at the slightest offer of a settlement. Trying to sue somebody you don't know (not have the name of) is going to be a bit of extra work for your attorney and the retainer fee will probably reflect that, especially if you're coming with a weak case and asking them to work on contingency.
Bottom line: Don't be the low-hanging fruit. :idea:
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.
I just called the Div. of Corporations and they said there was nothing wrong with having a single-member manager-managed LLC. But that's in Florida--maybe it's different in other states?
I didn't ask her about the charging order protection, but from everything I understand the C.O. protection can't be relied upon anymore for a SMLLC, due to the Albright & Olmstead decisions.
I just called the Div. of Corporations and they said there was nothing wrong with having a single-member manager-managed LLC. But that's in Florida--maybe it's different in other states?
Thanks for the info Bienes. I still don't see any difference between being "member-managed" for an SMLLC or "manager-managed" with the member as manager, so perhaps that's why nobody really cares what you call it.
My attorney said the reason we went with an actual manager for my SMLLC is for privacy, i.e., it keeps my name and info off the official documents. But for charging order protection, at least in Calfornia (and Florida is supposedly the same), you must have multiple members. Even a single member and 100 managers isn't going to help.
Ok, chalk up another week that I learned something! :D
I just called the Div. of Corporations and they said there was nothing wrong with having a single-member manager-managed LLC. But that's in Florida--maybe it's different in other states?
No problem. I don't think it gives any real benefit either. But I've been signing as "manager" on some offers (that didn't pan out) I've made over the last year and would prefer to keep signing that way to keep things consistent.
Thanks for the info Bienes. I still don't see any difference between being "member-managed" for an SMLLC or "manager-managed" with the member as manager, so perhaps that's why nobody really cares what you call it.
My attorney said the reason we went with an actual manager for my SMLLC is for privacy, i.e., it keeps my name and info off the official documents. But for charging order protection, at least in Calfornia (and Florida is supposedly the same), you must have multiple members. Even a single member and 100 managers isn't going to help.
Ok, chalk up another week that I learned something! :D