Do-It-Yourself Landlord's Blog

My word, what a MESS (BE CAREFUL, when I clicked on the image to see more, which there are more, my browser was attacked by all sorts of adware/spyware and a frenzy of pop-ups, but it might just be my janky browser - it's IE, after all). But there doesn’t appear to be much in the way of structural damage, which is cool. Just a few dozen trips to the dumpster, a solid sandblasting, and perhaps a thorough delousing of the entire property. Then it’ll be right as rain.

It makes me cringe to look at though. Teeth gritting.

But then there’s the other side of the coin. This Landlord (I know, it's from 2003, but that doesn't diminish the impact), in some odd parallel universe of super-convenience and Canadian hilarity, demanded that his Tenants offer up their entire contractual year of post-dated rent checks when they signed the lease. This was obviously done by the Landlord for convenience, so that he wouldn’t have to wait for checks to arrive, and he could avoid the possibility of intentionally late remittance.

That being understood, I’m not even sure where to begin with this one. It’s… flabbergasting that someone would have the nerve to demand this of a Tenant. It’s simple contract law, and a violation of the spirit behind fair consideration (common and legal) in a civil society. As a Landlord, when you lease a property, you HAVE to assume that you will be paid based upon the terms of the signed contract, and the Tenant HAS to assume that they will be taken care of in terms of the Landlord providing a safe and clean environment. The demanding of post-dated checks removes almost all of the trust, AND puts the risk squarely on the shoulders of the Tenant.

Any Landlord that paranoid about the enforcement of their rental agreement(s) should likely look to exit the business. To avoid the ulcers if nothing else.

I’m currently dipping my toe back into the duplex market, back on the hunt. I’ve been particularly pleased with my current Tenant set, wondering why everyone else in the world doesn’t just leapfrog through duplexes.

Which, of course, led me to the interweb to find some contradictory, or at least counter-opinioned stories of duplex investing. I didn’t really find any true horror stories out there. I found the usual recommendations concerning repairs, Tenant selection and such. That’s all fine and dandy, but I honestly wanted to hear of some grizzly investing woes. Properties gone totally awry.

I found this story on Sitting Pretty Financially, one which I’d already read back in April, discussing the merits of different real estate investments (and a kinda healthy dose of bragging on the writer’s part, but that’s alright by me). She maintains the Duplex recommendation while giving fair warning on the dubious nature of Condo purchases.

Oh, Condos! Such the investment cad! So willy-nilly and difficult to pin down!

I am not a big fan of the Condo as a means of real estate investment. You own no land, just the rights to a piece of space above some land of which you may or may not own some miniscule number of voting shares for. Town Homes are typically slightly better, but only because they more resemble an actual home and there are fewer “owners� per square foot. Fewer cooks in the investment kitchen.

Regardless, my search was for duplex stories, and I stumbled one of the friendliest, most earnest approaches to landlord blogging I've ever read. And I read lots of them. This one’s called I Bought a Duplex! I can’t tell how long he/she’s been writing, or whether they'’ll continue, but it’s a rather good read!

Obviously nothing is dissuading me from my pursuit of another Duplex investment. Especially since I feel that we're passing the soft-rent plateau of the past five or so years, as rental rates continue to solidify under current market conditions.

Going out on a pretty sturdy limb here, but I’m pretty sure all of our visitors here are actual DIY Landlords. That, and a plethora of service providers (we are on the internets, after all). But there’s a rather distant chance that someone reading this is a prospective Landlord. Someone who has yet to make the complete jump into the pool we swim in every day.

But for one reason or another, they’ve got a toe in the water.

Perhaps considering the merits of a managed-property investment. Perhaps considering taking over their family’s Landlording business. Maybe their spouse is a Landlord who is currently unable to fulfill their duties as such, and they’re trying to fill that gap.

The obvious and natural question they’re asking themselves is whether or not Landlording is “for� them. It’s a good question for a beginner, and a perfectly reasonable question for even the most seasoned of Landlords: is Landlording in your nature? Letalife has a great 10-point list of things any Landlord, potential or current, should consider. Sure, it’s a UK-based list, so several points won’t apply directly to US markets (the whole “bed sits� and “house shares� thing threw me off for a spell), but the gist of the list is germane.

In my own experience, the toughest part of Landlording is sourcing appropriate Tenants. For the most part, it's an artform. But in recent years, there are better and better tools out there to aid in the search. That being said, for the Letalife bulletin on “reliable, cost-effective method of finding suitable tenants,� where Letalife recommends its UK self, any US Landlord may want to check out a site like Apartments-and-Rentals instead. Pretty much the same marketplace for Landlords and potential Tenants to meet each other, but US based.

Whoa. Here’s another NYC story that tickles ALL the wrong bones in my body. I don’t want to dive into it too much because it deals with Landlording over commercial properties, which is something I honestly have no experience or expertise. Dealing with people who simply want a clean, safe place to live is one thing. Dealing with business owners who are trying to turn a buck is another animal altogether.

But it is somewhat relevant in that a Landlord ends up shooting at a Tenant (and killing a friend of the Tenant) amidst a period of forced eviction (Landlord was filing eviction paperwork the day of the shooting). There’s something obviously not right about the entire situation as it has been described. Why would a Landlord who is owed a substantial amount of money from a Tenant, eviction or no eviction, plan on killing them?

The message board is INSANE on this one. Brooklyn neighborhoods are very, very tightly knit places, and I’m glad to see message boards like this which help support and inform those communities. But even the boards don’t help to clear up what exactly happened between the Landlord and Tenant. What is obvious is that some serious mental issues are involved.

On a much, much, much lighter note, here’s a well-written account by someone who appears to be a property manager of some sort, over at Tenant Tales. Apparently there was a fracas between some tenants over the proper use of an elevator. It got physical. An older, poorly liked male Tenant got smacked by a young, well-liked female Tenant.

The temptation to label the older fellow a problem Tenant is strong. Especially if he bothers the other Tenants (no need to kick the beehive that is multi-unit housing). But, he pays on time and generally keeps out of everyone else’s way. Tough call, but after that particular incident, I’d feel compelled to put the old guy on probationary notice.

Which reminds me. Note to self: need to formulate some sort of “probationary notice� clause to be placed into future contracts. Must research that.

Here’s a pretty standard issue with the average end-of-lease scenario: (from Curbed) Tenant in NYC wonders what they’re actually liable for paying on some damage resulting from an incident earlier in their residency (they want to know how they can get out with paying the least amount of money, none if at all possible). Of course it’s about more than just what the Tenant feels is reasonable to pay. It’s also about the timely cost-estimation and handling of such necessary repairs.

Based solely upon the account of the soon-to-be ex-Tenant in the post, there are a couple of things that the Landlord should have done.

1. TIMELY REPAIR. Sure, it’s New York City, so contractors are difficult, schedules are hurried, life is complicated, and blah-blah I don’t wanna wah-wah-wah. Six months to repair over $2,000 in damage? Come on. Many LEASES are six months in length. If you can’t get your repairs done quicker than that, perhaps Landlording isn’t the right business to be in.

2. REMOVAL OF PADDED EXPENSES. Who knows whether the “call box� or any other miscellaneous “repairs� should have been involved in this particular bill. Maybe there really was damage that the Tenant wasn't aware of. Maybe not. What IS known is that Landlords have been known to trump-up repair fees JUST to keep deposits. Not all business owners have scruples, and Landlords are not immune to the temptations involved. Having rented in a college town, I know this from experience. And even though I’m on the other side of the fence now, and I can see how those Landlords felt some weird, relativistic justification for it, it still wasn’t proper. Karma, my friends. Karma.

Then there’s the way that the Tenant went on to deal with the issue, which as a Landlord, I must say kinda sucks. From my point of view, I don’t care who my Tenants hire to do things (as long as they’re insured), I will hold the Tenant responsible for any damage their moving crew may inflict on my property. And by the grace of that responsibility, I do not feel that simply waiting on an estimate is enough to warrant skipping out on the bill entirely.

If you read into the comments, you’ll see a good deal of advice that revolves around simply NOT paying the last month’s rent to recoup the potentially usurious cost of repairs. While I understand the motivation to do this, it would be wholly unfair. The Tenant DID damage the property, and therefore owes restitution. If they needed that estimate sooner, then they should have made that contractually plain to avoid any potential confusion. The fact that the moving company is no longer willing to cover the cost due to the length of time lapsed has nothing to do with whether the Tenant owes money to repair the damage they did to the property. That’s between the Tenant and their chosen Moving Company.

Is there any real legitimate reason why the Landlord should even be involved in this dispute? Beyond a re-estimation of repair costs?