All Forum Posts by: Ronald Perich

I went with Landlordlocks as well. They are a bit tricky to install your first time through, but then are a snap. You can go to their website to look around, but when you really decide it's time you should just give them a call. Don't bother using the online site.

I will second contesting taxes, especially if you buy a property with deferred maintenance. I just cut my tax bill in half because I bought a property that needed a lot of work. My goal? To get the property valued back up there! I don't mind paying taxes on the worth of the property and it means my values have doubled by forcing appreciation. BRRRR.

Great to have you on the site!

Goals change over time, and mine may do so in the future. But for now, I want to be where others are not. I like the idea of a homestead even though the property has more than one door.

For example, I passed on a six-unit because it felt too industrialized. And because the numbers weren't great. But they'd have to be better in that type of property because turnover is high and quality of residents is lower. 

I'm not overly concerned about too many small properties. I have systems that let me manage them as if they were large complexes. But I know I get more CapEx buying power with a fourplex vs. a single family.

Example... My nine unit costs for HVAC cleaning are less just because I have so many to do at once. And I can get my handyman over there with a list of things to do and only get one service charge. If I had nine SFH, I would have to pay multiple service charges.

I would love to, bit proir commitments prevent it. Granite City has a crime-free ordinance that basically says a resident has effectively broken the lease and that a conviction isn't even required. And that the lessor could be cited if their residents commit four or more ordinance violations within six months. There's a lawsuit going forward on that right now.

Unintended consequences. That's what this bill will bring. O'Mara thinks that he's going to force owners to keep their challenged properties up by preventing them from renting other properties? How does that make sense?

Let's say I have five properties and one of them is in an area that has turned sour, is impossible to rent, etc. If it gets trashed out by vultures, he's now going to prevent me from renting any of my other residences. So I lose income from them, which prevents me from spending any money to fix up the first one. 

Slippery slope if you ask me.

Of greater concern is the policing of resident behaviors. When did it become the norm of this society to put responsibility for one's own actions in the hands of another? If someone is recently convicted of illegal gambling, I can't rent to them? So if a Friday night poker game between friends gets busted up, I'm supposed to kick them out? And they can't move to another place, either?

And if I don't take that action, I can be thrown in jail for a year and pay a fine of $1000? 

What has this world come to.

Hey, if I am running my places in the ground, if they are dumps, if they are unsafe... you should go after me. But if I have a bad resident, you're going to make it worse by now taking away my license to rent to all of the good ones out there. Doesn't stand up to any logic test I can think of.

For me, the sweet spot is more than a single family and less than 50 units. Why? 

• It can be a challenge to get financing for these properties. Seems like a negative, but it's not. Harder means less people will go for it.
• It's too small for most of the big players. They want massive scale.
• Smaller complexes tend to have a more house-like and less industrial feel to them. I am a suburban kid and like green space. I've passed on investments that felt too industrial.

SFH is not bad, mind you. But the competition to buy is huge (you're going against not just investors but owner-occupied as well), you have more vacancy risk, etc. If I am going to spend time putting together an opportunity, I want to maximize the use of that time.

There are a number of legal precedents and writings about the legality of assigning contracts. As @J Scott mentioned, this has been a part of contract law for a long time.

That said, most wholesalers do not engage in the practice of marketing their contracts, they market the property. And I think that's where things start to get a little grey. 

I think something that's blatantly illegal is when some wholesalers attempt to sell property to which they have no legal standing whatsoever. They get an email about a property under contract and then turn around and remarket that property to their buyers list at a higher price. With no agreement between them and the person with the assignable contract.

Because they have no legal standing, they are certainly doing something unethical at best and perhaps illegal at worst.

And I say this full-well knowing there are a number of "licensed" people out there who do all sorts of illegal or unethical things on a regular basis. I don't believe for one minute that having a license makes you any less likely to do something unethical or immoral.

@Joe Fairless, I didn't know if you realized Stitcher feeds weren't working any more. I've missed a ton of episodes!

When you close, try your best to do it in the early part of the month. You get the benefit of most of the monthly rents but don't have to worry about collecting. Gives you time to notify all the residents about the changes, too.