All Forum Posts by: Zarine D.

Andrew Angerer I gave her a 45 day notice due to issues with her dog. So at this point we are disagreeing about who pays for rat extermination. As rats were not inside her place when she moved in, I think it is her responsibility since she leaves food out and the front door always open. She does not want to pay for a flea fumigation. She claims the rats gave her dog fleas. The lease requires a flea/tick fumigation after a pet. I use the standard NAR Hawaii lease which has no mention of pests, which I will definitely amend it moving forward. I agree Nathan G. that she should take responsibility for her actions that encouraged rats. I've always been very fair with my renters and am seeking investor opinions if I am way off base here! 

I'd like to hear what others have experienced and their solutions. I live in a rural part of Hawaii and rats are a reality here. My tenant has a dog that she leaves the door to the outside open for, and she has left dog food in the bowl and has not stored her food properly. Even after the rats started to come in and eat avocados on her counter, she has not set traps, or bait for them inside. She still leaves the door open. She says she thinks one is living inside (!!!!) and her dog kills them when they wander in. 

Rats are chewing holes in the screen to go in/out as well. There were no rats when she moved in and I never had rats enter the place in 10 years prior. She thinks it is my responsibility as a landlord to address it. As it is her behavior that is causing the issue, I feel that she is responsible. I have given her notice as she is irresponsible about her dog, and so we are at this juncture. Her dog also has fleas and she is fighting me that her dog has fleas due to the rats and she doesn't want to pay for a flea fumigation.

If I am in the wrong and it is my duty and responsibility to take care of these things, I would certainly do so, but I don't think that's the case. Thoughts? 

Thanks in advance!

Thank you everyone for your input. I called all of the local title companies and received the same answer...no insurance until 20 years. One MAY consider it after 10 years. I was outbid by $1,000 so I didn't win the parcel, but want to know for next time. I agree that the way forward would be to initiate a court action for quiet title. One of the parcels lacked clarity on who the actual owner is (tax lien against one person, owner of record according to the title company another). All very messy and expensive to build and hold with a private money loan for the long term until title companies will insure.  

There are two parcels I want to bid on for at a tax deed sale, but there is a major issue. In the past few years all of our title companies in Hawaii have changed their policies where they will not issue any policies for a minimum of 20 years. 

This applies even to parcels where the purchaser takes possession and clears the title in the first few years (it's not a seasoning period, it's just a flat amount of time). 

Both of these parcels would require a substantial amount of cash for development and new construction (one is a multifamily and zoned for 6 plex) and the other I would subdivide into 3 parcels, build a SFR on each, and sell.

I would need constructions financing of approximately 1.5 - 2 MM for each parcel. Ideally I would like to refinance the 6-plex into a commercial loan with terms favorable to holding for the long term. 

Do private/hard money lenders ever loan without a lender's title policy? Commercial lenders? What kind of terms, if so? 

Has anyone had experience with sale via seller financing when title insurance can't be issued?  Success with buyers using cross-collateral loans? These are two very desirable parcels and there are many cash buyers in our area. I don't know how seriously buyers will take this issue if they don't need conventional financing and I can show proof of clear title. 

Experience and advice welcomed- thanks!