All Forum Posts by: Matt Devincenzo

Your best bet is to allow them to break the lease and keep the security as the early termination fee. My lease is actually structured this way. All the money I collect up front is a holding fee and it is applied to their security deposit upon move in and payment of first month's rent. Whether I hold it one day, one week, or one month I recoup some costs if they were to back out. 

So either send an addendum cancelling the lease and keeping the funds as termination fee, or at least get something in email etc agreeing to that, and then move on with relisting this. I'd also reach out to your prior walk throughs that were interested and let them know the other tenant couldn't move in so you wanted to give them first shot at the place before relisting it. 

I'd purchase a second home and fulfill the loan requirement for stays etc. If the tax deduction for investment was limited that first year because of the amount I stayed then that's just what it is. In year two on I'd make sure I didn't stay more than the 14 days to maximize my tax benefit.

Below is a link to a 5+ year flip that a member was drug through due to an occupant who was in place and related to the seller. So the situation isn't exactly the same as your rent back, but it is similar enough to give pause.

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/67/topics/64944-the-occ...

Talk to the title company. I'm assuming your Dad's transaction may have been with the title company and therefor he may have title insurance. If so then he could make a claim and have them work to sort it out. Otherwise ask title what they need in order to fix this and insure title. They'll have some sort of legal counsel who can tell you what they'd need to see to resolve this. Generally a quiet title is probably the course of action to clear the other named title holder. The fastest/cheapest is to get the other title holder to execute a new QC to you, but if you can't find her then QT is your recourse. 

Is it possible in a technical sense, sure. But in practice almost 100% not possible. Any 2nd lender has a much higher risk of a loss from the DOS, and that's if they can even wrap their head around the title/loan name issue. Most people aren't familiar with a sub-to/AITD transaction and so you won't get very far in the process. If you did find a lender you should expect a 13-15% rate, and honestly that's probably not high enough.

I grew up there and would say the area near the stadium is not where I'd put my investment. That area has been poised to redevelop since the early 90s when I was a kid and it just never seems to make the jump. This is despite multiple 'catalysts' that were supposed to help at various times over the decades. One day it may finally catch and it will be a big windfall for some long time owners I'm sure, but its more likely you get in and out when it doesn't redevelop. 

Are they "existing non-conforming" or "unpermitted"? What do the local codes say about a rebuild for an existing non-conforming parcel with a greater than 50% loss? You need to understand the answers to those questions, and then you can determine if it's worth the purchase or not. 

Call your insurance and make the claim for the repair. They will start their process, and if they decide someone else is liable they'll pursue recovery through the other insurance. 

Her having issues with how you set up utilities was your first clue, this is your second. Like someone else mentioned your post isn't clear on what their current lease status is from your purchase, but assuming they are MTM and you're placing them on an annual lease, I'd just go ahead and terminate. There's no way this gets better from here. If she is trying to assert control, you taking that from her will only serve to givw her reason to continue to look for opportunities to assert control.

I'd reach out to the building inspection senior. So most likely your inspectors boss' boss. Things like this can be difficult to verify because it is often policy more than law/rule. So there may be no actual restriction on TCO for residential, but because of the challenges of doing this for residential homeowners they may have internally decided to restrict it to commercial.