All Forum Posts by: Matt Devincenzo

The other consideration...are you exempt from the provision? SFR with an individual owner may be exempt, which means you could possibly terminate the lease. If you're $400/mo below market it seems like there's a decent incentive for you to spend some money to aggressively rehab and get top rent. If you do that would a major rehab legitimately require the tenant to vacate? If so there's another possibility...

If not then stick it out and raise rents as you're able, or consider cash for keys...

Call your servicer to start the conversation, the terms are dictated by conventional loan guidelines so this will be what is applied:

https://servicing-guide.fanniemae.com/svc/d1-1-01/evaluating...

You are however allowed to raise rent the maximum allowed, which is the first thing I'd do. Then consider if there are actual real upgrades that would require them to vacate. If so that is one way to get them out. And finally (I personally despise this option) you offer cash for keys. If you keep raising rent the max allowed it may take some time but eventually you should end up high enough that they move. 

Quote from @David Ptak:

I had no idea you could sign a contract and people could just walk away with your money and do whatever they want with it.

I mean...he didn't just walk away and do whatever he wanted with it...you (at some point) felt that he wasn't upholding the contract and chose to sit back and wait. If he did use the funds inappropriately, which may or may not have happened, then there is recourse through the courts. But you have to actually start the process.

I'm not familiar with the case, and don't have rentals there, but there is a bit of poetic justice here...not that I agree with the overall result, but far too often I interact those who simply institute 'clauses' in a contract (Lease, PSA, Options etc) which are grossly one sided or as it seems in this case unlawful. I've had several opportunities to tell others that just because you put a clause in the lease doesn't make it legal/enforceable/binding...the most egregious I see if the "tenant is responsible for all repairs". Of course there are times that the tenant should be responsible but far too often it is just a LL weasel clause to improve the bottom line at the tenants expense. Hopefully the end result here is more reasonable for those involved, but even more importantly I hope that other LLs recognize that this is a shot across the bow to start following the law more carefully.

Quote from @Dulce Davis:

There is a legal recourse to do this...it is called 'Adverse possession'. If you seriously want to clean this up and are willing to take a risk, I would absolutely switch things into my name and begin taking care of the property as my own...it takes up to 10 years, but if you'd be willing to start caring for the property and were able to at least rent as a break even, pay taxes etc, then it's no big loss if the owner came back and stopped your claim. The benefit for you is in the neighborhood being cleaned up...and maybe in 10 years you own the property...

From what I see there are two separate issues that may or may not be solved concurrently. For the railing height, I'd find a local carpenter to ask about completely removing the railing and balusters and doweling in an additional length on them. The profile looks simple enough at the top and bottom that this should be doable without having to turn a new profile. I'd probably try adding on the bottom since there is more meat to the square profile there to connect to...but I'd trust your chosen professional. 

For the wobble I assume that the issue is wear and tear which has made the connections loose. Doing the above probably doesn't solve this directly, but by removing and reattaching all the balusters the connections are tight and the glue joints are solid...if that's not the issue then you may need to introduce some other improvement to prevent the wobble. You may want to consider having the newel matched and adding a few more...place another at the corner at the top of the stair and one at the corner closest to you in the photo. This may help stiffen it up more than the balusters can. 

Find a local bank and build a relationship...banks make money on deposit funds, your business seems to have a pretty decent deposit base. Your low credit score isn't something a credit committee who knows the full picture cares as much about. A truly local bank will be able to help get you where you want to be as you help them be profittable by maintaining a deposit base with them.

No, you can't so don't worry about the rest of it.

@K S. unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with SB to comment specifically on what you were told. That said my go to 'line' in situations like this is something to the effect of: "Thanks for clarifying that requirement for me, could you point me to the specific section or sections in the code that covers this?" In your case another question could be "Could you share the code section on STR guidelines for condos in the area?"

There are plenty of times that planners are 'interpreting' a section that doesn't say exactly what they imply it does. That interpretation may be the policy and what Senior management are directing, but being clearly specified in the code vs. a policy/interpretation can have two different ways of resolving it. In San Diego I'm familiar with the codes and I know how and where to look myself, but I still ask those questions because I want them to tell me where they think the requirement comes from. If possible I use that same section to refute the requirement...or provide an alternate path to approval. 

Once you have the specific section they reference go look it up and read it yourself, and see if you can do the same. Does it actually say what they're telling you it does? If it does, does it also have a section that gives another option? Or does it provide details for when it applies that  maybe don't apply to your site? All are reasonable options to identify how you meet the code when it is correctly applied.