Market rent reduction for tenant who is behind on current rent

Market rent reduction for tenant who is behind on current rent

Palo Alto, CA · Member since 2012 · 1 post · 0 votes

Would you agree with market rent reduction for a tenant who is behind on current rent? The tenant is currently on a month to month rental agreement and claims COVID 19 eviction protection due to his reduced income. He recently deposited 1.5 months' worth of rent but is still about 1.5 months behind. He asked to reduce his rent by $500 which would result in the rent amount that Zillow currently shows for the property. He would not guarantee that he can pay new rent in full and current CA law only requires 25% to avoid eviction. 

0Reply
11 views

3 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • John UnderwoodPro Member
    Investor · Greer, SC · Member since 2014 · 13k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    6y

    I would word it as a $500 reduction in balance owed and not committing to lowering future rent.

  • Realtor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2018 · 952 posts · 1k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Eugene Ionel:

    Would you agree with market rent reduction for a tenant who is behind on current rent? The tenant is currently on a month to month rental agreement and claims COVID 19 eviction protection due to his reduced income. He recently deposited 1.5 months' worth of rent but is still about 1.5 months behind. He asked to reduce his rent by $500 which would result in the rent amount that Zillow currently shows for the property. He would not guarantee that he can pay new rent in full and current CA law only requires 25% to avoid eviction. 

    I agree with John. I would forgive a portion of the rent due rather than change the rate moving forward. As a CA landlord, you have to be very protective of the rate. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes
    6y

    What’s the point of reducing it if he’s still not saying he’ll be able to pay it? Might as well keep it at the contracted amount that he originally agreed to pay, in my opinion. 

    And by the way, if he’s going to try to take advantage of the new law (AB3088) that allows him to pay only 25% to avoid eviction, you can still collect on the balance that he didn’t pay. Wouldn’t you rather collect on the higher amount (assuming he’s not going to pay either way)?

    Just something to consider. 

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