Knoxville, TN · Member since 2013 · 62 posts · 216 votes
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?
@Hunter Fitch state of California and city of San Francisco are all passing this stuff.San francisco says you can NEVER evict somebody now.Landords really need to get more politically active
@Susan Maneck That's what I was thinking. But you can bet deposits will go up unless there's legislation to stop that. Deposits would serve as de facto insurance against nonpayment, at least to some extent. You have to think, if the govt just upped my risk level, how do I protect myself? LLs will find any number of ways to do it, possibly including upping the deposits as a form of protection.
They took that risk mitigation away in NY. No additional funds collected more than one month's rent. No additional security. No last month's rent. No pet deposit. No pet FEE. No paying rent in advance.
@Ben Clark: soooo, how exactly do you screen tenants? Just by looking at them and believing whatever they tell you?
That's how you have to do it in NY now. No criminal background checks. No eviction checks. And we're one legislative session away from "just cause eviction."
Maybe the best way to handle this situation is by doing month to month leases? That way if they don't pay you can just not renew their lease and they have to leave, right?
NY has tried to take that away, too. In some cases, tenants on a M2M need to be given 90 day's notice for a rent increase 5% or more, or a notice to terminate. Soon with "just cause" eviction, M2M will be just as restrictive to the landlord and most of the control of your business will be gone.
A federal ban on evictions likely constitutes "taking" for the public good. If that occurs without compensation, that constitutes a violation of the 5th amendment to the Constitution. I suspect that it would not make it through the Senate, nor the current president. If it did, it would immediately be hit with a federal lawsuit in a conservative district....and immediately get hit with an injunction preventing it from going into effect.
Don't be so sure. The exact thing has happened in NY, and lawsuits have been filed. However, I was told by an attorney this month that it will take at least two years until it's resolved. Way after all the damage has been done.
What I would advice to current landlords is to add addendum to newly signed leases that tenants will pay rent as stipulated in lease agreement and not take advantage of rent deferrals/deays. ets. If they sign- the landlord is protected. This helps. Also, with law suits, addendum is they key to protect your property, otherwise it leaves you at risk of slip and fall accidents, etc.
These laws and executive orders are SUPERCEDING the legal contracts we all have. This is exactly the problem. The government can come in and overwrite an existing agreement between two parties to the clear benefit of one, and the other without recourse.
What’s worrisome is Democrats winning the Senate and White House in November. This legislation will pass then regardless of what LLs oppose. The extreme left social justice warriors are on a roll, have already captured the Democratic Party and the blue cities and states and are very hard to stop.
The CARES act only applies to properties that have a mortgage backed by the federal government. Why can't people who own these properties just refinance with a local lender?
If this bill was passed, couldn’t land lords just put everyone on a month to month lease and if they didn’t pay you could be like “seeeee yaaa, get out”. Because then you aren’t technically evicting, you just aren’t renewing?
No. Technically, if a tenant doesn’t leave of their own free will, it is considered an eviction. Even if you have a squatter and they refuse to leave, you must evict through a court.
The CARES act only applies to properties that have a mortgage backed by the federal government. Why can't people who own these properties just refinance with a local lender?
The CARES Act isn’t the issue. The HEROES Act is the bad one.
I agree, screen better, until they (the government) decide that not renting to someone due to their history of being a bad actor and/or not paying in the past is discrimination much like what Oakland did in saying that you’re not allowed to do a criminal background check on someone before renting to them.
@JR C. That’s because a ban and forgiveness doesn’t cost them anything. There’s no motive for them to take it out unless their constituents call and raise hell, so call and send letters to your senators ASAP.
Suggest all of you join your local and the national rental owners, multi fam orgs that work to protect our rights
also, how many of you actually have unpaid rent right now ? (we did this i think on another threas and if I remember most folks were getting paid) The point is if you think that such a bill could become law then do something about it! Write letters, make phone calls..... there are many many many bills that never make it out of committee, that get voted on but never become law. Many of these bills are just marketing pieces used to let the base know “we hear you” .... i am fairly sure the most basic idea of property rights wont be erased without a fight. Also again, most people pay their rent. Most people are not seeking a freebie, most people are decent. If this is something you worry about, be sure to screen, buy in good areas, etc etc. then save a years worth of expenses just in case we have another black swan event.
I have unpaid rent! These tenants aren’t dumb. Soon as they heard they couldn’t be evicted, they stopped worrying about being making payments. This legislation is BS if there is no relief for owners. Especially ones who don’t participate in federal housing programs. Those rental payments are more than just income. They are tax payments, repair costs, loan payments, and etc. There’s only but so much reserves one could have. Landlords need some sort of property tax relief during this moratorium as well. The Dems need to restructure this legislation ASAP
The problem is that liberals and the left continue to push incrementally and use emotionalism to get their radical agenda passed with no pushback from conservatives. This has a "drip drip" effect until laws become extremely radical in a short period of time against those trying to invest and average working America that pays taxes.
What you are missing is the loss of private property ownership. Once a government implements a policy it does not go away it starts as temporary and then it can be modified to permanent. Landlords that go along will find themselves as landlords in name only and this is anti-constitutional taking away of peoples rights.
The new act seeks to amend the wording so that it does not apply only to federally backed loans and instead uses the term "covered mortgage loan".
"(2) COVERED MORTGAGE LOAN.—The term ‘covered mortgage loan’ means any credit transaction that is secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, or other equivalent consensual security interest on a 1- to 4-unit dwelling"
@Sean McCluskey And that 100 billion is also supposed to go to the utility companies for accounts in default. Who do you think will get it- small landlords or big utility companies?
I don't need the FEDERAL government to control any of my day-to-day or tell me what to do with my property. Local municipalities do just fine for eviction and tenant/landlord regulations. Feds are getting too big with horrible ideas.
I agree, screen better, until they (the government) decide that not renting to someone due to their history of being a bad actor and/or not paying in the past is discrimination much like what Oakland did in saying that you’re not allowed to do a criminal background check on someone before renting to them.
What I would advice to current landlords is to add addendum to newly signed leases that tenants will pay rent as stipulated in lease agreement and not take advantage of rent deferrals/deays. ets. If they sign- the landlord is protected. This helps. Also, with law suits, addendum is they key to protect your property, otherwise it leaves you at risk of slip and fall accidents, etc.
You cannot write addendum into a lease that contradict law. Any court would invalidate the clause and could even invalidate your entire lease as a result of it. So you can require them to pay rent, but if the law says you can't evict them for not paying rent, there is no lease clause that can override that.
Imagine for a moment that we were treating stock investments as they are proposing in this bill re: rental property.
That you could not collect dividends declared by a company if the company chose not to send them to you. That you could not sell the stock without the company's permission. That you could not screen the company's financials. That you had no say in who was on the board. That you would be taxed on capital gains even without collecting income from the sale of the stock.
Would you invest in stocks in that environment? I wouldn't. Pass a bill like this, and I'm out. Millions will follow. Good luck finding something to rent.
@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?