Forgive me if this has been posted before. A search didn't find anything. As you probably know, the Democrats in the House passed the Hereos Act, A part of this bill calls for a Federal Ban on evictions of any residential property for non payment of rent. This is extended for 12 month after the pandemic is over. No recourse for landlords. I rely on my properties (which are paid for) for my living expenses. Also in there is a provision stating the back rent will be forgivable. If the Senate passes this bill, I may be without income for a loooong time. Does anyone know any more about this?
Forgive me if this has been posted before. A search didn't find anything. As you probably know, the Democrats in the House passed the Hereos Act, A part of this bill calls for a Federal Ban on evictions of any residential property for non payment of rent. This is extended for 12 month after the pandemic is over. No recourse for landlords. I rely on my properties (which are paid for) for my living expenses. Also in there is a provision stating the back rent will be forgivable. If the Senate passes this bill, I may be without income for a loooong time. Does anyone know any more about this?
You ever notice how so many bad laws, acts, groups and movements are titled in such a way that it is considered shameful to oppose them?
@Boots Bonner does the money go right to the landlord though? I'd second that people who can get a govt paycheck and then continue to not pay due to non evictions. That money will not go to rent some of the times. Pocketed and just wait out their time.
@Ryan Schaefer So, if I'm reading this right ("The term ‘covered mortgage loan' means any credit transaction that is secured by" etc.), if there is NO loan on the property, and thus no credit transaction secured by a mortgage, deed, etc., the provisions would not apply? In other words, if you owned the property outright, the property is exempt?
My understand is that ANY property (mortgaged or not) would fall under this law.
The radical Socialists (namely AOC) even want to go so far as to say that if a tenant has rented the same property long enough, that tenant would have some percentage of ownership of that property and would be due funds if sold. These extreme democrats have lost their minds. I feel like I am in the twilight zone.
@Mary Mitchell
No, no it does not make up for it. Federal government has no right to dictate to landlords how to run their business.
These type of draconian anti-free market laws result in one of only two outcomes: (1) Higher Rents For Tenants to compensate Landlords for the higher costs of doing business, or (2) Mass Exit by Landlords from the Landlording Businesses. Either way, the people who will suffer the most in the long-run will be the tenants who cannot afford, or simply cannot find, rentable accommodation. Often in these situations, welfare oriented governments will then try and step-in with public housing programs and become the defacto landlord for these otherwise homeless tenants. As rents go unpaid, or public funding runs low (as there is no one to pay the property taxes), this invariably leads to slum-like, crime ridden housing estates, much like happened in the UK in the late 1960's and 1970's, before Margaret Thatcher began selling off these 'Council Houses' to private owners and investors. I doubt however that this leftist type of legislation will pass the US Senate while it remains under a Republican majority. Still similar measures may or have already passed in some Democrat controlled cities, counties and states, so I would suggest that investors start divesting from those ASAP. Remember if such measures do or have become law already in such jurisdictions, it may already too late to cash-out and secure a decent sales price for such properties. Rest on your laurels on this matter at your own risk.
This covers a broad spectrum. I come from the School of Feed a Man a Fish(feed him for the day) Teach a man to Fish Feed him for a Lifetime. Having said that I know where you can still get houses less than 20k . (Of course they need work mainly cosmetic) in fact I could negotiate something like that for 10. In fact, I had a tenant which I showed him that. In fact I was willing to go out of my way and create that situation for him. So at Tax time,( he’s got some small kids), what does he do? Goes out and buys a newer vehicle! The house he could’ve got for 10 prolly worth 40. The Car will prolly be in the Junkyard few years from now. My point is, the government needs to realize not everybody can be Winners. And from the example above you can clearly see not everyone can be leaders. The key thing is “it’s a choice” now can it be argued (people are trained to be ignorant, from our school systems and I’m not going to say that’s not the case.) To date we can all choose. I like I’m still able to customize my life the way I want it to go. And I be damned if I’m going to pushed around and made into a Robot!
These type of draconian anti-free market laws result in one of only two outcomes: (1) Higher Rents For Tenants to compensate Landlords for the higher costs of doing business, or (2) Mass Exit by Landlords from the Landlording Businesses.
NY has already restricted the first by adopting statewide rent control. Some creative politician will figure out a way to prevent you from selling your own property, just wait.
@Joyce Orange type in google landlord vs tenant friendly states. That should help
The section with that text is specific to mortgage relief and a freeze on foreclosures. If there's no loan, there's no need for mortgage relief or foreclosure. I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I took from it.
However, the stuff about the eviction moratorium applies to all "covered dwellings"; loan or not.
This covers a broad spectrum. I come from the School of Feed a Man a Fish(feed him for the day) Teach a man to Fish Feed him for a Lifetime. Having said that I know where you can still get houses less than 20k . (Of course they need work mainly cosmetic) in fact I could negotiate something like that for 10. In fact, I had a tenant which I showed him that. In fact I was willing to go out of my way and create that situation for him. So at Tax time,( he’s got some small kids), what does he do? Goes out and buys a newer vehicle! The house he could’ve got for 10 prolly worth 40. The Car will prolly be in the Junkyard few years from now. My point is, the government needs to realize not everybody can be Winners. And from the example above you can clearly see not everyone can be leaders. The key thing is “it’s a choice” now can it be argued (people are trained to be ignorant, from our school systems and I’m not going to say that’s not the case.) To date we can all choose. I like I’m still able to customize my life the way I want it to go. And I be damned if I’m going to pushed around and made into a Robot!
@Ricardo P. The world is spinning backwards. We are tearing down and deleting history. We are going to live free. I'm selling my primary residence and going to live in another rental for free and collect my assistance check. We will work for free and eat free. Everything is gimme and free now. Hazaaa to Liberals, I deserve anything I want. No more backbones needed. Electric wheel chairs and segways for everyone. 1960s also here we come.
You obviously didnt read the bill or you would know that there are provisions to address landlords reimbursements.
Read bill...its long but will dispel misrepresentations.
These type of draconian anti-free market laws result in one of only two outcomes: (1) Higher Rents For Tenants to compensate Landlords for the higher costs of doing business, or (2) Mass Exit by Landlords from the Landlording Businesses. Either way, the people who will suffer the most in the long-run will be the tenants who cannot afford, or simply cannot find, rentable accommodation. Often in these situations, welfare oriented governments will then try and step-in with public housing programs and become the defacto landlord for these otherwise homeless tenants. As rents go unpaid, or public funding runs low (as there is no one to pay the property taxes), this invariably leads to slum-like, crime ridden housing estates, much like happened in the UK in the late 1960's and 1970's, before Margaret Thatcher began selling off these 'Council Houses' to private owners and investors. I doubt however that this leftist type of legislation will pass the US Senate while it remains under a Republican majority. Still similar measures may or have already passed in some Democrat controlled cities, counties and states, so I would suggest that investors start divesting from those ASAP. Remember if such measures do or have become law already in such jurisdictions, it may already too late to cash-out and secure a decent sales price for such properties. Rest on your laurels on this matter at your own risk.
___________
@Barry Gazzard you nailed this on the head. US renters spent $12 billion more on rent in 2019 than they did in 2018. The government wants to step in and control more of the housing market. We need to learn from what hasn't worked historically in other countries. Thank you for sharing!!!
@Ricardo P. The world is spinning backwards. We are tearing down and deleting history. We are going to live free. I'm selling my primary residence and going to live in another rental for free and collect my assistance check. We will work for free and eat free. Everything is gimme and free now. Hazaaa to Liberals, I deserve anything I want. No more backbones needed. Electric wheel chairs and segways for everyone. 1960s also here we come.
Try reading the propose bill for yourself!
@Alvin Sylvain just hoping it keeps the parts of FHA protections vs free and clear.
@Ryan Schaefer So, if I'm reading this right ("The term ‘covered mortgage loan' means any credit transaction that is secured by" etc.), if there is NO loan on the property, and thus no credit transaction secured by a mortgage, deed, etc., the provisions would not apply? In other words, if you owned the property outright, the property is exempt?
My understand is that ANY property (mortgaged or not) would fall under this law.
The radical Socialists (namely AOC) even want to go so far as to say that if a tenant has rented the same property long enough, that tenant would have some percentage of ownership of that property and would be due funds if sold. These extreme democrats have lost their minds. I feel like I am in the twilight zone.
Did you even read the bill? If AOC actually wanted to do that, which she doesn't, and hasn't eluded to, then it would be in the bill. It would obviously be struck down immediately, but there's not even a mention of that. Don't make up stories, especially on those that don't have an actual piece of legislature behind.
I certainly don't agree with the majority of the bill, but its this nonsense I read from folks that really stirs me up. You don't like her policies? Fine. Vote for someone else. But don't make up lies, man.
You know Jews made excuses for the Nazis as they implemented their totalitarian system. So did the Russians, So Did the Chinese What they all had in common at one time they had private property rights until the state decided they didn't. I see history repeating itself in a country that gave its blood and treasure to save other countries from that statism. If you don't think its happen COVID-19 is the beta test of how people will respond and for those wanting Statism, it is a complete success!! I.e. Green New Deal World Government and Corporatism because Americans gave up their Constitutional rights of the amendment, 7th amendment, 8th amendment, 10th amendment, and Bill Rights without a fight. I don't buy into left versus right one is less evil than the other you decide. Yes, I do consider anyone taking an oath to our Constitution and then breaking that oath to be evil. Heroes Act is an example of taxation without representation cause the last time I checked there was no groundswell of landlords screaming for government to help tenants not pay them. If you think it will end at this Act remember they will just keep adding to it until one day you wake up and find you have a new bedmate and bend over you going to take rather you want it or not.
How long will this be in effect ? How long will tenants essentially not have to pay rent ? Is this a 6 month-1 year thing or moving forward this will be something landlords have to deal with?
@Ryan Schaefer So, if I'm reading this right ("The term ‘covered mortgage loan' means any credit transaction that is secured by" etc.), if there is NO loan on the property, and thus no credit transaction secured by a mortgage, deed, etc., the provisions would not apply? In other words, if you owned the property outright, the property is exempt?
My understand is that ANY property (mortgaged or not) would fall under this law.
The radical Socialists (namely AOC) even want to go so far as to say that if a tenant has rented the same property long enough, that tenant would have some percentage of ownership of that property and would be due funds if sold. These extreme democrats have lost their minds. I feel like I am in the twilight zone.
Did you even read the bill? If AOC actually wanted to do that, which she doesn't, and hasn't eluded to, then it would be in the bill. It would obviously be struck down immediately, but there's not even a mention of that. Don't make up stories, especially on those that don't have an actual piece of legislature behind.
I certainly don't agree with the majority of the bill, but its this nonsense I read from folks that really stirs me up. You don't like her policies? Fine. Vote for someone else. But don't make up lies, man.
I never said AOC’s radical idea was in the bill. She did, however say that in a Q&A session. She is a nutcase and did propose some other far out of reality ideas that went even further than the HEROES Act and even had co sponsors to her draft but thank God it never went anywhere.
This covers a broad spectrum. I come from the School of Feed a Man a Fish(feed him for the day) Teach a man to Fish Feed him for a Lifetime. Having said that I know where you can still get houses less than 20k . (Of course they need work mainly cosmetic) in fact I could negotiate something like that for 10. In fact, I had a tenant which I showed him that. In fact I was willing to go out of my way and create that situation for him. So at Tax time,( he’s got some small kids), what does he do? Goes out and buys a newer vehicle! The house he could’ve got for 10 prolly worth 40. The Car will prolly be in the Junkyard few years from now. My point is, the government needs to realize not everybody can be Winners. And from the example above you can clearly see not everyone can be leaders. The key thing is “it’s a choice” now can it be argued (people are trained to be ignorant, from our school systems and I’m not going to say that’s not the case.) To date we can all choose. I like I’m still able to customize my life the way I want it to go. And I be damned if I’m going to pushed around and made into a Robot!
Nor can everyone be smart and non-judgmental as demonstrated above.
As most landlords know, $20k houses require much work with hidden cost$ lurking behind the dry walls from years of neglect. It takes $ to do that and a car to get to work. But I am sure you know that since you have elevated yourself to judge and jury of someone else's financial choices.
I'm curious if we have any real estate attorneys on this thread (probably). It strikes me that it would be worthwhile for ALL landlords to consider the contents of their leases, particularly to see if there is a "Force Majeure" clause contained therein. One of the easiest examples of a Force Majeure condition would be regulatory or legal changes at the national level. If you had a lease (private party agreement) with a tenant, and if there was a national-level legal change that excused one party from their obligations under the contract, that WOULD be a Force Majeure event. Properly structured, such a force majeure clause would render the lease null and void. At which point the tenant's occupancy defaults to whatever is the legal default. Here in Florida, that would be a month-to-month tenancy. You would then immediately non-renew that month to month tenancy and ask the tenant to leave. Evict as required.
Summarizing:
1) Write all new leases with a clear Force Majeure clause rendering the lease null and void under major federal policy changes.
2) Lease is voided by federal action under said force majeure clause.
3) Without a lease in place, tenant reverts to month-to-month tenancy, and all rights under the now-null lease are non-existent.
4) Notify tenant of non-renewal.
5) Remove tenant as required.
Has the bill been signed into law? If not, it seems like we are spending a lot of cycles worrying about something that my never happen.
Has the bill been signed into law? If not, it seems like we are spending a lot of cycles worrying about something that my never happen.
I think the issue is that these are the same concerns that people are already facing. Having new legislation passed with regards to tenants not paying is functionally equivalent to what is happening in many places already. For example, here in Florida there is a moratorium for eviction due to nonpayment. I know why it's there, and I support it to a degree. There is, however, some flagrant abuse occurring...with tenants non-paying just because they can, and they know the law isn't going to enforce the lease.
If that's what's ALREADY happening around the nation (local laws not allowing for enforcement of the lease), then a new federal law is just perpetuating what is already happening due to local laws. I don't see it as a waste of time due to speculation. I view the discussion as a reaction to what people are ALREADY facing.