All Forum Posts by: Wendy Black

We're not greedy about it, and there are some times we've not raised the rent or given a minimal raise depending upon our tenant's circumstances.  At the end of the day, it may be less expensive to give a minimal increase or no increase at all than to potentially lose a tenant and then have to pay for painting, screening, and other costs associated with getting a property ready for a new one.  

Thank you for all your thoughtful answers.

We live in Phoenix, which covers a large area.  The PM is in the East Valley; the property's in the West Valley.  

The tenant and PM have been in place for 4 or 5 years. The tenant has taken good care of the property generally, except for the HOA citings. Per the dogs, first he supposedly was watching dogs while a family member was on vacation. Then he got another dog that ended up being a therapy dog.

The lawn that was replaced was a small expanse in a small yard.  Had we been asked to have had it covered over, we likely would've approved.  However, heavy plastic must be laid under gravel or weeds/grass can grow through.  We never were asked.  He was supposed to pay for lawn services and simply decided he didn't want to and made a unilateral decision to gravel it over.

Additionally, per the PM, payments are supposed to be posted through the landlord portal but hadn't been for months.  

We had assumed that since it's an IRA house, we couldn't manage. Now we find out we can. The question is whether we want to.

Dogs weren't on the LEASE, not on a leash.  

It's not a question of them treating the property exactly as we would. It's that the renter has violated his lease agreement more than once. We've been cited several times by the HOA (for which he paid) for not abiding by the HOA agreement. I agree that the PM can't live next door, but I'm blown away by the fact that a renter would think it's okay to make a substantial change to the property (covering up the grass with gravel) without even asking. That is NOT okay. That speaks to the quality of the renter. All of our properties (most are out-of-state) are in very nice areas, and we do not expect this to happen.

We have an IRA house (in an HOA area) with a backyard that faces a manmade lake. You can see through the fence. While the PM supposedly walks the property every 3 months, it's been us at various times who has discovered dogs not on the lease, an unkempt yard, and now lawn replaced with gravel without permission. We're paying for a service, and I don't feel it should be up to us to keep tabs on a tenant who--while he's been there for years--keeps crossing the line. On the other hand, we have no reason to believe this isn't happening between inspections. The PM is an hour away from the property; it's just a few miles from us. Is this dereliction of duty?

This made me cringe...

We've got mobiles rented in NorCal by people of very modest means and have been mindful of that.

https://slate.com/culture/2019/04/john-oliver-mobile-home-rent-rolfe-last-week-tonight.html

I'd suggest working with Sonia Woldoff at Berkshire Hathaway at Kierland Commons in Scottsdale.  Wonderful to work with.  I've sent both investors and potential renters to her, and they've been very pleased.  Tell her I sent you.  

Slowdown or bubble right now?

We took our condo off the rental market and put it up for sale some 75 days or so ago, adjusted the price twice, and haven't gotten a single serious nibble. We're about to put it up for rent, again, albeit for a bit more than it was renting before. Keeping it on the MLS just in case a buyer wants it first.

I read the average time on market is up to 66 days and that sales in September dropped 24% from what they were a year ago.  Any predictions how long this situation could last?  We were going to sell it and transfer the money into notes.  

We've got it for both our condo in RSM and our rental home in O'side.  Both have mortgages, and the insurance was just a few hundreds each.  We did it for peace of mind.

We never buy in CA before knowing where the faultlines are and the intensity of the shake zone.  We've purposely stayed out of some areas (like LA County) because we didn't want to deal with it.  Obviously, we're more concerned about the chance of a fire than we are of a damaging quake.

I've considered it for quite awhile.  I find it intriguing, but morally questionable.  On one hand, as long as the financial institution gets its money, they shouldn't have a problem with it.  On the other, it is a loan made to a certain person.

What's the situation with "due on sale" clauses being enforced in 2018, particularly in Arizona and California?  I read some old posts that said Wells Fargo had come after them, and I was told to stay away from FHAs.

Thanks.