All Forum Posts by: Deanna O.

Jeff, 

I'm curious on what grounds the tenant was evicted. Here in CA the tenant is required to allow access, but is under no obligation to do anything else --no cleaning or vacating of any sort is required (nor is dressing, getting out of bed, answering the door, or turning off the porn movies, & holstered firearm is A-OK as long as it's legal). Any tact, taste, or politeness are completely up to the tenant. Oh, and the landlord is required to give 24 hr writte notice for each and every showing, unless the tenant waives that. 

Talk about "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory"- a fantastic RE market for the past two years, a perfect tenant, & this owner might still manage to lose money! It's difficult, but it CAN be done! 

Re-reading the original post, the only thing I think I got wrong is that the tenant was requesting to be let out of the rental agreement in less than 30 days, but the owner insisted that he pay for the full 30, through 11/8 (am I right on this Jason?).
 

Michaela G --I've been a landlord for 8 years,  my parents have had rentals for over 50. I'd be THRILLED to have this guy as a tenant!  Top of market rent, paid on time, house kept immaculate, wear & tear broken items repaired by the tenant. For 6 months he cleaned everything so that SIXTY TIMES (!!!) a bunch of strangers traipsed through his home with the expectation that  if the house sold he'd be given 60 days notice. The property was overpriced, so NO offers. 

Imagine renting a house at top dollar with the prospect of an endless parade of lookie-lous poking around in your closets 2-3 times a week for your entire tenancy (and no compensation for this inconvenience). This situation could have continued for YEARS; as long as having it listed at a sky-high price didn't cost him a dime the owner could keep hoping for a sucker buyer for forever.

In this situation, the (smart, well-qualified) tenant simply decided to quit paying top dollar for a seriously sub-standard housing situation & found another place. A different landlord now gets a great tenant who will keep everything spotless, repair things, cause no problems, & pay top market rent on time. Lucky new landlord.

The way I see it, the previous landlord had a sweet deal & blew it. At best he's going to lose income, and at worst he's going to hemorrhage holding costs every month until he sells (though I wouldn't be surprised if after a few more months and no offers it gets pulled off the market & he tries to rent it again).

Agree with John Smith - 30 days in CA, NOT the beginning of the month, unless he is somehow still bound under a contract that states otherwise (the lease expired, and he declined to sign anything else, right?).  

If this guy is as smart as you say, he could be just having his fun with the marshmallows, waiting until to sue for the illegally withheld rent once he's out. Unicorn onesie & marshmallows = really, really funny. Lawsuits not so much.

As far as the timing of the vacancy, by your description it probably doesn't matter. This owner sounds like he is fully capable of tanking a sale all by himself without any marshmallowy rainbow-colored assistance.

@Mike Hurney - For any house to be on the market for 6 months in San Diego with 60+ showings means something is badly, badly wrong. I've been watching the RE notices in my neighborhood, & I think  in the past 12 months only one house went under contract at more than 90 days, and the vast majority are under contract in 5-20 days (0 days isn't uncommon).

I did miss the usual 4/1 joke round-up.

Meh. LA public transit always has always had the problem in that there is no there there. Most people commute for work, and there isn't a "job central" in LA - industry is spread out across the whole LA basin.  Heck, I'd take LOW speed rail if I could take my car with me at a reasonable price so I can get where I'm going once I get to LA.

Seth Shapiro; 

The idea of using 3% equity to control 100% of an asset is good, but while you might START with $9k down, there is a regular influx of money required throughout the life of the investment (mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, etc), so it's not a static 3% investment.

Wow. It sure is pretty.  Is any logical portion of it livable, and what are the structural issues? (ie is the lower floor mostly functional? would you be able to fund the repairs if you are going to live in the house rather than selling it?

For what it is worth, my parents bought a house (years ago) that was "half habitable", as in, half of the house was habitable (actually, closer to 1/3). The area that was water/wind proof and had plumbing was partitioned off from the derelict space, so it was livable.  It turned out there were low-interest rehab loans avail through federal grants at the city level, though it of course took MUCH longer and cost MUCH more than they had expected. It was a labor of love, & really nice when finished.

This isn't an investment. Have you figured out if you have the money to do the repairs and the patience to live with the problems for about 4x as long as you think they should take?  Numbers aren't everything, & don't show ambiance or the "feel" of the place, or the location & surrounding area (and quality of schools), & if this is the "Mansion on top of the hill" of the area the area comps may be low. Would Airbnb work in your area with this house if it were fixed? Does the layout of the house/your temperament lend itself to that type of house-hacking?

If I were looking for somewhere in the areas listed I'd look at public transit FIRST. I might want to live somewhere inexpensive,  but ability to getting to the high-paying job locations is key (San Jose or SF). A reasonable link to public transit (BART or train) is the key to being able to live somewhere cheaper while working somewhere more expensive  - I don't need to be able to walk to the station, I'm OK with a short drive.

I've always been a bit surprised that Vallejo was as inexpensive as it is, since it has the ferry & is right next to Benecia (MUCH more expensive). If I were hunting might see what I could find in Antioch or Pittsburgh, & seriously look at Davis & Dixon (Amtrack Capitol Express = pwr at the seats, wifi, decent coffee, restrooms, I could work, nap or walk around while commuting...).

Stockton= currently 2 hours just to get through Altamont pass in the am. IF they get the Bart through that would be a serious game changer though. I've already talked to low wage earners who commute from FRESNO. Security guard company provides a Vanpool, but it's 4 hrs each way. Augh. 

I went to Cal. Did it ever strike you as odd that Berkley streets are like a 3rd world country, but the potholes disappear as soon as you cross into Oakland & Emeryville? Check it out next time you drive on Telegraph or Ashby.

Laith - You are absolutely right. Land ownership is, and has always been, a fiction. It's nothing more than the "majority" agreeing by some form of "tyranny" (ie the Law) who gets to control what area. 

Paying taxes in one form or another for the protection of  the right to control land has been going on for thousands of years in virtually every civilization. Sometimes the taxes were gold, lumber, grain or livestock, other times land-holders provided manpower in exchange for the protection of their ownership interest (ie governors provided laborers for the pyramids, lords provided the king soldiers for wars). 

For what it's worth, not all human civilizations have had personal ownership of land -- some have had a communal ownership, or partial communal control (ie the village green). Different groups would still fight over control of territory, of course.