All Forum Posts by: Thomas S.

There are more crazy people in this world than imaginable. Don't let crazy run your business.

 Money has no feelings, no emotions and absolutely does not believe in ghosts.

Not what you want to hear but I would sell the home and rent your mom a condo to live in. Renting is far less costly than owning a home and will free up the maximum amount of cash. Use it as you please and no more home maintenance issues on your mothers place. Her place is going to become a money pit.

@Lue Brooks

Jon Behlke hit the nail on the head. The message you need to send is that lease violations are not tolerated otherwise what is the point of having a lease. Tenants are difficult to train, even more so when you do not send a crystal clear message.

I rent B class properties. For me a minimum credit score of 650 is everything, absolutely mandatory. If they are below 650 I don't care why, they are too much risk. They are likely living pay check to pay check or living beyond their means to have not been able to bring it back up. When my applicants are above 650 I then dig deeper into the report to determine if there are other factors that will make them too high risk. If they have maxed out their credit limits they are a no go. 

My policy is not only do they have to be able to pay I must also be able to collect when they don't. I want tenants that respect the value of having a high credit score. Most of my tenants are in the high 7s. 

Landlords renting C class properties use much different metrics. Every applicant is high risk regardless of credit score. It would still be wise to set a minimum score requirement, much lower than 650, but the reality is that C class tenants don't place much importance on protecting their credit. They often use credit without concerns of having to repay.

Take the time now to learn your state landlord tenant regulations. That is the source of the answers to your questions.

Regrettably you have created the present situation by continuing to communicate with this tenant. This is very common in tenant landlord issues. As suggested the solution is to send him notice to not contact you directly in the future, block all communication,  and I would strongly advise that you tell him that you will release him from his lease and, if your state codes allow it, you will not be renewing his lease. 

If you take control of your business instead of allowing him to control it by harassing you your problems will go away.

I would not confront them personally, I would simply hand them a notice to cure. Never allow tenants to control your business, when they violate their lease you must act swiftly and offer only one resolution. Options is no way to do business and remain in control. The dogs would go or the tenants if it was my property. Keeping in mind I operate under strict business practices and do not allow tenants to violate their lease. My leases are not negotiable and I have learned from experience that tenants will disrespect leases and push landlords to their limit if allowed.

Your response to this situation will determine what they do in the future. Bringing in two dogs without your consent is a major, not a minor, lease violation. Not acceptable and requires you to be firm and swift with your response.  Interisting to see if you are up to the management challenge this presents.

Definatly continue with the eviction. As for collecting what I do is file in small claims court. You may have them comeback to settle up years later to clear their credit to move on with their lives.

Yes you can collect, I have collected, the cost of small claims court is not that much. Most landlords do not file due mainly to having a defeatist attitude. They are told they will never collect and tend to believe it. Guaranteed you will not collect if you never try. 

If the property is a SFH get rid of your tenant before you list. Having a tenant in a property a potential buyer is planning on buying as a personal home will eliminate the majority of buyers. It will also considerably reduce the value of the property to a homebuyer. Having a tenant in a SFH and trying to sell is a costly mistake on your part. Get rid of the tenant, spruce the place up with new paint then list it.

You may attract a lot of investors that will only be making low ball offers.  

Option #1 is the only one any landlord should ever consider. Tenant has a valid leased. Your tenant is also responsible for all your costs associated with finding and screening a new tenant. If your PM charges you to find and place a tenant your tenant is responsible for all your costs. In the end if they wish to break their lease it must be done without any out of pocket cost to you.

Better sit down and explain the consequences to them and their parents if tey do not step up.

@Curtis H.

"I can just dump more money into the principal pay down." 

Principal pay dawn is where money goes to die. Often very difficult to access and can vanish quickly with a market downturn. Investors should place a higher value on their cash than a savings of 5% on a mortgage interest rate.

Dead equity should be valued as a investment. At 10% return on cash this means you should be deducting $833/month off of your rental income first for ever 100K in dead equity in a property. It is easy to see that dead equity will push any property into negative cash flow very quickly.

If a investor places a very low value on their cash and has no use for it the only problem with parking it in real estate is that it is at risk in a market down turn. Ideally a investor would choose to invest cash as opposed to hoarding cash.