All Forum Posts by: Nancy P.

Just because she only owns two properties doesn't mean she doesn't have a lot going on in her life. Some people truly need to "sleep" on a decision, so she did.  I find it interesting that you wanted to hurry before someone else came along to make an offer.  But it backfired badly.  You basically SHOWED her that she should expect other offers to come along.  She doesn't owe you squat.  Rethink your strategy next time.

I've done it twice.  First folks lasted a year, then found jobs in a state where pot is legal recreationally (they actually told that to me,  despite my strict no smoking of anything policy)- second set (in same property, interestingly enough),  have moved from rural South Dakota to a Chicago busy suburb.  They seem a bit overwhelmed.  Say their kids are sick all the time and the mom thinks it must be my duplex remodeled five years ago. I have a feeling they will hightail it back to South Dakota when the year is up.  So perhaps higher turnover,  I don't have enough data to say.  But no issues with paying rent on time.

Earlier you said "she is legally in the right but her complaining to the DOH is unreasonable".  Which is it?  It's NOT unreasonable to demand what is legally your right!  I think the member who said it might be tied to home visits is likely onto something.  Give her the 90 days,  and fix the damn heat.  I can pretty much guarantee it's going to be too cold for AirBNB OR your mother in law.

I think Russell nailed it---so many people don't even understand that landlords have mortgages, property taxes, insurance, HOA fees, repairs.....that said, the world IS harder for people in lower incomes than ever before. We DO choose to rent below market, we consider it a bit of our mission to the world. Plus lower turnover. I hate finding new tenants. My one complaint would be with Section 8 tenants (and we sometimes have them) asking me to take yet another $100-$300 off so their voucher can cover a newly renovated place. Because they "want" or "deserve" a new everything in their home. I politely explain that they are literally asking US to subsidize the newness, on top of taxpayers subsidizing their rent in the first place. Of the six times I've had this conversation, three said "oh, I never thought of it like that, thanks for explaining", one said "you should do it anyway it would make my kid's lives so much better", and two said "**** off". Oh, well, 50% getting it isn't bad!

This happened to us 4 times during the foreclosure crisis,  all had been on the market over 180 days.  We will never know if the counter offers were real or not except in one case.  First time we panicked like the noobs we were and upped our offer.  Next three times we waited it out---and got two of the three.  Which makes me think it was all ******** except the one time we didn't get it.  We were absolutely lowballing and still won 2 out of three.  (Not counting the time we upped our offer.)

My own advice is just telling you what my own kids had in college (now 27 and 24).  Lease is May 31-May 31.  They HAVE to pay during the summer even if they don't live there.  Some places offer 9  month leases but the rents are basically raised to match 12 months at a lower rate. Which is nice,  you get the same money and three months to work on the property/avoid wear (although you'd have to pay utilities.) Security deposits are shared but all are liable for damages (say 4 roommates  each paid $500 and only one caused $2K damage,  you still keep all the deposits.)    Write a lease that allows for roommate changes.  At NIU landlords watered down the paint and then charged students for "scuffing the paint".  (We scuffled this crappy paint by allowing a box to touch it.  It was ridiculous.)   Tile throughout,  students don't even OWN vacuums,  much less use them.  Durable surfaces throughout,  expect young people to abuse and not clean.  If I managed student property I'd inspect monthly.  

I too am puzzled.  If they are your trees,  he's hurt any "case"  he thinks he may have by vandalizing your trees.  And if they are HIS trees (or the owner's trees,  as he claimed),  he painted the owner's trees.  Seems to have a real logic switch missing.....

FFS,  Jim,  not only are you ignoring the facts laid out by OP (sister has resolved the situation),  if you can't tell the difference between being a MAN in a public place and a woman in her own home,  there is little hope for you.

I agree I had the right to defend myself (he never came closer,  probably because I had a Brittany on a leash,  although she was busy sniffing the ground and ignoring my panic)...but to extend that right to everyone in the whole neighborhood to kill him ON SIGHT?  That was pushing it,  perhaps wasn't even legally true.

Years ago while walking the dog in Houston in the early daylight hours was approached by a car.  Naked man emerged,  calmly (while 50 ft. away) informed me he was going to rape me until I was dead.  I had a cell phone and screamed into it at 911.  (If my brain had been working sans caffeine I would have take a photo of him and his license plate!)  He drove off.  This guy had been seen in the neighborhood before at least 3 times.  I was more than a little stunned when the sheriff attended the next neighborhood watch,  and announced that since he had threatened to kill me,  he could be shot on sight.  Three women went out and bought handguns.  Tall men (he was at least 6'3)  stopped running in the neighborhood just in case they would me mistaken for the flasher. As did my husband who is only 6 ft ( they all went to a nearby school and ran on the track).    Probably most effective,  somebody quoted the sheriff on the neighborhood web site.  The dude was never seen in the neighborhood again.  As horrible as he was,  I really didn't want him killed over it.  I mean,  I could have been LYING about what he said,  and someone could have shot him over it!    But that's Texas.