All Forum Posts by: Wesley W.

Objectively, there are a lot of people trying to circumvent property owners' pet policies or breed restrictions with what has been affectionately called, the "ESA loophole".  No doubt it can be tough to vet ESA legitimacy.  One service you may look into is petscreening.com.

That being said however, if after meeting a prospect, you did not get a good vibe and do not think they would be someone you'd like to rent to, you can pass on their application and entertain other prospects.  You did not mention your market, but if you are not in a jurisdiction that requires you to take the "first qualified", then you have discretion with selecting a tenant - just so long as you are not rejecting them because of a discriminatory reason, such as having "service dogs". 

Here's an excerpt from my application:

This application is for qualification purposes only. Applicant understands that landlord may accept multiple applications for this rental unit and retains sole discretion to select the most qualified applicant. APPLICANT REPRESENTS THAT THE INFORMATION SET FORTH ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND COMPLETE. Material misrepresentations or omissions on the Application will constitute a default under the Lease or Rental Agreement between the parties, and applicant will be responsible for the cost of any background checks performed. This application may not be considered eligible for evaluation if it contains blank spaces or incomplete information.

Absolutely hire an attorney for this.  NY's laws are deliberately complex in order to trip up the DIY landlords and extend the stay of deadbeat tenants.  Pay some money now for the attorney and get it done right the first time, or lose more rent and pay them later after the judge throws out your case on procedure.  (This is one of their "solutions" for the housing crisis here.)  In NY, each tenant gets a pro bono attorney in landlord court.  By representing yourself, you would be going up against someone who is trained in this area.  Don't make a pennywise, pound foolish mistake.  Get counsel, and do not waste time trying to work it out with the tenant (which it sounds like you aren't, so good on you).

Yikes.  8-10 texts and 1-2 phone calls a month from this one tenant is an improvement?  I would have parted ways with this one months ago.  Imagine if all of your tenants were like this?  Someone like that takes an inordinate amount of time to manage, and you get the same return as with your other tenants.  You also can't scale as easily if you self manage and indulge someone like this.  Life is too short!

 It's a written lease (mine is 10 pages) that just renews monthly unless one party exercises the right to terminate (mine stipulates a 45 days notice from the end of the last month).

You need SSN and birthdate in order to try and collect a debt, if need be.

I collect that information directly on my application.  I've always found the background check services do not do a thorough job so I always overlay that service with my own gumshoe due diligence  (talking directly to immediate supervisors, ensuring the previous "landlord" owns the property, checking social media, etc.).

Never rely exclusively on these services.  They do not have any skin in the game and are just automating the process of searching various databases.  No one will care more about your tenant placement than you.

Month-to-month all the way.  

I've always found that the term leases (anything over 30 days) always obligate the landlord, but never the tenant. I only offer month-to-month (MTM) leases in my properties. Here's why:

Let's say I sign a tenant to a one-year lease, and 3 months in, their personal/professional situation changes, and they break their lease and move out after a 30-day notice (or maybe less).

I am required, by law in most areas, to "mitigate my loss" by remarketing the unit, making it rent-ready, and starting up my lead generation machine to get applicants, funnel them into my screening system, identifying good candidates and ultimately leasing them up. This takes a LOT of my time.

If I went to get a judgement against this tenant for the balance of the lease (if I could even find them to serve court papers), the judge would tell me to go pound sand, absorb it as a business expense, go re-rent the apartment, move on with my life and quit bothering him with this "nonsense."

Another situation. Joe "pain in the a**" Tenant just signed a year lease. He is noisy and obnoxious and leaves trash in the common areas. I get numerous complaints from my "good" tenants, complaining about Joe. Joe's lease has provisions against this, so I properly serve him a "10 day notice to cure" using a process server ($$). He gets better for a bit, then goes back to his old ways. So, I serve him again ($$). This goes on.

I finally get so fed up that I serve him ($$) with an eviction notice for breach of lease. I spend time and money getting the petition and go to court. Joe tells the judge he "promises" not to do it again and shows receipts from all his on-time rent payment, so the judge gives him "one more chance. " Invariably, I'm back in court AGAIN. I may or may not get a warrant for eviction this time, but meanwhile two of my good tenants have moved out, exasperated by their neighbor, Joe.

Sure, my lease states that Joe is financially responsible for my expenses associated with the enforcement of the lease provisions, but good luck with that.

In each of these cases, the lease favors the tenants, and limits my rights as the landlord.

My month-to-month leases give me the right to terminate the lease for no reason or any reason, including being an "a**." If they don't leave, I get a holdover eviction warrant on them. I find this is a MUCH easier judgement to get than for breach of lease or even non-payment, since the tenant can "cure" his non-payment by showing up to court with the unpaid balance. Meanwhile, next month he starts neglecting rent payments all over again.

I always found that GOOD tenants love the flexibility that the MTM lease affords them if their personal or work situations changes. I tell them I don't want anyone living in my properties that doesn't want to be there, and that is precisely what would happen if they signed a year lease and their situation changed.

I explain to them I am not in the business of whimsically kicking people out, because that costs me money (see the lead generation paragraph earlier in my post), and my goal is to find really good people to call my properties home and then take good care of them so they want to stay a long time. In contrast, bad tenants don't like the MTM leases (another form of self-screening) because they know they'll be out on their ear in 30 days. So, if a tenant pushes back on the MTM, to me that's a red flag, because there really is no down side for them unless they are up to no good. If they are good tenants, they don't worry about it for a single second because they expect to follow the rules, and they rest easy at night knowing their neighbors will have to do the same.

I seriously doubt that a tenant running a business on your property would not expose yourself to additional liability.  I would read your landlord policy carefully to ensure your understanding is correct.

My lease prohibits running a business on the premises that increases foot traffic.

I know you are trying to accommodate your tenant, but have you thought this through?  You'll have more wear & tear, noise, and risk of personal injury with additional kids running around.

But it's your business, and your decision.

The heater instructions are a PDF that I send if there is trouble.  All of my docs are on Google Drive so I can send them from my phone if I am away from my desktop.

The tenant communication records are an excel spreadsheet.  Here are two sections of the same doc:

I think you should have a mutually signed written acknowledgement of the lease renewal each year.  That would avoid this situation.  Not sure about AZ, but a judge where I am would be completely unsympathetic to a landlord in your case.  It would be a toss up if you would get a judgement, given the facts you've shared.  I say eat this one as tuition, and tighten up your processes.  I've made countless changes to my own documents/policies/systems, most of the time coming from an issue that was caused by the current process (or lack thereof) in place.  I try to learn from others to avoid the situations, but I give myself enough grace to make mistakes, but I insist on never making the same mistake twice. Thus, tightening up the gray areas.