All Forum Posts by: Gagan P.

As Eric said, insurance company will care. Make sure you inform them prior to a tenant moving in.

As Blair said, check the local rules. It may be helpful to go to the Zoning or Building department/commission, and ask about retrofit status. Some places will let you register/retrofit an existing unit provided it meets current code (or met code or fire compliance). It may be an additional hassle but could be worth it in the long run. Last thing you need is a complaint that a unit is illegally occupied and have to worry about getting the tenant out.

The part about people breaking in (potentially former people), what about a Smartkey lock? 4 or 5 different keys to randomly change between guests or as soon a a guest leaves?

 He accidentally stated that the tenant moved in on October 1, 2017 and corrected that later to say tenant move in on October 1, 2016

 Repossessed vehicles with high mileage maybe. I haven't seen many (any) repo'd vehicles at 30% of value. Then again the ones I"ve seen are public (and government seizure, real ones not websites claiming to be seized) auctions.

As far as "real property" (houses), I definitely haven't seen anything sell for 30cents on the dollar compared to property value, or even 50 for that matter. Years ago maybe 50 cents in rare cases, but I would say that is more the exception than the rule these days (unless it's in need of a major rehab or something of course)

Depending on position in the military, during the last two shutdowns the presidents essentially made sure the military would get paid by way of presidential orders. Congress filed and passed bipartisan bills ensuring the military and DOD would get paid. This time, so far, those bills have been rejected.

One would assume the current president would end up doing the same thing (unless of course he wants to continue his "military is shut down" rhetoric and purposely not fund the military).

Unfortunately, this time around, it seems to be more of a "let's blame the minority and not agree to any proposal to at least fund the military in the meantime so we can blame them some more" issue.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-shutdown-2...

"Mulvaney said that Congress has voted to pay them retroactively following past shutdowns, a move he says the White House supports. During the 2013 shutdown, Congress appropriated money on a bipartisan basis to keep troops' paychecks coming.

But on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell objected to up a motion to pay troops during the shutdown after it was proposed by Sen. Claire McCaskill." 

If a mortgage is one of the debts, she'll need to build up a history of on-time payments for (I believe) 2 years as per Fannie Mae guidelines. A quick Google search will bring those up though.

As far as the accident, if it  wasn't her who was at fault, she may still be able to go after the driver and/or owner of the vehicle (or her own insurance if other driver was under-insured depending on limits and her own coverage). I know Ohio's minimum liability has been $25/50k since the end of 2013, but it can't hurt to try especially if all of the financial constraints have been because of the accident. I would advise an injury attorney before bankruptcy, just in case.

Bingo. Mind you I've had tenants on welfare before (in Ontario), and a few that were good. But it's still well below the 50% mark once the "well I deserve the money, my landlord doesn't, AND I can live rent free for 2 months while they evict me" sense of entitlement kicks in.

Section 8, meanwhile, has very strict criteria as mentioned in this thread, including "eviction for non payment", "damages", and a whole list of criteria that makes them automatically ineligible, whereas Ontario doesn't really care. The change to the rent increase limits clearly reflect that, as if the situation of a lack of housing in the 90s that led to the government saying "okay, no increase limits on new housing, PLEASE build rental housing".

 This is the biggest difference I've found between Ontario and most US (and maybe other Canadian) jurisdictions.

Ontario: Person gets ODSP (Disability) or Welfare, signs form directing them to direct funds to the landlord. Landlord has to sign off saying "Yes this is what their rent is". Tenant pays for a month or two, directs the government to not pay the landlord but to pay tenant so they can in turn pay landlord, government says "Okay no problem".

Doesn't pay, Landlord calls worker, who replies "we can't discuss anything, it's protected information, evict them if you haven't been paid" (while STILL sending tenants money usually). Tenant continues to get supplement/money, and landlord gets stiffed even if reporting tenant.

You go to evict the tenant, who will ask for delay after delay of the hearing, finally get an order and evict them, and since they're on assistance you can't even garnish the bank account. Difference with Section 8 and (I believe) others is that they actually care to make sure that the landlord is in fact getting paid.

Another reason for this of course would be so that landlords do not get a "sour spot" for those on assistance and continue to rent to people on assistance, as if you've had 3 out of 4 tenants skip out there's a lower chance of renting to someone on assistance  given the government's reluctance to follow through on payments the second a tenant says "Don't pay the landlord, just pay me".

@Christian Wathne I believe @Cara Lonsdale's example, and my understanding anyway, that property would essentially be a "wash" for itself. Meaning the payment wouldn't count towards the borrower's DTI as it is covering itself using the 75% formula. However, the remaining $1,250 would be added to the borrower's income to use against another property (and I believe it may be used on a 1:1 rather than 45-50% DTI if I'm not wrong since it's already 75% of the actual income, but I'm sure somebody will correct me).

If the property is not cash flowing, then the remainder balance of the payment would get added to the borrower's expenses and be factored into the DTI.