Reason not to rent to smokers - terminate tenant w/ few options?

Reason not to rent to smokers - terminate tenant w/ few options?

Dan H.Pro Member
Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes

We no longer rent to smokers but we used to rent to smokers with the condition that they smoke outside.

We have a tenant that is a from the time that we rented to smokers.  They have been good at only smoking outside the unit but not as good at making sure their butts get properly disposed of (but not super bad).

Yesterday we had a fire at their unit.  It took out both of our units that were on that RE.  The fire department investigation determine it was not electrical.  They theorized a reflection maybe (we have dangerously low humidity right now).  The insurance investigator today determined a different (and I suspect more likely) cause.  They indicated it was the result of a discarded cigarette.  They believe that it caught the juniper tree on fire that caught the eves on fire (versus the fire department thought the eves were the original source of the fire and had burned the juniper).

Even though we had a tenant that followed our rules (our old rules that we grand fathered them in), our units are out of commission due to having smokers in one of our units.  The other unit is/was occupied by a non-smoker.  The city has tagged both units as uninhabitable, but allows entry to retrieve belongings (it has heavy damage but is not in danger of falling down).

To add to the saga, their credit is far worse than it was when we placed them in our unit due to the husband having chronic back issues that have prevented him from doing his job full time.  They also have made efficient use of the backyard using it to grow a lot of their own food.  They have little money; they sacrifice to live in our unit.  Therefore, they want to stay with us even if the repairs are to take 6 months or longer (we were told that the main support header for the 2nd story likely needs replacing and if it does the repair will likely be at least 6 months).  They could not get into a place as nice as our place with their current credit history even if we indicate they have never missed a payment (they have been late but virtually every time they let us know prior).   In addition, many places for rent do not have OK size private yards that they desire.

The issue is we really do not want them as tenants.  We no longer accept smokers, even those that indicate they will smoke outside.  Their smoking is the likely cause of a fire that is going to be a hassle to deal with (we have insurance for everything, including lost rent, so it is only the hassle).  In addition, they were rough on the property.   They have 3 kids, 2 dogs, 2? cats in a 2 BR unit.  By law we can not restrict to less than 5 in a 2 BR (law is 2 * numberOfBR + 1).  The unit is one of the units we allow pets (we allow pets in units with its own yard charging extra deposit and pet rent - We are not anti animal, we are anti animal in units where having animals can negatively impact our other tenants and believe those with service animals should find animal appropriate units) because it has its own OK size yard (it is small by standards outside of areas like San Diego but decent size for a San Diego rental yard).  The unit would rent easily at market rate in an one hour open house (I would expect multiple applicants).  Our current tenants rent is around 10% below market rent.

I feel sorry for the tenants (they are a nice family but not perfect) but I think they need to find another place.  They are the likely cause of fire, 6 months is a long time for them to be out of the unit, they are rough on the property, they really cannot afford the rent (they would not make our income threshold if trying to rent the place today), their credit would not qualify for our unit if they appied today.  I feel sorry because I know they cannot find another similar place.  They will likely need to find a smaller and cheaper place (our unit is 1150', 2/1.5/1, with decent size back yard) which will make their tight living arrangement so much tighter (no one forced them to have so many animals).

0Reply
69 views

Most Popular Reply

Ned J.Pro Member
Investor · Manteca, CA · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
6y
What is the status of the lease? do they have a longer lease in place? M2M? Is your rent at market or below? I would want these people gone too...... they burned your units..... they have cost you a lot of time and hassle and are not "good tenants. Time to suck it up, put on your grown up pants and stop "feeling sorry for them"...... they aren't your friends and they aren't your family....... they are your customers....and your customers just burned your investment...... and are barely hanging on to paying rent....and are "hard on the unit". The only reason you are even considering this is your emotions........ time to let that go. Give me a single good reason to keep them other than emotional? Your aren't running a charity..... you are running a business....... and they nearly burnt it to the ground....... They just gave you a golden opportunity to move on to better tenants. Rehab the place and get it up to market rent..... they wont qualify....so they are no longer candidates for this unti.
See this reply in the discussion

17 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Ned J.Pro Member
    Investor · Manteca, CA · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y
    What is the status of the lease? do they have a longer lease in place? M2M? Is your rent at market or below? I would want these people gone too...... they burned your units..... they have cost you a lot of time and hassle and are not "good tenants. Time to suck it up, put on your grown up pants and stop "feeling sorry for them"...... they aren't your friends and they aren't your family....... they are your customers....and your customers just burned your investment...... and are barely hanging on to paying rent....and are "hard on the unit". The only reason you are even considering this is your emotions........ time to let that go. Give me a single good reason to keep them other than emotional? Your aren't running a charity..... you are running a business....... and they nearly burnt it to the ground....... They just gave you a golden opportunity to move on to better tenants. Rehab the place and get it up to market rent..... they wont qualify....so they are no longer candidates for this unti.
  • Ned J.Pro Member
    Investor · Manteca, CA · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y
    If you feel sorry for them, help them move...... help them find another place......help them find other resources that can help them...... pay for a hotel for a few weeks..... buy them some gifts cards for dinner...whatever helps...... But do not let your emotions trick you into keeping these people...... you will regret it. They will damage the newly renovated unit...... stop paying rent and force an eviction.....you will never be able to raise rent and be stuck below market until they die.....its coming and you know it...... cut it off now and move on.....
  • Investor · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2017 · 319 posts · 330 votes
    6y

    With a 6 month repair time, I think the problem is gonna take care of itself. Most likely, they'll be long gone by then. 

    However, if they have a lease that goes longer than that and do want to come back, you probably couldn't stop em (at least not until it's up). 

    The pets are gonna be hard to get in anywhere, being that there are that many of em...

  • Property Manager · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2019 · 446 posts · 566 votes
    6y

    Sorry to hear about the fire, but it's great that you have insurance coverage for everything.

    What does your lease say about destruction of premises, and was their lease current? Will it expire by the time repairs are done?

    As a side note, while you are welcome to create any pet policy you see fit for your units, you cannot take the liberty of telling tenants with service animals where they can and cannot rent based on what you feel is appropriate - this would be a fair housing violation on basis of disability. Sounds like these are not service animals (based on your description) and that you were just stating your general approach/philosophy, but I did want to point that out so you can avoid a very costly dispute.

  • Member since 2019 · 226 posts · 107 votes
    6y
    Not just service animals, but it now extends to emotional support animals via the Fair Housing Amendment Act.  This new 'loophole' is starting to spread among renters with pets.
  • Rental Property Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 5k+ votes
    6y

    You're way overthinking this. The units have been destroyed. I assume they are in California. CA law allows the landlord to terminate the lease if the unit is destroyed. Terminate both leases. Get them fixed up. Re-rent them at market rates with non-smokers. Move on with life.

    You can also likely keep their security deposit to cover your deductible and costs your aren't reimbursed for by the insurance.

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    OP
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Ned J.:

    What is the status of the lease? do they have a longer lease in place? M2M?

    Is your rent at market or below?

    I would want these people gone too...... they burned your units..... they have cost you a lot of time and hassle and are not "good tenants. Time to suck it up, put on your grown up pants and stop "feeling sorry for them"...... they aren't your friends and they aren't your family....... they are your customers....and your customers just burned your investment...... and are barely hanging on to paying rent....and are "hard on the unit". The only reason you are even considering this is your emotions........ time to let that go.

    Give me a single good reason to keep them other than emotional?

    Your aren't running a charity..... you are running a business....... and they nearly burnt it to the ground.......

    They just gave you a golden opportunity to move on to better tenants. Rehab the place and get it up to market rent..... they wont qualify....so they are no longer candidates for this unti.

    I did forget to mention a few things 1) the wife of the couple is the daughter of one of my best friends 2) the husband of the couple is one of our handymen (but not very good at it)  3) they are m2m 4) My good friend would cover their rent if they ever were unable to pay it, so the rent is guaranteed.

    I did mention that they are ~10%, probably a little more, below market rent.

    I agree that the only reason to keep them is emotional.  I like them but probably not enough to want to keep them as a tenant.  Catching their unit on fire and the damage to the adjourning unit is significant.

    I know they will not be able to find another place like this one because they could not come close to meeting our qualifications (even ignoring the smoking) for this unit today.  Their credit is worse and their income is lower than when they initially rented the unit.  Rents have gone up but they likely could not qualify for the rent of this unit from 4 years ago today.  

    I agree with your sentiment.   It would have resolved itself if they indicated they cannot wait 6 months to move back in but with no better options they are willing to wait for the unit to be ready.  

    I think it is time to put on the grown up pants.
     

  • Rental Property Investor · Boston, Massachusetts (MA) · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y

    Hey Dan,

    Congrats on being so calm about all this. Just curious, where are they planning to live for the 6 months and how are they going to pay?

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    OP
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Anna Sagatelova:

    Sorry to hear about the fire, but it's great that you have insurance coverage for everything.

    What does your lease say about destruction of premises, and was their lease current? Will it expire by the time repairs are done?

    As a side note, while you are welcome to create any pet policy you see fit for your units, you cannot take the liberty of telling tenants with service animals where they can and cannot rent based on what you feel is appropriate - this would be a fair housing violation on basis of disability. Sounds like these are not service animals (based on your description) and that you were just stating your general approach/philosophy, but I did want to point that out so you can avoid a very costly dispute.

    >As a side note, while you are welcome to create any pet policy you see fit for your units, you cannot take the liberty of telling tenants with service animals where they can and cannot rent based on what you feel is appropriate - this would be a fair housing violation on basis of disability. 

    But I can complain about the policy.  I do not understand why the policy allows emotional support animals to negatively impact my other tenants.  

    In practice, the problem for us has been reduced via the use of PetScreening.com.  Just the use of them has prevented bogus service animals the one vacancy we have had lately (small sample size).   

    We have two units with ESA dogs but one is at a unit we allow dogs (we allow dog pets at our units that have a decent size private yard).   The ESA at the unit that we allow dogs, we cannot collect fees for the ESA but it does not negatively impact any other tenant.  The other ESA tenant is not a bogus ESA and he handled it like I would like any of our tenants to handle it.  He asked, even though he legally was not required to.  We told him why it was a non dog unit (because it shares a yard with the other unit) and that we were concerned about the potential impact to the other tenant.  We told them that if the other tenant had no issue with a ESA dog then we would be all for him having the animal.  I figured one of two things would happen 1) the other tenant would have no issue with the dog and the ESA would occur 2) the other tenant would have an issue and would tell the tenant what the issue was (does not want to play on grass that has dog pee and poop on the lawn).  Other tenant had no issue with the ESA dog.  Ended up it worked out for everyone because the tenant is great (picks up after the dog right away) and the dog is great (no damage, nice).

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    OP
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Jonathan R McLaughlin:

    Hey Dan,

    Congrats on being so calm about all this. Just curious, where are they planning to live for the 6 months and how are they going to pay?

    We require our tenants to have renters insurance but do not check to make sure it is kept up to date.  The tenant that started the fire has renters insurance (I am not sure exactly how that works for paying their rent but I suspect the insurance pays the difference between the existing rent and the shorter term rent).  The other tenant is not sure he has renters insurance because he switched carriers and is not sure that he kept the renters insurance.

    The tenant that started the fire can live with her father (my good friend).  His house is close to 4,000' and only has two adults (but lots of dogs and cats).  He has at least two spare BR.  I leave it up to them to figure out the financials between them.

    The non problem tenant (the one who did not start the fire) may have an issue.  However, we do not yet know if the main support beam has to be replaced on his unit (so his unit could be a lot quicker than the 6 months).  We would be happy to keep him as a tenant but he may not want to wait for the unit to be ready (probably will not want to wait if it is going to take 6 months).  So quite a few unknowns on this tenant including if he has renters insurance (tenant was not sure).

    I forgot another thing about the tenant that started the fire...  Two smoke detectors were disable including the one that was closest to the fire.  Our lease forbids disabling the smoke detectors.  Not sure if it was disabled because the battery needed to be replaced or if it was disabled at a time of a false alarm.  We got a talking to from the fire lady about the need to check the alarms annually.  My view is I could have checked it last month but the tenant could disable it the next day.  One of my friends believes the alarms were disable because the tenants were smoking inside but I do not smell any indication of this and they have an established smoking area in the backyard where you can tell they smoke regularly.

  • Specialist · San Diego · Member since 2010 · 37 posts · 18 votes
    6y

    @Dan H. I am sorry to hear about this fire. I always worry about things like this. I completely relate to your dilemma. There's no easy answer. Both options are going to be a little uncomfortable, so choose the one that makes things uncomfortable for the least amount of time. I don't know which that is for you given the intricacies of the relationships, but good luck!

  • Property Manager · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2019 · 446 posts · 566 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Dan H.:
    Originally posted by @Anna Sagatelova:

    Sorry to hear about the fire, but it's great that you have insurance coverage for everything.

    What does your lease say about destruction of premises, and was their lease current? Will it expire by the time repairs are done?

    As a side note, while you are welcome to create any pet policy you see fit for your units, you cannot take the liberty of telling tenants with service animals where they can and cannot rent based on what you feel is appropriate - this would be a fair housing violation on basis of disability. Sounds like these are not service animals (based on your description) and that you were just stating your general approach/philosophy, but I did want to point that out so you can avoid a very costly dispute.

    >As a side note, while you are welcome to create any pet policy you see fit for your units, you cannot take the liberty of telling tenants with service animals where they can and cannot rent based on what you feel is appropriate - this would be a fair housing violation on basis of disability. 

    But I can complain about the policy.  I do not understand why the policy allows emotional support animals to negatively impact my other tenants.  

    In practice, the problem for us has been reduced via the use of PetScreening.com.  Just the use of them has prevented bogus service animals the one vacancy we have had lately (small sample size).   

    We have two units with ESA dogs but one is at a unit we allow dogs (we allow dog pets at our units that have a decent size private yard).   The ESA at the unit that we allow dogs, we cannot collect fees for the ESA but it does not negatively impact any other tenant.  The other ESA tenant is not a bogus ESA and he handled it like I would like any of our tenants to handle it.  He asked, even though he legally was not required to.  We told him why it was a non dog unit (because it shares a yard with the other unit) and that we were concerned about the potential impact to the other tenant.  We told them that if the other tenant had no issue with a ESA dog then we would be all for him having the animal.  I figured one of two things would happen 1) the other tenant would have no issue with the dog and the ESA would occur 2) the other tenant would have an issue and would tell the tenant what the issue was (does not want to play on grass that has dog pee and poop on the lawn).  Other tenant had no issue with the ESA dog.  Ended up it worked out for everyone because the tenant is great (picks up after the dog right away) and the dog is great (no damage, nice).

    You got very lucky with the way you handled that, you cannot leave it up to your other tenants whether or not they "mind" having an ESA next to them. It worked out for you in this case but technically is a violation of fair housing. ESAs are like wheelchairs - you wouldn't run it by the next door neighbor if they'd find the wheelchair this tenant had for their disability a nuisance... so you cannot do so with an ESA.


    PetScreening.com and other similar services are wonderful in verifying ESAs and other service animals and taking the guesswork out of the process for owners. Once you have a verified ESA though, you can't tell them which unit they can and cannot have, or leave it up to neighbor approval. 

  • Ned J.Pro Member
    Investor · Manteca, CA · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y
    Dan.... those are some pretty important details you left out...... You made the fatal mistake of renting to people that have an emotional involvement in your life...... family, relative, friends or people that have direct connection to those people make HORRIBLE tenants. They add the problem of allowing emotion to cloud your judgement when running your business. Now you have to deal with that quandary........ screw up your friendship or screw up you business investment..... your choice. Personally I would do everything possible to take this opportunity to fix the early mistake of renting to people that you have an emotional connection to....... no way these people are getting back in my unit Stop and repeat to yourself...... they disable smoke alarms and burned my unit!!!! Someone could have died...... and guess who would have been held liable for that? Wake up......
  • Dan H.Pro Member
    OP
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Anna Sagatelova:
    Originally posted by @Dan H.:
    Originally posted by @Anna Sagatelova:

    Sorry to hear about the fire, but it's great that you have insurance coverage for everything.

    What does your lease say about destruction of premises, and was their lease current? Will it expire by the time repairs are done?

    As a side note, while you are welcome to create any pet policy you see fit for your units, you cannot take the liberty of telling tenants with service animals where they can and cannot rent based on what you feel is appropriate - this would be a fair housing violation on basis of disability. Sounds like these are not service animals (based on your description) and that you were just stating your general approach/philosophy, but I did want to point that out so you can avoid a very costly dispute.

    >As a side note, while you are welcome to create any pet policy you see fit for your units, you cannot take the liberty of telling tenants with service animals where they can and cannot rent based on what you feel is appropriate - this would be a fair housing violation on basis of disability. 

    But I can complain about the policy.  I do not understand why the policy allows emotional support animals to negatively impact my other tenants.  

    In practice, the problem for us has been reduced via the use of PetScreening.com.  Just the use of them has prevented bogus service animals the one vacancy we have had lately (small sample size).   

    We have two units with ESA dogs but one is at a unit we allow dogs (we allow dog pets at our units that have a decent size private yard).   The ESA at the unit that we allow dogs, we cannot collect fees for the ESA but it does not negatively impact any other tenant.  The other ESA tenant is not a bogus ESA and he handled it like I would like any of our tenants to handle it.  He asked, even though he legally was not required to.  We told him why it was a non dog unit (because it shares a yard with the other unit) and that we were concerned about the potential impact to the other tenant.  We told them that if the other tenant had no issue with a ESA dog then we would be all for him having the animal.  I figured one of two things would happen 1) the other tenant would have no issue with the dog and the ESA would occur 2) the other tenant would have an issue and would tell the tenant what the issue was (does not want to play on grass that has dog pee and poop on the lawn).  Other tenant had no issue with the ESA dog.  Ended up it worked out for everyone because the tenant is great (picks up after the dog right away) and the dog is great (no damage, nice).

    You got very lucky with the way you handled that, you cannot leave it up to your other tenants whether or not they "mind" having an ESA next to them. It worked out for you in this case but technically is a violation of fair housing. ESAs are like wheelchairs - you wouldn't run it by the next door neighbor if they'd find the wheelchair this tenant had for their disability a nuisance... so you cannot do so with an ESA.


    PetScreening.com and other similar services are wonderful in verifying ESAs and other service animals and taking the guesswork out of the process for owners. Once you have a verified ESA though, you can't tell them which unit they can and cannot have, or leave it up to neighbor approval. 

    Your missing the point of me having the person with the ESA speak to the other tenant.  It was not to deny the tenant their ESA if the neighbor dissented but for them to realize the potential impact to the neighbor.  Nothing illegal about a neighbor telling another neighbor how the behavior of one neighbor effects the other neighbor's lives.  In this case the neighbor was perfectly fine with the animal (and it has been a trouble free ESA).

    I am not a fan of people moving in then coming up with an ESA but in this case I feel good about it because I know it is not a bogus ESA (he is on disability that you can see why) and because he was so upfront and honest about it. Not being a fan is different than not abiding by the law. Similar speaking out against something is different than not abiding by the law. You seem to think one implies the other (it does not). I have been a LL a long time and have read the HUD direction on ESA and service animals too many times. I do not like the rules for ESA (no training required, etc.), but it is the rules.

    I also am waiting for someone to challenge the ESA that has large impact on other tenants.  Similar I am waiting for better direction on the LL costs associated with ESA.  For example, I believe that passing on the cost of a forced insurance carrier change due to breed restrictions from the initial carrier can be passed on to the ESA tenant because the laws already allow passing on reasonable costs to accommodate handicap conditions (such as the costs to put in wheel chair ramps). Until I see clear direction to the contrary, that is my stance.  The insurance thing can only prevent breeds with a bad reputation, the ones that the insurance company deems too high risk (I like dogs (I have two dogs and 2 cats) and believe that those breeds can be raised to be great dogs but often are not).
     

  • Rental Property Investor · Ankeny, IA · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    6y

    @Dan Heuschele

    Ok, I read like half your post. They burned down your place due to negligence. Why is this difficult? They don’t get to come back.

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    OP
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Anthony Wick:

    @Dan Heuschele

    Ok, I read like half your post. They burned down your place due to negligence. Why is this difficult? They don’t get to come back.

    It should not be difficult.  They burned the place, they were hard on the place, they broke various rules in the lease, they cannot afford the place, after the fire damage is fixed, we will want market rent which they cannot afford my current below market rent, they would not meet our screening process today, etc.

    So it is only due to not wanting to see a family (with 3 kids who just lost virtually everything in a fire) put into a worse situation.  It does not help that the wife's father is one of my best friends and that the husband is one of my handymen.  Even if the father of the tenant was not one of my best friends and the tenant was not one of my handymen, it is tough to put a young struggling family into a worse living situation.

    We are meeting with the tenant's dad (one of my best friends) this weekend to discuss.  A local slumlord (I do not use this term for most LLs, it is reserved for those who do not spend any money maintaining their places) has potentially offered the family a unit.  This slumlord prices his places significantly below market rent because the condition of the units does not warrant market rent and because when paying below market rent the tenants are more accepting of having extension cords powering part of the unit, having bugs, or having a tarp over a leaky roof for months.  This slumlord likely will not require a credit check and will rent the unit below market.  The tenants know the LL is a slumlord (the tenant handyman has done work for the slumlord and both (the male and female tenant) know the condition of his units).  From my perspective this is the way they can maybe afford a place close to the size and yard of the unit that they had.  The female tenant, when I broached the subject, pointed out his units have bugs (I do not know if his units have bugs but I have seen the other things that I listed - tarp on roof for like a year, a kitchen being powered by an extension cord for months) and what I was thinking was that with as dirty as your place was we are lucky we did not have more bug problems than we had.

    I plan on advocating to my friend (the tenant's dad) for them to rent from the slumlord.  I will tell him that we will raise rents to market after repairs and that we do not desire them as tenants due to the smoking (we no longer take smokers - even ones who indicate they will only smoke outdoors), the marijuana (legal in our state but prohibited on the lease due to my W2 occupation), starting the fire, how rough they are on the unit, etc.  I will indicate that we would give them all of their deposit back (even though the kitchen cabinets that were rehabbed 4 years ago are thrashed - most everything else needs to be replaced due to the damage caused by putting out the fire (lots of water was applied to the unit)).

    We have made the decision that we will not be renting to them after the repairs.  

    We do not know yet if the other tenant wants to stay with us through the repairs or how long his unit will not be habitable.  The length of the repair depends on if his support beam needs to be replaced in which case pretty much the front of the duplex will come down.  Even though he has no interior fire damage (just smoke damage and damage from the firemen checking for an electrical cause (they opened the dry wall in a few places)), the time the repair will take will be close to the length of the unit that burned up.

    We are expected to hear about asbestos today (they took samples yesterday).  I expect it will be positive because the RE is from the late 1960s.  If positive for asbestos, all soft stuff is to be destroyed (clothing, towels, cloth furniture, etc.). Neither the wife nor I were clear on if this is both units or just the unit that had the actual fire but we will inquire when we get the call with the results.

    The units are heated by ceiling radiant heating.  I am unsure that that is still a heating option. 

    Learning stuff that I hope to never need to know again.

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    OP
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    6y

    Just updating the status:

    • Talked to my good friend first, just to address any possible issues.
    • Notified the tenant that the insurance investigator believes started the fire that we do not want them back.  As we anticipated, they pled their case indicating they are willing to wait for the unit (ut to 6 months), that they cannot find another similar place, that it will be real difficult to find any place that will take 5 people, 2 dogs, and 2 cats (in CA 2 BR units must allow 5 people).  We listened but did not budge.  
    • The other tenant has not yet decided if he is willing to wait for his unit to be ready.  He is willing to wait for a more accurate estimate for when his unit could be ready. It would be too bad to lose him because he is an ideal tenant.
    • We rebated both tenants the unused portion of the monthly rent (already sent the check) .
    • The tenant that is suspected of causing the fire requested we hold their security deposit until they request it.
    • The other tenant we are waiting for a decision on if he is staying.  We would be willing to provide him his deposit and if he stays having him provide it back to us but he indicated not to do anything until he makes the decision.
    • The insurance company indicated ~$160K of dwelling damage and has already provided us a check for ~$11K for lost rents.  I have not done the calculation to see how long of a duration that covers but it is not an even multiple of the months for each unit.  I suspect it is determined with one unit forecast at being vacant a longer duration than the other unit and using best case scenario.  They likely will need to provide additional lost rent because it is basically 3 months rent if I use both units and the minimum estimate on the one unit is 4.5 months (up to 6 months).  Add 1 month to place a tenant on the unit that the tenant is definitely not coming back.
    • The hazardous testing came back positive for asbestos which was expected (the dwelling is from 1968).  This means tenants are supposed to destroy all cloth material items.  This is similar to kicking them when they are down, but they should have had rental insurance (mandated in the lease).
    • The hazardous waste people were expected to be done today.  I am curious how much they took out. I expect to go to the RE tomorrow so I will know tomorrow what exactly was removed.  The hazardous waste company has their own dumpster that must go away prior to getting a dumpster for the rest of what needs to be disposed of.

    Basically 1.5 weeks after the fire.  Insurance appraiser has their estimate of costs (we have been contacted by multiple public adjusters).  One tenant situation is taken care of.  The other tenant we should know soon.  The hazardous material removal is supposed to be done today.  

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.