All Forum Posts by: Jack B.

The point of a lease option is to collect money up front as a DP or charge a higher rent, part of which goes toward the down payment if they don't have the dp right now. Not like this. You literally gave him discounted rent and he can choose not to exercise the option. You have no money in hand, and he will have to be taken to court for the money which could cost you more than the 15K. On top of that, you still don't have money from him even if you get a judgement, and you've further thrown money away.

I don't think you really thought this through very well. This is pretty obvious stuff. Evict him and stop doing this until you know what you are doing with lease options.

3 Votes

Originally posted by @Leon F.:

There was only one agreement/contract signed.

it had all the details and that's what we used.

You are suggesting I should have a 2 seperate contracts? A lease contract and then a totally seperate purchase contract? That we should have made?

this is what we signed. Page 1 & page 2.

A simple ( that's what I thought anyway🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️) lease w/ option to buy contract.

Your contract says the guy has the option to purchase the house for $15,000.....

I think you meant he can buy it at the market price you guys agreed to and a 15K deposit. You can't buy a house in LV Kentucky for 15K can you?

If he was smart, he'd hold you to buying it for 15K that your contract states. It's poorly worded.

Your contract also allows him to request extensions....

While he is playing dumb and I didn't see anything in your contract that said the rent goes toward the 15K, your contract states that he can buy it for 15K, not a 15K down payment.

$550 a month for 24 months isn't even 15K, it's 13.2K, the guy is either an idiot or play dumb. My guess is both. If it was me I'd take your property for 15K that you agreed to...

1 Vote

Originally posted by @Dave Foster:

@Joel Owens, thanks for the shout out. @Jack B. it really depends on how it is being used now as well as your intent. If you're living in it and trying to rent it before you move out it would be hard to argue that it is an investment property - especially because it is probably not being treated as an investment property on your tax return.

But if you moved out and converted it to investment and have tried to rent it and your intent was to hold then it could conceivably be considered being held for investment. I'd say the length of time plus the surrounding circumstances make it shakey. But each situation is different.

How would it be shaky? I've rented it out before. When I moved back into it 2 years ago, I intended to only live there until I found another primary residence to buy and move into. I did that. I've had it listed for 2 months with nothing but 550 credit score people applying. First time ever at this house that this has happened. I suspect the crap tenants are the only ones moving around right now, after landlords still kicked them out despite moratoriums or for other reasons.

My intent is clearly to rent it out and I've taken active steps to do so, listed, it, responded to nearly a hundred inquiries, provided tours. Not one of the applicants meets the published criteria in the listing. Does that not show intent to treat it as an investment property?

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

Originally posted by @Wesley W.:

Originally posted by @Brian Rosher:

Originally posted by @Wesley W.:

Here's another NY beauty.

The DOJ has informed the insurance companies here in NYS they may not exclude dangerous breeds. (Of course, this might mean they are free to charge a ridiculously high risk premium, but I am not sure.)

So, "my insurance doesn't allow it" doesn't wash here.

Is this something new? Do you have a source?

Thank You.

Nor really new, but not widely publicized until recently.

http://www.fhcwm.org/uploads/files/reports/HUD_Memo_-_RA_Breed_Restrictions_Insurance.pdf

Read the last sentence on the doc.

PS You can get involved in educating yourself as NY Landlord. PM me and I will connect you to the coalition group that has formed. Then you won't have to ask me for the source; you'll have access to this directly.

Reading all the other sentences. I think it is pretty clear that a landlord can justify their policy with the insurance company being an unreasonable burden, whether being dropped or high rates.

The last sentence says the Department of Justice may investigate whether the insurance company violated the disabled persons civil rights.

Before they can investigate, there needs to be a case, which means there needs to be a disabled person. Not someone with an online printed ESA certificate, but someone with a real medical condition and real medical professional who will show up in court. What doctor is going to walk into court and testify under oath that "a pit bull is necessary for treatment". The reality is any dog would provide the same level of therapeutic value and that is the counter argument.

From a practical standpoint, this letter is from 2006 and yet the majority of national insurance companies still have a list of prohibited dogs. In other words, over the course of 14 years, there have been no significant cases to force national insurance carriers to change police. Apparently their attorneys see little legal risk or believe they can fight it in court if they do get challenged.

Here is the most important part. Who cares if my insurance company is investigated by the DOJ? If they are forced to allow my insurance to cover hazardous breeds, then they cover me and my tenant gets the dog. That would take months, if not years to play out in court. I am unlikely to have the tenant at that point.

My thoughts exactly when I read that. You have a high level of reading comprehension on this. My biggest argument for all this nonsense is: you don't need a pitbull as an emotional support animal. Get a labrador or some other non dangerous breed. But like I said, every single applicant I've ever had with pitbulls was an abject loser in general and would have been a problem tenant. I just don't see Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or other high end people with pitbulls for some reason....hmmmmm....

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Mary M.:

Fwiw property values depend, in a large degree, to the city services, schools, infrastructure etc surrounding the property.

So theoretically a property in a higher taxed are should be worth more and more desirable which means higher rent.

See: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44103650?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Also for those stating they pay x amount per month - what is the value of the property? Your tax amount by itself means little. It needs to be looked at as a percentage rate of property value to be compared to other locals.

I guess i am “Happy” paying 20k in property taxes as that allows my building to be in an area of high value. YMMV

My lakefront house doesn't cost more because of buses and schools. It costs more because of it's location 1) on the lake and 2) because the tech economy of Seattle creates a huge demand for high skilled workers and there is a low supply of land for housing.

It doesn't cost more because of good schools, in fact the schools here are some of the worst rated in the country...I think you'd benefit from a basic economics class.

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Mary M.:

Whose agenda is it to socialize housing? There is no way that will ever happen. Heck they blew up the projects decades ago because that kind of system does not work.

I do feel badly for those who are not getting paid. That sucks. I do also believe tenants should have certain rights. But there should be a balance between owners and tenants.

Eta: they blew up some buildings/projects in SF (hunters point - it was quite the spectacle!) Dont know about elsewhere

I'm pretty sure you know who, considering your posting history and often being the apologist for such policies. Would you consider your comments in other threads such as the one below, supporting socialist structures? Also, the projects still exist, your one sample is not representative of the entire population and has little meaning. HUD also started moving the people living in the projects into affluent neighborhoods so that everyone could have a house they could be proud of. Socialism...your very comments below indicate support of it. Tax the wealthy, pay for the poor. Statistically the vast majority of people who are poor will have many many kids, the lower the education and income the more kids they have. Yet you want others who have no kids to pay for their education via forced taxation. Is that capitalism or?

Originally posted by @Mary Mitchell:

So just curious - is noone concerned about kids getting an education?

I mean i like to keep my money as much as the next person, but honestly our infrastructure and schools need to be funded somehow?

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/637646-heavy-property-taxes-in-wa-worse-than-state-income-taxes/reply?q=3788702

0 Votes

Originally posted by @George Smith:

I agree with Erik. This is why I will only buy properties In B/B- neighborhoods. I need to be able to fully screen them based on pre determined criteria. Not saying it will absolutely solve the problem but it has greatly reduced my risk regarding these situations.

In my experience, people with pitbulls ALWAYS have bad credit, criminal records, low income, bad references or a combination of 2 or more of these. They never qualify anyways. Just apply, I'll review your application.

1 Vote

Originally posted by @Justin V.:

@Mike Morawski

Who was your insurance? I’d like to avoid them if possible. That really sucks.

It's likely they didn't cover the damages since they don't allow the breed. Insurance companies also don't allow you to have a hot pot, it's a fire hazard. They sued a church for the 150K they paid them after arson investigators ruled the hot pot was the cause. The policy explicitly prohibited such equipment. Insurance isn't a do whatever you want and we'll cover you regardless kind of thing. You'll have the same issue with ANY insurance company...

1 Vote

Originally posted by @Isaac B.:

Hi, I have a tenant who just gave her 30-day notice to leave the rental. I told her that I'd let her know in advance when a candidate tenant wants to come see the house. Her response was no, she is not going to allow any showings (her reason is Coronavirus health hazard from strangers). She even said I, myself (the landlord), cannot go see the house to assess its condition until after she's moved out.

Do I really wait to show the house until she's moved out? Obviously this is going to push out when the next tenant will be move in quite a bit, and will for sure extend a time gap in between tenant occupancies...which just equals losing $$$

LOL, contrary to some of the "common sense needs to prevail here" comment, she can't ban you from the property. The state has not made it illegal to enter, thus it is not.

What are you supposed to do if the plumbing fails and floods the property, wait until she has moved to the Moon before you fix it? Too many people with low education and poor understanding of statistics that use the virus as an excuse for EVERYTHING. Statistically, the chance of you getting the virus and dying from it are drastically less than dying in a car accident. And guess, what, I've been telling people for MONTHS the shut down is government IDIOCY. Literally IDIOCY. The virus will spread and keep spreading. They can't lock the country or world down forever, they are merely killing the economy in the process of trying to save the weak, when the weak will die anyways. Sorry, Nancy Pelosi can't legislate natural selection away kids....

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Thomas S.:

The easiest and best way to handle the situation is to take applications and choose the best fit for your property based on your screening policies. That is the purpose behind screening. Which law applies, state or fed, makes little difference.

The reality is that simply because you have a applicant that receives preferential treatment does not mean you are obligated to compromise your standards. Weather they do or do not have a animal will likely not end up being a deciding factor when considering all screening standards. You accept the most qualified from the group of applicants. Only you decide when to stop accepting applications.

Many may suggest this is boarding on discrimination but in reality when you remove the animal from the scenario this is how landlords always select tenants. There is always a more qualified applicant waiting to apply.

First qualified is a political joke and should be ignored when protecting your business interests unless of course it works in your favour. :)

In a recent thread all the "people" came out swinging (except for a few astute investors) telling me to accept the first qualified applicant. Except the first qualified applicant had never seen the house, had a new job he had not started and was relocating from out of state with 2 room mates who worked fast food...

I ended up telling them, per our agreement, that their fees were refunded and such, I signed no lease, and that they have not paid all monies to move in or even seen the property. I had 3 career programmers with ivy league graduate degrees who had seen the property, had all monies in hand and were local.

Yeah, I'm going with the other applicant that has proven long term stable employment history, much more education to make it easier to find a replacement job, and all of who are high income and have seen the property, despite them not being the first qualified applicant.

And I did.....

0 Votes

All Forum Posts by: Jack B.

Jack B. has started 419 posts and replied 1844 times.

Post: Lease w/ Option 2 Buy gone WRONG!!

Post: Lease w/ Option 2 Buy gone WRONG!!

Post: Does a rental have to be occupied for a 1031 exchange

Post: Another pitbull as an "emotional support animal" applicant

Post: Heavy property taxes in WA worse than state income taxes

Post: Another pitbull as an "emotional support animal" applicant

Post: Another pitbull as an "emotional support animal" applicant

Post: Another pitbull as an "emotional support animal" applicant

Post: Tenant moving out and not letting me show the house

Post: Emotional support animal - state and federal law