All Forum Posts by: Derreck Wells

It seems to me that if the tenant wants to continue living in the house after it sells and the lease is up, they should probably make an effort to be a "good tenant" during this process. The new owner will be seeing the unit, if its trashed with dirty undies stuck to the walls, do you really think that lease will get renewed?

Also if they fight the sale process, the sale drags on and the lease expires. Then the tenant has to move and the house will sell vacant. Why be confrontational at all? Help the sale, make friendly with the new owner, or start looking for a new place to live. Seems to me fighting this is a bad case of cutting off your own nose just to spite your face. The tenant ultimately loses. 

That's the "entitlement" that was mentioned earlier. This sounds like greed to me, but it's going to bite the tenant in the *** in the long run. Just because a judge in 1 case said that the landlord in that case could only have 2 showings a month, etc., etc., doesn't make that law. If the tenant tries the court route, the lease will probably be expired before they even get in front of a judge. It makes no sense to me why the tenant wouldn't just cooperate. Maybe they won't have to move if they do.

$3000 is not "fair", it's closer to extortion. What if the house sells from the first open house? Even if there's 3 open houses, $1000 per day is fair to someone? Give me a break. That's insane. I'd be willing to rent my house out to a troop of circus clowns for $1000 per day. A pro cleaner hired by the LL + $100 per day the tenant is asked to leave sounds more the fair. Chances are the tenant was going to be out anyway, this way they get free maid service and get paid to go to lunch.

It sounds like you have 3 options.

1. Pay a GC his hourly rate to walk through and write an estimate. You don't even own the house yet, why would anyone want to waste their time writing up an estimate for you ON SOMEONE ELSE'S HOUSE?!?! That makes no sense to me at all. That GC could be on a paying job in stead of donating his time to you. He has a family to feed.

2. Find a partner. If you and a contractor agreed on a profit split, he's going to be at every walkthrough to be sure he can get the job done quickly and cheaply. Yes, you'll be giving up half your profit, but you'll be getting half too. As it is, you're getting nothing. But you shouldn't look at it like you're givig up profit, look at it like you're buying an education. Learn from your partner so after a few flips, you can do it alone.

3. Try it alone and learn from your mistakes.

Personally, I'd love to find a person like you in my area to partner with as in option 2. I'm sure there's plenty of guys in your area who would too!

Good Luck!

Derreck

This is the reason I rejected the idea of getting my RE license. Maybe if I get to the point that I'm doing multiple deals in month, then I might, but until then, there are enough licensed agents to do the work. Plus, it just means less paperwork for me!

I'm not an agent, but I'd imagine they want to hear; "I'm going to buy one of these properties I'm emailing you, pick the one you think is best and write up the offer." It's that simple. If you want them to consult, pay them the commission on the purchase. If you're not going to use them as your purchasing agent, then pay them a consulting fee for their time. 

There's a decent article here on the subject...

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/05/what-can-landlords-do-about-medical-marijuana.html

@Richard C. Why are you on Bigger Pockets? Most of us are here to get ideas from other people that have gone thorough similar situations. The only "legal advice" I've seen in this thread is for the OP to talk to a lawyer. Your post has nothing to do with the conversation going on here, so why post it at all? 

Until it becomes legal on the federal level, it should still be grounds for eviction no matter where it comes from. I say "should" because there's always the chance the judge is a recreational pot smoker or just sympathetic to their cause. 

Pretty much everything in life has three sets of laws that have to be adhered to. There are Federal Laws, there are State Laws, and there are Town Ordinances. (Yes, we DO live in a Police State.) Generally, they are applied in that order, Federal trumps State trumps Town. Since Federal is up top, it should be able to be used for eviction. It would be interesting to know if this has been done yet. I'm going to dig into that when I get a minute.

I do know that police (Town Level) are using medical marijuana as grounds to deny gun licenses citing the the Federal Law that states that if you use illegal drugs you are "restricted" from getting a gun license. Even though the person "legally" has a Rx on the State level, they get denied by the Town due to Federal law saying marijuana is illegal. Like I said above, Federal trumps State. The Town knows it and uses it. I would expect the same in eviction court. 

Massachusetts was considering a bill (I don't know if it passed) that would ban smoking cigarettes in apartment buildings because the smell can travel through the air ducts to other apartments. I don't see that happening unless they all share one hot air furnace, but I'm just a contractor, not a politician, what do I know?

Hire a property manager.

Welcome Shamus!

What are you interested in doing? Flipping or holding rentals? You can set up keyword alerts to notify when your chosen topic gets posted about. Its a very helpful tool for finding relevant information.

See you around,

Derreck

You cannot evict him because he's disabled. Period. 

There is no discussion on if this is "the right thing to do". It's flat out illegal and you will get sued, hard and fast, and you will lose. Massachusetts is a VERY tenant friendly state. 

Try to evict and you will probably never see a rent check from him for the rest of his life. Chances are, you'll be paying him to live there. He will sue you, you will lose. 

While the lawsuit is ongoing, you will not be able to sell the property or rent the unit to anyone else if the tenant decides to move during the proceedings. The unit needs to stay available to him. ( * Reference below)

After it is determined that you did discriminate against the tenant for being disabled (and they will, because you did), you will have to pay all of their legal fees and if they moved during the proceedings, expenses for finding new living place. These expenses could include a nice long stay at a 5 star hotel while the tenant looked for a new apartment to live in. You would be required to pay for him equipping a new place for handicapped access, you would be required to pay for storage of all his belongings while he acquired new housing. ( ** Reference below)

And finally, you will have to pay the tenant $10,000 to $50,000. $10,000 if they believe this is your first offense, $25,000 if your second, $50,000 if more then two offenses. Now, that's not having been convicted or sued for discrimination, that's if they think you did it before. The wording on that is "adjudged to have committed [one, two, or two or more] other discriminatory practice[s]" (*** Definition of adjudged below, look at #5) (**** Reference below)

Bottom line is keep taking his rent and be glad he's paying his rent. 

(References Below)

*  "...including orders or decrees restraining and enjoining any sale, rental, lease, or other disposition of such property which would render it unavailable to the complainant pending the final determination of proceedings under this chapter. "

** "...in addition to any other action which it may take under this section, award the petitioner damages, which damages shall include, but shall not be limited to, the expense incurred by the petitioner for obtaining alternative housing or space, for storage of goods and effects, for moving and for other costs actually incurred by him as a result of such unlawful practice or violation."

*** "ad•judge

(əˈdʒʌdʒ)

v.t. -judged, -judg•ing.

1. to declare or pronounce formally; decree: The will was adjudged void.

2. to award or assign judicially.

3. to decide by a judicial opinion: to adjudge a case.

4. to sentence or condemn.

5. to deem; consider; think."

**** "If, upon all the evidence at any such hearing, the commission shall find that a respondent has engaged in any such unlawful practice, it may, in addition to any other action which it may take under this section, assess a civil penalty against the respondent:

(a) in an amount not to exceed $10,000 if the respondent has not been adjudged to have committed any prior discriminatory practice;

(b) in an amount not to exceed $25,000 if the respondent has-been adjudged to have committed one other discriminatory practice during the 5-year period ending on the date of the filing of the complaint; and

(c) in an amount not to exceed $50,000 if the respondent has been adjudged to have committed 2 or more discriminatory practices during the 7-year period ending on the date of the filing of the complaint. Notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions, if the acts constituting the discriminatory practice that is the object of the complaint are committed by the same natural person who has been previously adjudged to have committed acts constituting a discriminatory practice, then the civil penalties set forth in clauses (b) and (c) may be imposed without regard to the period of time within which any subsequent discriminatory practice occurred."

I am not a lawyer, nor is this legal advice. All references except the definition of adjudge come right from Mass General Laws Part 1, Title XXI, Chapter 151B. 

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter151b

More info can be found here...

http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/your-rights/civil-rights/disability-rights/fair-housing.html#state