All Forum Posts by: Nancy P.

OK,  the way I read that,  if he didn't have AC,  he wouldn't have to put it in.  But he DID so now he has to maintain it.  I feel (and I am not a lawyer but an MBA who reads a lot of business/contract law)  that the 30 day rule likely applies here.  Unless someone in the house will have their health seriously affected (maybe asthma?  not sure),  it's probably "less critical".  Still,  seems like he's going to violate the 30 day rule.  He should buy them a window unit just for that alone.

https://www.ohiobar.org/forpublic/resources/lawfac...

This says he has up to 30 days to make "less critical"  repairs.  Frankly, I'm surprised A/C is required in Ohio. Florida or Texas, sure.  But not the Midwest.   I grew up in southern Indiana without it,  currently live in Germany where no one has it. I cannot find anything that says A/C is legally required in Ohio. (Not saying it isn't true,  I just can't verify.)    Either way, sounds like this landlord will be in violation before it gets fixed.  Maybe reminding him of this fact will get him to at least put in a window unit.  

Well,  we average $417 per door,  so not  true for us.  First four purchases were foreclosures that we got quite cheap.

Joe, you are right,  I have no proof.  But it's easy to cheat,  as I have no right to ask for proof.  These deals were in 2010-2011,  when the Chicago Tribune couldn't go three days without another story about real estate fraud being committed in the wake of the recession.  I know when we bought our first house in 1988 our Realtor --the MOM of a coworker--acted unethically.   But we didn't know it at the time,  we were 26 and 27 and naive  even though I had a gut feeling.  (She asked how high we could go...surprise surprise, guess how much the counter was?)   Also had Realtors attempt to manipulate the inspections over the years.  Just this year walked away from a deal when the seller would not remediate radon.  BY LAW the seller then had to disclose to the next buyer.   I already own a condo in that development.  MY tenant  met the new owner while walking the grounds.  I am friends with this tenant (she used to be my neighbor until her husband's health meant they had to downsize.)  She mentioned the radon and asked how it got remediated  (because in condos there is the association to deal with.)  Guess who didn't know jack **** about any radon?  Who then asked ME for my radon report and is going to sue the seller? That's right, the eventual buyer of that property.  But is anything going to happen to the listing Realtor?  Doubt it.   Reality is every group of humans has some bad actors.  

 The fact that a group of real estate attorneys have asked the state to consider such a law makes me think they know something I don't.  He volunteered this information to me after I said it was strange that these foreclosures which had been on the market for over six months suddenly had multiple offers.  We didn't pay more than we were willing to pay.  When I buy a property or  even something on Ebay,  I know in advance the most I'm willing to pay.    I hope to get it for less.

And to your argument  that it is risk vs small reward..I think it's small risk if I have no right to ask for verification.  We walked away from the same multi-offer scenario in December 2016.  Guess who was back on the market 6 days later?  Hard for ME to believe there was really another offer that fell apart in six days.  Right now,  the market is hot.  I am far more likely to believe there are multiple offers.  If I really thought I was being lied to again,  and bought it anyway,  I would ask the Real Estate Commission to look into it.  Not sure if anything would be done but that Realtor would know people were suspicious.

I've never had a tenant comment on it one way or another.  So wondering what people think when THEY are the renter.   This is our 8th property  (well, 9th,  but we sold our house and moved into number 8 when someone knocked on our door and made an offer on the house.)  Three have ice/maker and water through the door. (Four if you include the one we moved into.)  They came with the place and are newer so we didn't remove.

We are at market rent or maybe $50 below.  There are luxury places renting for more,  but the property has amenities like pool, clubhouse, fitness room,  etc.  Only one of ours has anything and it's a tiny pool.  When I look at rental listings I can see 1/3 water through the door,  and no one mentions an ice maker otherwise.

To clarify,  these are 23 or more cubic feet refrigerators,  just the old style with freezer on top. NOT apartment size.   Actually can fit more in the freezer than in a side-by-side that might not fit a frozen pizza.  And no way am I paying the premium for a French door fridge.

Over dinner tonight (we are currently on assignment in Germany but still investing back home)  John said it was just the "cheap"  look of an old style fridge he objects to.  Maybe I can find a side by side with no ice maker?    

Thanks for the input.  I have plenty of time to consider these things as I am not working over here.  Probably too MUCH time.

This is silly,  but my husband and I cannot agree.  We rent condos in Naperville,  an affluent suburb of Chicago that has been voted one of the best places to live in America a couple of times.  Very good schools.  I don't know if these are A properties because I am new to that framework and as I read the descriptions I'm on the fence.

Anyway,  we always put in SS appliances if the appliances are old,  stone countertop,  paint or replace cabinets,  tile bathrooms if the insert is gross,  etc.  H is convinced that this is the path to higher rents and appreciation.  

Where we cannot agree is on the ice maker.  Buying a fridge with ice maker and perhaps water through the door is at least $1000 more than a basic freezer-on-top model.  Running a water line is about $300.  THEN you have something that is notorious for failing and risk a flood on your property.  I just can't see it.  Husband insists that a "nice"  property has a "nice" fridge that is side by side or French doors,  and ice maker at the very least.  So far we have compromised...if there's a water line there I buy the ice maker,  otherwise not.  But he's getting more and more insistent.

What's your take on it?  Not so much from a landlord POV but as a renter...is there a point at which an old-style fridge would turn you off,  even if it's new and SS?  Our 2 br 1.5 baths rents from $1350-$1450.

What Mike said.  They should be "joint and several"  on the lease which means EACH is responsible for the FULL amount of rent.  This protects you when one moves out and the other tries to pay you half rent or something.

In this scenario,  you have no power to do anything.  You cannot legally evict for this reason.    They have to figure it out.

True.  I was speaking more to my own experience.    If there is a movement to write a law,  clearly in my area there are Realtors willing to violate the Code of Ethics.  But the law idea runs into privacy issues,  I personally doubt it will happen.

My Illinois attorney told me that there is some interest in making it illegal to lie about there being multiple offers.  I personally do not appreciate being lied to.  In the end of the recession this happened twice to us, when the properties had languished for more than six months.  (We got the properties after raising our offer and truly doubt the existence of other offers. ) The  proposed law would require that the successful bidder get to see the other offers before signing the contract.  I don't have an issue with trying to drum up interest,  but the outright lying pisses me off. 

I know I'm showing my age....first house purchase in 1988 was TWELVE percent.  Before we all had a computer, I had a little booklet which showed you the cost per month per $1000 loan at various rates.  I came across this booklet last year...the lowest rate in there was nine percent!  So yeah,  rates are going up,  but are still low.