All Forum Posts by: Katie Rogers

I agree with Courtney.  Good landlords and good tenants do not need a 12-month lease.  Bad landlords and bad tenants both appreciate the "security" of the 12-month lease.  What is more common is not necessarily the deciding factor.

Your explanation of the situation is a little vague, but in general, I would say it is wrong for a landlord to ever trap a tenant with a lease.  Lots of tenants want to eventually buy, and no landlord should make buying prohibitive because of a lease.  Month to month is really the only way to go because either party only needs 30-day notice (60-days if the tenant has rented for more than one year).  If you trap them, you may create bad feelings when it is completely unnecessary to do so.  I say let them go.  It is wrong to trap them simply because you are worried the next tenant may not be as faithful. It is the landlord's responsibility to screen tenants carefully.  You should not effectively evade this responsibility by trapping tenants with a lease.

@ Ann Bellamy,

Most states are way too landlord friendly.  If MA corrects too far the other way, that is unfortunate. The laws should be equitable to all.

You misunderstand my question.  I would want to know why the landlord is having so many evictions.  I completely understand why a landlord with many evictions wants to sell.  Is it always, as you seem to imply, due to landlord mistakes?

"Don't fix it up as if you're going to live there," "remember you and your family are not going to live there ."

Landlords should offer tenants a home they themselves should be willing to live in.  But "most tenants wont care."  No, most tenants have no choice.  Dealbreakers for tenants are going to be something more important than a popcorn ceiling.

Many tenant-landlord problems could be avoided if landlords had less disdain for their tenants.  The time-tested Golden Rule really works.  A profit motive get you some money; the Golden Rule actually gets you a lot more money.

You also need to check city or county records for pulled permits.  This helps you evaluate the condition of a comps before and after the most recent sale.  Comps alone without knowledge of condition are very inaccurate.  Use all the real estate valuation metrics, not just comps, to get the most complete picture.

I found this on a lawyer's website: http://www.theleasinglawyer.com/estoppel.html

What is an estoppel certificate? It is a document designed to give third party critical information on the relationship between your landlord and you as a tenant. The third party is frequently a prospective purchaser of the landlord's real property containing your premises, or a lender who will be secured by an interest in that property. Typically the deal that the landlord is making requires the landlord to obtain such certificates from its tenants and present them to the third party for use in its "due diligence" review of the property.

Most retail space leases have provisions which require the tenant to prepare and sign estoppel certificates (or estoppel letters as they are sometimes called) upon the landlord's request. Typically the tenant is required to certify that as of the date of the document certain things are true, or to specify in some detail why they are not true. The things usually covered include (i) whether the tenant's lease is in full force and effect and has not been assigned, modified, supplemented or amended; (ii) whether all conditions under the lease to be performed by the landlord have been satisfied; (iii) whether any required contributions by the landlord to the tenant on account of the tenant's improvements have been received by the tenant; (iv) whether there are any existing claims, defenses or offsets which the tenant has against the enforcement of the lease by the landlord; (v) whether any rent or related payment obligation has been paid more than one month in advance; and (vi) whether any security has been deposited with the landlord.

The tenant is usually required to state that its disclosures in the estoppel certificate may be relied upon by the specified third party or parties. That means that you could be liable to the third party if the certificate contains untrue statements. Thus unless you are absolutely sure about the things you are certifying, you should certify them only "to the best of tenant's knowledge." Leases usually require the tenant to prepare and sign the certificate within a relatively short period, and authorize the landlord to prepare and sign the certificate in the tenant's name if the tenant does not respond within the allowed time. For that reason, you want to be sure to attend to such requests in a timely manner, and to try to extend the response time when you are negotiating the lease."

I would be suspicious of anyone who says, "You need to trust me."  That said, I also empathize with the desire to protect tenant's confidential information.  So all you need is tenants' names and signatures.  You do not need social security numbers, drivers lisence numbers, bank account numbers, etc.  

No cost splitting, especially for non-removable improvement.  

How long has she been a tenant?  If there is no history of unreasonable requests, hy worry about  it?

"The biggest portion of my profit happens on the back end, where I make 20k or more if my buyer defaults."  So you hope he defaults?