Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 16%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$39 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Try Pro Features for Free
Start your 7 day free trial. Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties.
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Christopher Sandys

Christopher Sandys has started 3 posts and replied 80 times.

Hi @Travis Biziorek

I do not mean to fear monger.  The cost of getting through a lead inspection, any lead inspection, will depend on two factors:

1. The current state of your property before performing remediation.

2. The depth of the test that is legislated.

If you have all new windows and aluminum or vinyl siding on the house (factor #1), then you're in nice shape... for the exterior.

I took a quick look at the Detroit requirements (#2), listed here:  

New Lead Ordinance Requirements for Rental Property Owners (detroitmi.gov)

It looks like Detroit is really about encapsulating, i.e. painting.  I don't see anything about wipe tests.  

I stand by my numbers above.   There is no way you are going to get a house painted for $2,000.  That is not marginally realistic.  And that's only the exterior prep, and the cheapest option at that.  

News from the last day of March 2023, behind The Toledo Blade paywall:

"A Lucas County judge granted a preliminary injunction Friday [31 March] to stop Toledo’s lead-safe certification rental law from going into effect on the day the new lead ordinance was scheduled to be enforced.

Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Gary Cook ruled on the injunction Friday in a lawsuit filed by Toledo landlord and rental manager Charmarlyn Strong who is challenging the city’s lead ordinance.
The city of Toledo has “passed, rescinded, and passed again multiple versions” of the ordinance, which has created a ”somewhat convoluted set of circumstances for the court,” he wrote.

However, the injunction is not necessarily “a decision on the ultimate enforceability” of the proposed ordinance, the judge wrote.

The next hearing on the case is scheduled for April 27.

For now, the lead ordinance remains “status quo” until the judge can review all of the legal matters, city law director Dale Emch said Saturday.

“I don’t think the judge’s order regarding the preliminary injunction tips the hand to how he is ultimately going to rule on this,” Mr. Emch said. “We feel that we are on firm legal footing given the way the sixth district ruled on this issue previously.”

Attorney Andrew Mayle, representing the plaintiff in this case, said Saturday that the judge’s ruling was correct.

“We think that Judge Cook made the right decision to preliminary enjoin this (matter) pending further litigation on the merits,” he said.

Mr. Mayle has been opposed to the city’s lead law since 2016 and has successfully won three injunctions against three versions of the ordinance. He believes that this is the first phase of a lengthy litigation process.

“We think that our reading of the law is correct. Whether we’re vindicated at the trial court, the court of appeals or the Ohio Supreme Court, basically we’re in this for the long run and I assume that the city is too,” Mr. Mayle said.

For at least seven years, the city of Toledo has tried to enact a lead-safe ordinance that can successfully withstand legal challenges to no avail.

In the latest version, owners of residential rentals with four or fewer dwellings built before 1978 are required to have their properties inspected for lead paint while also obtaining lead-safe certificates from the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department.

In addition, the inspections must be completed by a local lead inspector who visually inspects properties’ interiors and exteriors and collects dust wipes to test for compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards.

Potential fines for violations could reach $10,000 annually. Lead-law violations would be handled in housing court as first-degree misdemeanors, similar to other building nuisances.

Mr. Mayle objects specifically to the lead-safe certificate requirement through the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department. He argues that Toledo City Council does not have the authority to outsource enforcement of a city ordinance to another government agency, which in this case is the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department.

City officials contend that thousands of children continue to test positive for lead poison and they point to testimony from health-care officials who blame Toledo’s blighted housing stock, much of which has become rental property, as the source of the poison.

For Toledo children, especially those who are predominantly poor and live in rental properties, the situation of lead exposure has become critical, health experts have said.

Despite legal challenges, the city has moved forward with enacting the lead-safe certification requirement, which was set to be implemented through a 10-phase process.

Properties identified through the census tract as having the highest risk of lead exposure are listed in the first phase of the lead-certification requirement, in which the deadline was supposed to be March 31. Of the 5,199 rental units located in the first phase, more than 2,000 were not certified as of early March, city officials said.

Between 5,000 and 6,000 properties are included in phase two and phase three of the certification process, in which the deadline for those to receive lead-safe certification is June 30.

Despite the injunction, Toledo Councilman Tiffany Preston Whitman, who chairs council’s neighborhoods and community development committee, said Saturday that she remains confident that the most recent version of Toledo's lead ordinance will stand up in court.

“We believe that our ordinance is ultimately going to protect children,” Ms. Preston Whitman said."

I don't know if it was crystal clear from the quote from Tiffany Preston Whitman, this is a political canard.  It's the classic, "Do it for our children - they are under lethal threat" argument.  Don't let the "Dr." salutation fool you, her "doctorate" is an 
Ed.D. in education leadership, not a PhD or a medical degree.

These so-called "doctors" seem pretty adept at ignoring common sense and hard data.  Common sense dictates that lead exposure to children has steadily dropped since 1978.  Prior to then, we were fully-leaded:  Paint, Gasoline, Water Pipes!  But one would presume that it has likely dropped to a minimal level.  It will never get to zero. Lead is a naturally occurring element that has trace amounts present everywhere.

But does the hard date agree with basic, elementary common sense?  It sure does.

The source of this data is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for Health Statistics.  They're pretty notorious for crying about a falling sky, but even they can't cover these facts.

Okay, I just found a report from our local newspaper, The Toledo Blade.  It is behind a paywall, but the story basically goes:

"A Lucas County judge granted a preliminary injunction Friday [31 March] to stop Toledo’s lead-safe certification rental law from going into effect on the day the new lead ordinance was scheduled to be enforced.

Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Gary Cook ruled on the injunction Friday in a lawsuit filed by Toledo landlord and rental manager Charmarlyn Strong who is challenging the city’s lead ordinance.
The city of Toledo has “passed, rescinded, and passed again multiple versions” of the ordinance, which has created a ”somewhat convoluted set of circumstances for the court,” he wrote.

However, the injunction is not necessarily “a decision on the ultimate enforceability” of the proposed ordinance, the judge wrote.

The next hearing on the case is scheduled for April 27.

For now, the lead ordinance remains “status quo” until the judge can review all of the legal matters, city law director Dale Emch said Saturday.

“I don’t think the judge’s order regarding the preliminary injunction tips the hand to how he is ultimately going to rule on this,” Mr. Emch said. “We feel that we are on firm legal footing given the way the sixth district ruled on this issue previously.”

Attorney Andrew Mayle, representing the plaintiff in this case, said Saturday that the judge’s ruling was correct.

“We think that Judge Cook made the right decision to preliminary enjoin this (matter) pending further litigation on the merits,” he said.

Mr. Mayle has been opposed to the city’s lead law since 2016 and has successfully won three injunctions against three versions of the ordinance. He believes that this is the first phase of a lengthy litigation process.

“We think that our reading of the law is correct. Whether we’re vindicated at the trial court, the court of appeals or the Ohio Supreme Court, basically we’re in this for the long run and I assume that the city is too,” Mr. Mayle said.

For at least seven years, the city of Toledo has tried to enact a lead-safe ordinance that can successfully withstand legal challenges to no avail.

In the latest version, owners of residential rentals with four or fewer dwellings built before 1978 are required to have their properties inspected for lead paint while also obtaining lead-safe certificates from the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department.

In addition, the inspections must be completed by a local lead inspector who visually inspects properties’ interiors and exteriors and collects dust wipes to test for compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards.

Potential fines for violations could reach $10,000 annually. Lead-law violations would be handled in housing court as first-degree misdemeanors, similar to other building nuisances.

Mr. Mayle objects specifically to the lead-safe certificate requirement through the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department. He argues that Toledo City Council does not have the authority to outsource enforcement of a city ordinance to another government agency, which in this case is the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department.

City officials contend that thousands of children continue to test positive for lead poison and they point to testimony from health-care officials who blame Toledo’s blighted housing stock, much of which has become rental property, as the source of the poison.

For Toledo children, especially those who are predominantly poor and live in rental properties, the situation of lead exposure has become critical, health experts have said.

Despite legal challenges, the city has moved forward with enacting the lead-safe certification requirement, which was set to be implemented through a 10-phase process.

Properties identified through the census tract as having the highest risk of lead exposure are listed in the first phase of the lead-certification requirement, in which the deadline was supposed to be March 31. Of the 5,199 rental units located in the first phase, more than 2,000 were not certified as of early March, city officials said.

Between 5,000 and 6,000 properties are included in phase two and phase three of the certification process, in which the deadline for those to receive lead-safe certification is June 30.

Despite the injunction, Toledo Councilman Tiffany Preston Whitman, who chairs council’s neighborhoods and community development committee, said Saturday that she remains confident that the most recent version of Toledo's lead ordinance will stand up in court.

“We believe that our ordinance is ultimately going to protect children,” Ms. Preston Whitman said."

Here's one cautionary note I will say about Toledo.  Be aware of their lead abatement compliance initiative.  It is limited to residences of 4 of fewer units, which is where most out-of-state investors will be investing.  I do not think that was a coincidence.  Here is a realistic scenario.  You buy a Single Family Home for $70,000.  You're getting $1,100/month gross.  Nice cash flow.  But wait... there's more!  You realize that you will be required to bring this house up to the lead standards, which minimally includes visual and chemical tests and inspections (you pay for those).  Upon not passing, you will be required to perform and fund the necessary steps to be in compliance.  What are those costs?  Well, an exterior paint job is probably minimally $5,000 (materials and labor). Now, how are the windows and floors on that $70k house?  Those are the areas that will be tested with the chemical lead-swipes.  New windows?   You know how that goes.  You're looking at $350/window for starters, then add in the labor.  

All in - your $70k house is now an $80-85k house.  Still decent cash flow.  But you need to plan for that. If it costs you $15k to get up to specs, you have just put another 20% "down payment" into your $70k house.  

The city requires you to register your rental with the auditor, that way they know who you are and can enforce the rules on you.  If you fail to register, there are cash penalties for that.

If you fail to obtain a passing lead examination, you are not permitted to rent the house.  If you do so anyway, there are criminal penalties for that.  Yes, criminal penalties, under the nuisance property laws. Jail time and fees, and a criminal misdemeanor on your record.  

Maybe you could save a few thousand by doing a lot of the labor on your own.  That's difficult if you're in Maryland.  

The only saving grace in this true story is that the City of Toledo has been trying to implement this for many years, but it is continually halted by property investors filing lawsuits that result in injunctions from a court halting the enforcement.  

Eventually the city council will write a legal law, and enforcement will commence.  Supposedly, they started enforcement last Saturday, 1 April.  

Reading the Original Post, I noticed at least a couple of times that it was stated that the landlord asked for something in writing, and the landlord did not receive what he asked for.  No kidding.  What on earth do they have to gain by putting down that information in writing? You stand to gain, they stand to lose.  Plus, is a practicing alcoholic going to go out of her way to provide you documentation that will help you evict her?  Seriously, you thought that would happen?

Let this be a lesson.  You need to document what was verbally spoken.  You need to send it the counterparty, with the message that this is a summary of our conversation. You need to give them the opportunity to refute, as a written response, what you summarized.  

Ostensibly, you want this in written format to bolster your eviction argument.  Great plans are no good if they are poorly executed.  

I've never done a subject-to, but I have read a little about it.  From what I can gather, it all centers around fraud.  Fraud can happen from either party:  buyer or seller.  Fraud is more than a civil violation, I will be a criminal one if a prosecutor decides to take the case.  

It looks like most of the allegations of fraud come in the form of failure to fully disclose or to falsely disclose.  In other words, fraud by omission or fraud by commission.  Maybe someone lies about their credit worthiness, income, existing liens, etc.  

There is a pretty good article about it here:  

What are the Penalties for Committing Real Estate Fraud? | LegalMatch

Criminal Charges are on the menu for Maumee landlords.  This is directly from the code I linked in the previous post:

"...with a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Each day of violation of a provision of this article relating to the physical condition of any
dwelling shall constitute a separate violation. The Court shall suspend any jail term of any
person in violation of these Chapters who complies with the charged code requirements
within thirty days of receipt of a citation and where that person has no prior violations
of these Chapters but cannot waive fines and penalties."

You better make sure you run electrical out the garage.  All your ceilings (with the few noted exceptions) must be 6'6".  Two duplex electrical outlets per room.  Don't forget to have your insulation up to R-38.

My Question to you: Would you buy an SFH investment property in Maumee?