Legal

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.

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.

Ooooh, here’s an interesting development in the world of Tenant background searches, from St. Louis Today's Journals: a proposed database designed to help St. Louis Landlords pinpoint deadbeat or trouble-making Tenants. The article points out that such systems already exist for particular neighborhoods in the Chicago area (but perhaps not in online or database format, maybe more paper/binder based, but it's not specified in the article). A commenter here from Free Landlord Software (NOTHING is free in this world) has mentioned a similar offering through their software, but these systems are only as useful as the data that populates them. You are obviously free to inquire with them as to whether or not they offer something like that for wherever you are currently managing properties.

It sounds fantastic that there might actually be some sort of reliable system out there which could tell whether a potential Tenant has been a problem for any other Landlord, including illegal activity, noise complaints, property damage, and probably even late rent payments. In other words, all the things a Landlord tries to glean from the typical Tenant background checks.

But it would be tailored for Landlords, and available in ONE place. Hm.

Of course, the main push in the article focuses on the fact that Landlords will be liable for willingly renting to any Tenants on the database’s “naughty list�, so to speak. This puts an entirely new spin on the need for thorough due-diligence. If only money is on the line, then a Landlord may be inclined to ignore some obvious red flags, to the detriment of whatever community in which the unit rents.

But if part of the liability related to Tenant behavior rests on the shoulders of Landlords, well, it’s fair to say that communities would likely be tighter, but Landlords would be, quite understandably, increasingly paranoid. We already sweat the civil suits from Tenants (slip-n-fall, tort-exploitation, etc), it might not be advisable to pile on the fear of governmental prosecution.

The number of “Evil Landlords� out there will likely rise exponentially. But will the net result be positive for society as a whole?

The main point of being a Landlord is to profit from sound, practical investment. This is understandable fact. It is understandable because it is the capitalist backbone of our entire system of freemarket ownership for things with speculative rates of appreciation. Namely: real estate. But there are other important, and arguably more socially responsible facets of being the proprietor of where other people sleep. Where they raise their children. Where they celebrate holidays. Where they experience life.

In that context, there are other responsibilities that need to be lived up to by Landlords. And some appear too cold-hearted to understand that. This is most unfortunate.

It’s yet another installment of “Don’t Be That Landlord�.

Apparently, and this should really come as no surprise to anyone, tenants do not approve of unsolicited sexual advances. Who would have known! Seems to me that a pool of people who you depend on for money would be a PRIME set of folks to risk royally PISSING off by way of creepy requests for sexual favors!

Some people simply shouldn’t be in a position of authority. Spiffle’s Landlord is amongst that group of people.

And then there’s the oh-so-typical issue of mold in the unit. For the love of pete, this should not be a problem in modern times. Leaks are more than a mold problem for a Landlord. Leaks ruin foundations, destroy ceilings, wear away at expensive bathroom tiling, stain or warp valuable flooring, and cause endless damage to the sticks that build up a unit. But the mold is what will likely cause a Tenant to mount a legal offensive. It is also what will cause a potential Tenant to pass, or a current Tenant (who pays on time and causes no other problems) to vacate. Make routine checks, and reassure your Tenants that it is in their benefit to report leaks to you as soon as they notice them.

Because really, it’s in your benefit too.

One of the tenants in a duplex was wondering about the future offering/bundling of cable/internet into his lease. The basic notion was that he’d pay a premium if these things were already installed and ready to go immediately upon move-in.

You see, he just moved in fairly recently, and had to have these services brought up to snuff by his lonesome. And as we all know, getting these services up and going can be a thorough pain in the time-consuming ass. It took almost a month for everything to be properly wired and operational. Plus he had to take time off from work to supervise the process.

Plus he has yet another monthly bill to stamp or pay online, and the hassle is apparently beyond reproach.

So I got to thinking about this. After all, I’m always on the lookout for additional revenue streams associated with my property. Why not handle all the difficulty associated with these services and simply charge a premium for it? Offer it as an additional service of the lease?

Well, after some picking around the interweb, I’m not quite as excited about the idea.

To begin, there’s the equipment involved. Routers, modems, signal amplifiers, hubs, and a myriad of wires or connectors. These will all have to be serviced/inspected/replaced by the Landlord. An additional appliance, in effect. More warranties and extensive hassle to keep up with.

So I figured, well, to simplify that nonsense, just go wifi and cut the appliance cost in at least half, along with centralizing the equipment to one location for easier service. Having less equipment with the same service makes for better economies of scale.

But then I remembered how dependable my own wireless network is. Or how undependable it is, rather. And that there are an almost infinite number of reasons why a wireless network may or may not be working. Which brought me to coffee shops who offer “free wireless access� but don’t guarantee anything. Sow when the wire goes down, the wireless hub goes on the fritz, or the user’s laptop is simply janky, the coffee shop owner won’t get an immediate demand for repair.

Because it’s free.

And that’s the only way I believe I could get away with offering/bundling internet access on my properties: essentially, I’d be giving it away but hiding the cost in something else. That way, I wouldn’t be getting calls every two hours because the stupid wireless hub is acting up. Again.

Now if there was just some way to get around the potential legal ramifications…