All Forum Posts by: Kyle J.

They’d be a holdover tenant. If you really don’t want them there any more, and they truly refuse to leave, you’d be forced to evict them (unlawful detainer action) to remove them. 

@Joy James  I'm confused on why you're allowing them to live in your house rent-free month after month?  It'd be one thing if you could afford it, but you said you're draining your own reserves to do this.  What is the reason?

Is there an eviction moratorium in your state that's preventing you from taking action?  I tried Googling eviction moratorium in your listed state (Georgia), but couldn't find anything.  (Maybe I missed it.)

The tenants obviously don't know what they're talking about if they're hinting at the "Cares Act".  That already expired. 

The only other thing out there that I'm aware of is the CDC Order, which does have eviction protections.  However, it only applies under certain circumstances and even then ONLY if the tenant submits a signed declaration to you under penalty of perjury (which I'm guessing they haven't done since it doesn't sound like they even know about it).  Furthermore, you're not even required to notify them about the order/declaration form. 

So...why have you chosen not to pursue eviction against these non-paying tenants all these months?  At this point, honestly it sounds like they're just not motivated to pay anything because you haven't done anything to motivate them. 

I hope this situation works out for you, but I think you're going to have to take some action in order for it to.  Sounds like they're just taking advantage of you at this point.

This idea has been brought up from time-to-time over the years on here. Like @Steve Vaughan, I also appreciate creative thinking. However, with this particular idea, every time it gets brought up, I fail to see even one single financial benefit for the landlord. 

@Alissa L.  This should be addressed in your lease.  For example, my lease says (in part): "Tenant shall be charged for repair of drain blockages or stoppages, unless caused by defective plumbing parts or tree roots invading sewer lines."

So for me, it would be clear how it would be handled.  I'd suggest checking your lease to see if there's similar language that addresses this particular issue.

That’s none of the tenant’s business. I wouldn’t provide a copy. (I wouldn’t have even verbally provided him any information.) 

Chances are your liability insurance is with the same company as your fire insurance. He might be asking about your fire insurance, but really interested in finding out about your liability coverage and policy limits. Who knows what this person is up to.

It’s an odd request and one I wouldn’t oblige. 

No more (emotional support) snakes on a plane! ;)

@Paige Kuhbacher  We haven't read the whole lease, but based on the limited screenshot you provided, I'm willing to bet that lease is not even legal. 

I mean seriously, a violation of ANY provision of the lease (even smoking one cigarette if there was a no smoking clause?) by ANY person on the premises (could just be a guest of the tenants - doesn't even have to be the tenants themselves) and the landlord has the right to immediately remove the tenants and their possessions from the property "using such force as may be necessary", either with or without process of law. 

You have to give credit to the previous owners for trying, but that wouldn't hold up in any jurisdiction. 

The good news is, I think your brother should easily be able to point out how one-side that lease appears (in the landlord's) favor if he wants the tenants to sign a new lease, and convince them that signing his lease is actually in their best interest.

The poster of this very post you're posting in has a tenant who didn't pay rent for 4 months, and then on top of that they broke the lease.  Add up all the rent they owe (not to mention if there's any damages from the unauthorized pet and whatever else they stuck her with), and I'm guessing she's probably owed thousands of dollars.  

There's lots of other similar posts on BP from other landlords as well.  It's not as rare as you think.  Here's just a few posts from a quick search I did:

Landlord owed $3200 = https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/887036-tracking-down-tenant-for-back-due-rent-nj 

Landlord owed $3700 = https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/337652-tenant-owes-us-3700-with-intention-to-file-for-bankruptcy

Landlord owed $4400 = https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/563930-collecting-back-rent-from-judgement

Landlord owed $6000-$7000 = https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/443/topics/506584-trying-to-collect-back-rent-and-damages-from-evicted-tenant

It's actually not that hard to be owed thousands of dollars if you're in a market with expensive properties/rents.  But that's besides the point.  The only point I was trying to make is that landlords should go after the money that's rightfully owed to them (however they go after it), rather than just forgetting about it or writing it off because it's "not worth the effort".  

I can never figure out why people (not you, but some people) will recommend to newbies on here to buy a property for a mere $100-$200/month cash flow, yet when someone stiffs them for double or triple that amount of money they just tell them to forget about it.  Well I don't subscribe to that theory.  It's easy to collect it, in my opinion.  Those that say it's hard or "unlikely", just don't know how to do it.  

Again, go get the money that's rightfully owed to you people.  And I'm just going to leave it at that.  

@Sherry Woods  Hard to say just from what you posted.  To me, a "running toilet" and a "leaking toilet" are two different things.  For example, a running toilet can often be fixed in about 5 minutes, usually by replacing the flapper.  On the other hand, a leaking toilet could be caused by something like a misaligned or worn wax ring and is (in my opinion) more serious because water could actually be leaking out of the toilet and causing damage.  The tenants (or you) could have easily fixed a running toilet, but probably not a leaking toilet without the assistance of a plumber. 

We also don't know how your lease reads, or who is responsible for paying the utilities.  For example, my lease says that the tenants are responsible for paying for all utilities.  Additionally, it ALSO has a clause that says, in part: "Tenant shall immediately notify Landlord, in writing, of any problem, malfunction or damage. Tenant shall be charged for all damage to Premises as a result of failure to report a problem in a timely manner."

Now, although I still don't know if this was a running toilet or a leaking toilet, or how your lease reads, I can tell you that since my lease requires my tenants to report all problems to me AND it requires them to pay the utilities, I would not be paying their water bill (especially when they never reported a problem to me to begin with).

Just my two cents.

I didn't go line-by-line, but yes - that looks high.  Part of the problem is you're paying over 2 points to the lender.  I don't know what that bought your interest rate down to, because you don't list it.  But that's $1,339 right there.  

And then $700 for an appraisal on what I assume is a single family house?  Granted that goes to the appraiser, but that should be more like $350-$400.   

And lastly, $1,800 for insurance on a $80k house is ridiculous unless there's something unusual going on or you're in a flood zone or something.  You need to shop that around.