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: Javier Perez

Javier Perez has started 17 posts and replied 48 times.

Added question... Are HELOC fees less, more or equal to mortgage?
Hi Everyone, So I'm trying to work on a strategy in acquiring more rental properties. I currently have aprox $300,000 in cash saved up to use towards rental properties purchase. What I had thought was to initially purchase the property with cash. Get tenants in then pull equity from the property to purchase the next one. So on and so on. The question here is: My spouse says we should just finance the property from the initial point of sale because we will save on closing etc etc that goes along with the HELOC. But I feel it's safer and banks will be more willing to lend if they see that we already have a tenant there paying rent. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you.
Thank you so much for all the information. I appreciate you all taking time out of your day to answer my question. :) I'll do some research locally to see what the norm is around my rentals. I'll ask my realtor see what he has experienced from other Land Lords he deals with.
Originally posted by @Nathan Gesner:

If you had ten rentals, that would be $2,000 a year. Do you know how many claims are made against renters insurance? And how many of those are actually paid out?

You'd be better off socking away $2,000 and paying cash IF a problem pops up.

The problem with requiring renters insurance is that you have to track compliance and enforce it. It's not a big deal when you have a few rentals but it's a pain when you scale. Would you kick a tenant out if they refuse to purchase insurance? Do you think a judge would support you?

Great points.... I see so many people on here saying they require it and almost just as many that dont.. Honestly, I would feel if I required it, it would minimize the amount of possible tenants I would have.

Originally posted by @Karen R.:

Javier..I agree with Charles Kao... remember that renters insurance only covers the personal belongings of the renter, for example... furniture, computers, tv's. If a renter damages YOUR fridge, it's not covered. 

 I've read on here that if something happens in the house due to tenants negligence that their renter's insurance covers it. Is this the case? 

@Charles Kao I completely agree with you. I didn't think of it that way. Also to add to that, I'm sure if they have a record of claims from before it would be a high premium to begin with.
@Jared Siddle Hi. I can't tell you what's best. But I have researched this quite a bit. I can't say my way is the proper way of the best way but. This is what I did. Each of my properties are owned by a different LLC. I then have a separate LLC which collects payments from all of my rentals and pays it to the respective LLC. Basically acts like a property manager of sorts. I also carry proper liability insurance for all the properties. And that's it. The LLC that collects rent really has nothing to do with liability it just makes it easier for me to collect all the rent to one account then have it auto distribute . Just makes it easier for me to track. Just the way I do it. Works for me.
Hi Everyone, Long time lurker. First time poster. I read a lot of landlords requiring Renter Insurance on their lease and to be added as additional insured. Other post that if they required it they would have less tenants. Seeing all the benefits I read it provides the landlord and how affordable it is. I wonder why not just include it as part of the lease. If it's $200 per year. To me it's seems beneficial for me just to pay it and bind it on behalf of the tenants especially if it covers damages caused by them to my property. However, I'm sure I'm missing something here. I'm very new to this and I'm here to learn. So any input would be greatly appreciated.