All Forum Posts by: John Clark

Originally posted by @Greg H.:

@John Clark

When the tenant received the initial bill, they were then informed of the difference in the amount of the bill.  Whether they read it at that time is on no consequence under the law correct?

--------------------------------------------

The question is whether the "difference in the amount of the bill" was big enough to put the tenant on notice that there was a problem. The only statement you have with respect to "normal" water bills is the landlord's statement (I paraphrase) that -- around here, water bills typically run 50 -60 --. You have ZERO statements about what THE TENANT's water bill typically was.

Remember, utilities fluctuate. The first bill covered (probably) the Christmas holidays. Guests, cooking, cleaning, -- all those things lead to increased water usage. She was late in paying, so she should pay the late fee. But the increased water usage do to a structural failure of the house? That's on the landlord. Unless and until there is something to show that she was on notice of a leak, then her late payment status is irrelevant. As I pointed out to the OP, his lease calls for actual knowledge, NOT mere suspicion. SHOULD she have notified him or her suspicions? Of course. But he has to pay for the increased water use as well as the cost of repair. She should pay any late fee for nonpayment and what HER typical January bill would be.

"I am a little stunned with those who indicate the landlord did not properly maintain the waterline. "
--------------------------------

Not a question of the landlord "properly maintaining" the water line, it's a question of allocation of loss/responsibility after the inevitable decay/damage/loss occurs. It's a structural problem, and therefore the landlord's responsibility. It's called "risk." SHOULD the tenant have told him of a suspected leak when she got the first bill (and by the way, we don't know what her previous bills were -- the poster said that water "usually" ran about 50 or 60 "around here"), perhaps, but we don't know what the difference is between her regular bill and the $216 bill. It may not have been enough to put her on notice. At $500+, she immediately relayed her suspicions.

So where did she go wrong? I won't finger the tenant based on a landlord's guesstimate of what a normal bill is, let alone what her normal bill is, particularly where the landlord is trying to lay off his responsibility for structural maintenance. I am not being unreasonable here. He is.

Originally posted by @Robert Kough:

Per bigger pockets lease it explicitly states they have 24 hrs to notify owner of leak upon them knowing. This did not happen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Upon them knowing" Sounds like actual knowledge to me, which she did not have, so your statement that "[t]his did not happen" is unsupported by the facts.

But then again, I'm just a lawyer, so what would I possibly know about contract interpretation? Stop whining.

Originally posted by @Robert Kough:

@John Clark i also don’t believe you read through the thread completely. Might have helped in your response.

-----------------------

Oh, I read more than enough. Your evasion of the fact that YOU are responsible for the infrastructure of the house speaks volumes. Even if she paid the bill, WHERE DO YOU STATE THAT SHE HAD ANY RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL YOU WHAT SHE PAID?  So as another poster said, she could be "surprised" at her first bill, and therefore was perfectly REASONABLE  when she got the second bill. As I said -- you didn't ask, now did you?

So let's play this out: What are the probabilities  that IF she told of the first bill and her fears, and you would  have responded "Let's wait until the second bill because (As has been posted, it could have been a "surprise."") and see what happens.

It's an infrastructure problem, therefore it is your problem. YOU pay her the excess over the average of her water bill for that time period.

I'm a lawyer of over 30 years experience. I hate whiners, too. You are trying to evade those which you know are your responsibilities.

Three Strikes. You are out. Her responsibility has nothing to do with you keeping the infrastructure in shape.

Let me put it this way: If there was a leak that caused $XXXXX of damage to the roof and your tenant "saw a possible stain on  her ceiling"

would you say that she was responsible for the roof leak?

Folks, I hate whiners, be they tenants or landlords . You Kough, are a whiner.

"My justification is due to the fact that her inability to pay her bills on time resulted in the leak being undetected for approximately a month! Am I right or wrong?"

--------------------------------

You are wrong. Her responsibility for paying water bills does not give her the right to make structural repairs, which the leak requires. Also, YOU have to monitor your own property. Would it have been nice if she contacted YOU over the first bill and her suspicions of what it meant? Yes. It would have been nice if you had called her and asked how the property was and did she have any reason to believe that anything might be wrong, too. Guess what? Neither happened.

In the end, it is a structural repair beyond her power to order. You are wrong. You pay.

Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:  Most every tax break I get in my rental property business is what I would classify as an ordinary business expenses. I would argue rental properties don't really get special treatment.

etc.

---------------------------------------------
True enough, but my comment was directed to the original poster's comment that he was "underwhelmed" by the tax breaks he was getting by owning an investment rental property, and went to the idea of "why should you get any break that any other investor wouldn't get in any other investment (non-investment rental property) ? What make the O.P. think that rental property investing was/is/should be favored in our tax system?

"I am doing my taxes myself via turbo tax and I must say I am underwhelmed with the tax breaks I am getting for owning a rental."
----------------------------------------------
I have a philosophical question: Why should any particular investment receive a tax break that others don't get? We give tax breaks to encourage home ownership, but that's a status we want to encourage, not an investment. What is socially more productive about investing in rental apartments as opposed to, say, cattle futures?

I can see differentiating between long term capital gains versus short term capital gains, but that's due to discouraging speculation in general, not that any particular investment is more useful socially than others.

And yes, landlords get plenty of tax breaks -- most of them are mom and pop operations, and our congresscritters loves them moms and pops. (and mom and pop ain't doin' cattle futures). That's politics, though, nothing to do with some innate superiority in investing in real estate.

"I’ve been looking at almost all the listings and a good deal is super hard to find in Chicago especially not wanting to live in high crime-rated areas."

------------------------------------

"Good deal" -- whatever that term means -- is always hard to find wherever and whenever, for the simple reason that a "good deal" for the buyer means that the seller is leaving money on the table and vice versa.

In an efficient market there are no "good deals," only transactions where the return on  investment compensates (just) for risk.

"many cities & municipalities have bans against what is called in the landlord world as 'winter evictions' for many years. Chicago & Washington DC are a few of many such cities."

------------------------------------

This is not entirely accurate in Chicago. The sheriff will not evict in Chicago when the temperature that day is expected to be below X degrees (I forget the exact number). Also, the sheriff will not evict around Christmas/New Years. It's not a law, it's a sheriff policy not to evict.

Shop for an architect first and ask him for recommendations. Also, the City's inspectors, once they know of your plans, might be able to tell you who they've seen "pull off doing correctly" the work you'll want to do. Nothing worse than a general contractor who's in over his head.