All Forum Posts by: Katie Hendrixson

Thank you so much for all of the guidance! @Ryan Dossey, yes, the property really does look like a nightmare. It didn't look that bad full of furniture, but now that it's an empty space, all of the defects really show. If I were really considering purchasing it, I would want to do a total gutjob. @Nathan Gesner and @Theresa Harris, that makes a lot of sense. It's a good reinforcement of how important a well-written lease is. Honestly, there was some serious neglect on both sides. The ceiling in one of the bedrooms fell in due to a roof leak and it took the landlord weeks to send someone out to get it repaired. Also, the landlord replaced the flooring in the bathroom, and the leaking faucet would be obvious, so it's not like she had been completely absent and couldn't see what was going on. My friends also clearly had no interest in taking care of the property, and it's pretty wrecked. No holes in walls, but a lot of general filth and neglect. I'm just worried the landlord is going to try to sue them for damages, and it sounds like losing their security deposit may be the least of their concerns. 

Please forgive me if this has been posted 100 times, but I did not find it when I searched. I recently helped a friend move out of her rental SFH, and the place is pretty trashed. Some of it is pretty obvious landlord negligence (think, dripping bathtub faucet for so long the tub is turning blue). Some of it is pretty obviously the tenants' fault (think water-damaged wood floors from wet spots on the carpet above). However, my question is about damage that occurred because of natural events, made worse from neglect. Like, gutters that weren't cleaned for so long that they've gotten heavy with dirt, and fallen down. Or water damage from a storm that's been allowed to fester so long that sections of the house probably need gutted. Things that would typically be the landlord's responsibility to fix, but if they aren't told about it, does the subsequent damage fall to the tenants?

That makes a lot of sense. Prices in my area have been pretty ridiculous lately, maybe it's time to expand my search. Thank you!

Has anyone been running across multifamily properties listed for sale, with rents included, that wouldn't even cover the mortgage (https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,apartment_duplex,townhouse_type/12332683_zpid/pricea_sort/37.623426,-77.458827,37.593713,-77.504961_rect/14_zm/0_mmm/)? Like, even after 20% down? Is this normal, historically, or just a reflection of the bubble we're in? I know asking price isn't sale price, but it seems like I've been running across several of these, and clearly I'm missing something big. Thank you!

Thank you Dave and Stephen! I completely hadn't considered the 121 exemption. That definitely seems like something to pay close attention to when I'm in a position to start liquidating in 20 or 30 years. 

Thank you for your reply, Christopher!

I suppose that's why I couldn't find the generic answer online. With anticipated CapExs, I'd probably about break even on my current home until the mortgage is paid off, which would honestly be fine with me. If the only real generic difference is the extra half% or so an investment property mortgage would cost, it probably makes sense to plan to downsize and move. (It's big, but definitely not nice. But then what can you ask for for $45 a SF?)

Looks like I have a lot to learn, thanks again for your insight!

This looks fantastic! I, too, was blown away with what you accomplished for only $40k. Very inspirational!

Long-time listener, first-time, um, writer. I've searched all over the place, and I'm having a hard time finding whether it's generally better to purchase a second home as an investment property, or move into the second home, and rent out the primary residence. I just refinanced into a 15-year fixed conventional (40ish% equity right now), so I have to live in my current home for at least 2 years, which is fine, because I'll need that time to save up the down payment either way, and I have a hunch the market in my area will dip by then. I would be fine with moving into something much smaller (4000 SF is just too much for one girl and some dogs), but would also be fine with just staying put and buying something small to rent out. Is one method more tax-advantaged than the other? Does anyone have any general advice that I wouldn't have considered? I'm squeamish about using a HELOC or anything like that, and wouldn't be comfortable with the purchase unless I thought I could handle both mortgages with no tenants if need be, so I wouldn't want to put less than 20% down either way.