All Forum Posts by: John Clark

Quote from @Tom Fidrych:

The current landlord or owner may not be a good source outside of verification of occupancy. I'll say whatever the prospective landlord wants to hear when I'm trying to get someone out. 

I agree, but sometimes you get a moment of candor, or a pregnant pause that tells all.

Quote from @Nina Zou:

 He said he worked for the restaurants for 5 years, he has the restaurant checks deposit to his bank account every month. I will ask for the "Matricula Consular". 

Check with the restaurant directly, and do NOT use the number he gave you. Try Google street  view to make sure the place exists at the address he gave. It is VERY easy to fake pay stubs and deposit slips. Check with the bank, too, if you can.

Also, WHY do they have to move? If you contact the current landowner/landlord now (again, do NOT use the phone number he gave you), what does he say about the couple?

Also, how is this guy filing taxes without a social security number or an ITIN? Find out.

Skip tracing if they/he leaves and owes you money.  Loss of income so they/she can't afford rent if Immigration cracks down on illegal aliens.  How do you know he's been working at restaurant for last five years? Why are they switching apartments now?

I am aware of no law that says you cannot rent to illegal aliens, and some localities have laws forbidding not renting to them for that reason.

If he is Mexican, he should have a "Matrícula Consular" -- an identification card for Mexicans outside of Mexico. If he's Mexican and he doesn't have it, be real suspicious and ask why not.

Also, does he have a ITIN from the Internal Revenue Service? How is he filing his taxes?

Quote from @Ryan Swigart:

She said since she is not familiar with that bank it will make the offer weaker.

 

How does YOUR (the buyer's) agent's ignorance of your lender make YOUR offer to the seller (who may or may not know your lender) "weaker"?

I have dollars to doughnuts there's a kickback somewhere, and (ahem) "someone" won't get it if your bank is used.

Also, I have to ask: Is this a dual agency situation? Someone else in her brokerage is representing the seller?

Speaking as a lawyer, the most annoying part about being a real estate agent is the fact they are real estate agents. I've had to unwind so much damage from real estate agents pushing to get commission money even at the expense of the interests of the client.

And  before you ask: Yes, dual agency is an abomination before the Lord.

Quote from @Heidi Kenefick:

@Greg M.

Thanks that’s helpful.

I live out of state, and have never been in the unit. It was inspected prior to purchase and I replaced everything old or worn out. It was the hot water heater that leaked and it was while vacant. The HOA manager turned the water off, I spent 4 hours calling not only the emergency maintenance line for my PM but when I failed to get a clear time line of when they would arrive hired a locksmith to unlock the unit and a water mitigation company to come. However the PM did get my emails/messages/calls and sent the maintenance man over and the locksmith found him inside after popping the back door open. I was literally willing to drill the locks to get this cleaned up asap. There was no way this could of been predicted. The HOA manager told me the area of water in The adjacent unit was very small.

Now that owner is talking about mold could grow etc. the unit was dried so I doubt that will happen.

My insurance doesn’t cover leaks from water heaters- I checked. And my unit had no damage, which I was grateful for since I just put in new LVP floors in July. If I file a claim, my rates will go up for all my rentals and all future rentals for the next 5 years. Plus it is not covered, and the area of concern will cost less than the deductible to fix.

I do feel bad, but I also need to be smart when it comes to business and filing a claim when it’s actually listed in the excluded clause on the insurance documents seems like a bad business decision.

Have you offered to pay her deductible for her insurance, explaining that it is excluded from yours? Also, are you reading your policy right? It may not cover your damage from a leaking water heater, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t cover damage done to someone else’s property. 

Quote from @Greg M.:

This may or may not be accurate (except the part about her insurance going after OP for increased premiums which is 100% inaccurate). It depends on the location of the unit and the local laws. The main question will be the requirement of negligence for liability and whether OP acted properly or waited too long to address the issue.

Not too long ago I had to go to court to represent an HOA on a water damage claim. A leak in a bathroom destroyed a freshly remodeled bathroom in the unit below. No question of facts, the water originated in the unit above due to degraded caulking/grout and improper installation of shower doors, and the water came down and damaged the unit below. The owner of the upper unit refused to file an insurance claim. Unit below sued both the owner and the HOA. Judge ruled that while all the facts were true, there was no negligence on the part of the upper owner. There was a problem (degraded caulking and improper installation) that a normal person wouldn't have noticed, but when informed they took immediate action to correct. The damaged lower unit LOST the case. The judge explained that there are times in life that a person will be injured and there just isn't anyone to blame or pay for it. That's what YOUR insurance is for.

The last thing a person should do is file a claim against their own insurance for something that won't be covered. This is especially true if it is a water claim, something insurance companies hate. OP needs to find out liability requirements in her area before moving forward. 

 I'm not sure your case fits with the scenario that the original poster stated. In your case the owner "wouldn't have noticed" the leaks even though he lived there, but the original poster stated that the property manager immediately found water on the floor. Since you cannot avoid liability by playing ostrich, the test is how quickly someone living in the unit would have noticed the leak. Yes, I know the unit was vacant, but you can't fail to inspect and then claim that you're not liable for what an inspection would have discovered. If you close your eyes when you approach an intersection you can't claim as a defense that you didn't see the stop sign.

So it looks like the original poster should have noticed the water leak well before it damaged the other person's unit. I have dollars to doughnuts he'll be held to that standard anyway. The fact that he wasn't there to see it will not save him. That was his decision. Given that the water leak was readily discovered by the property manager upon inspection, I am confident that a judge would say "Negligence, res ipsa loquitur." Whether the negligence took the form of allowing bad workmanship for installation, failure to replace components at the end of their useful lives, or failure to inspect frequently enough to catch failing components before they damaged neighboring properties would be irrelevant -- negligence on his part existed.

He should be a good neighbor and notify his insurer, which can investigate. If it finds that he is not covered for damage to the third party's unit, then he tried to do the right thing. Refusing to file an insurance claim, however, is not justified. Let the insurer determine coverage. If the guy's not a lawyer, why should he take it upon himself to determine whether his policy covers damage to a third party's property?

You are not being a good neighbor. You know that the leak originated in your property, not her's. You should file a claim against your insurer and give her a copy of the claim. If your insurance company decides to jerk her around, she can contact her insurer who will then go against both you AND your insurer.

Be aware though, that once her insurance company is done fixing her up, it will go after you on her behalf for damages, her $1,000 deductible and her out-of-pockets, AND her increase in premiums caused by her having to file a claim.

People in the best school districts make the best homeowners, because they value education. Homeownership is a different animal from renting. The payoff for being in the best school districts is higher/more certain appreciation. The higher purchase price eats up the higher rents you get

I find purchasing a small multi-family building, converting it into condominiums (owning all units), and renting out the condo units is a good strategy. Vacancies are a time for refurbishing and upgrades and I can test the waters for selling condo units. If it's too cold, continue renting it out. Offer seller financing for the first 80 percent of the units, since few lenders loan against investor-dominated condominium associations. That way I see appreciation (in bits and pieces), a good idea of what a property is worth, and you find tenants who see a possible path to ownership -- MUCH more pleasant people, believe me.

A lot of work up front, but once the ball gets rolling, Bob's your uncle.

Quote from @Danny Rapczak:

In an assignment of contract Who is responsible for ordering title? 

The assignment is completely and totally irrelevant. The Seller's contract is with you. HE must prove good title TO you, not to your assignee.

Your problem is that you want to assign the contract before you get the title report from the Seller. Your assignee should be wary of that, and you need to provide in your contract of assignment who pays for what as between you and the assignee (costs of inspections, any additional title reports, etc.) if the assignment blows because of a defective title from the original Seller, just as your contract with the original Seller provides for who pays what  as between you and the original Seller when his defective title kills your deal with the original Seller.

The original Seller doesn't give a toss about your assignment. Why should he? It's not his contract.