Do-It-Yourself Landlord's Blog - Legal

Quick Bedbug Update: Who's Paranoid? Us!

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:48:00 -0500

I’m still on the fence concerning the whole Bedbug disaster. As a Landlord, I’m not interested in being legally responsible for any more than is necessary (could price me out of being a Landlord, so I’m simply being reasonable). But as a human being, I understand the plight of any Tenant who feels that they’re being unnecessarily menaced, by anything, while living in a property I own.

So I’m just going to periodically update the happenings surrounding Bedbugs, and try to answer any questions in the comments which a) I am qualified to, and b) do not require me to hire a lawyer for legal advice on how to sue someone (because we’re a litigious enough society as it is). That said:

Bugged Out, the good ol’ GO-TO site for anyone in the NYC area with bedbug issues, posted this up back in July. The post focuses on a sort of shell-shocked paranoia which (understandably) occurs after having had an infestation. They liken it to the delusions typically associated with schizophrenia or psychedelic drug use (I can’t believe I actually typed that out, so sterile sounding, like a high school principal or something).

I had a friend in high school who every time he tripped on acid, he swore his body was covered with worms. It was funny to watch, until he chose to pick up a razor to scrape them off. That obviously didn’t work out as well as we all had hoped it would, and lots of bandages were employed to remedy the situation.

Point being: there are obviously effects of an infestation which go far beyond the lingering worries associated with standard domicile infestations (roaches, ants, etc). I believe this is directly related to the actual human body being violated (fed upon). But, I’m no psychologist.

Bugged Out also dips into the whole Is DDT Really THAT Bad? question, which a perfectly fair thing to wonder. But that’s a mad-touchy issue, one with deep political ties, considering the reams of “research�? out there which brought about its demise, and the number of political careers which were built by (and still somewhat stand upon) the environmental movements spawned from the death of DDT.

I’m just sayin’.

Not-So-Quick Bedbug Update: Gettin' Litigious!

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:00:00 -0500

I’m still on the fence concerning the whole Bedbug disaster. As a Landlord, I’m not interested in being legally responsible for any more than is necessary (could price me out of being a Landlord, so I’m simply being reasonable). But as a human being, I understand the plight of any Tenant who feels that they’re being unnecessarily menaced, by anything, while living in a property I own.

So I’m just going to periodically update the happenings surrounding Bedbugs, and try to answer any questions in the comments which a) I am qualified to, and b) do not require me to hire a lawyer for legal advice on how to sue someone (because we’re a litigious enough society as it is). That said:

Wow. Even more bedbug commentary happening here. It’s crazy how a miniscule menace from the prior century can come back and cause such a ruckus here in our modest, and modern times.

This time, the issue is legal responsibility. To begin, I must note that we’re something of a Landlord-centric blog, but we really do want to be reasonable on every front. And on the subject of infestation, of any variety, being reasonable is key above all else.

Again, this is a brief discussion on the legal responsibility for bedbug remediation. Who shoulders it?

Specifically, a commenter from a previous post, David, who is apparently from Canada, wondered about who it is that is responsible for remediation if the bugs are discovered AFTER the Tenant has already spent some time in residence.

The assumption here is that it was not a horrific infestation to begin with, but that it has become one, and that it is impossible to pinpoint an obvious source of entry for the pests. Considering the feeding patterns of bedbugs, the little buggers could have been hiding out for the initial months, waiting to feed, and simply took their time in getting established. Or they were brought in from Singapore by the Tenant and immediately set up shop.

No one knows for sure, it's a fantastic mystery. A mystery which, as a Landlord, you need to be aware of your liability in.

So there's quite a bit of conjecture on this. As I posted before, the Bed Bug Blog even lists out the things a Tenant might do to arm themselves before throwing it in litigious gear. Obviously, that assumes there’s a precedent somewhere for winning such cases, provided you follow their directions.

Hm.

Overlawyered discusses a case involving a couple and a Motel in Arkansas. The interesting points come out in the comments. Sure, they’re comments, so they aren’t Primary Sources or anything. But they give good leads.

This feels like the least helpful post I've ever made... Not sure how I feel about that just yet.

Quick Bedbug Update: Bring The Science!

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:17:13 -0500

Watching The Neighborhood

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:24:20 -0500

You never know who is living next door. Not that there’s a need to promulgate any further paranoia of our neighbors, but it is good to know who is who in your direct vicinity.

Knowledge, after all (and as the cliché goes), is power.

And safety, or the feeling of it, is very valuable within all communities. Continuing along that line of logic, it’s important to your renters that the neighborhood they live in is relatively safe, especially from violent or particularly disgusting crimes as those perpetrated against women or, more importantly, children.

Among the many cool sites out there made available for us to search out our ‘hoods from the comfort of our homes, we have Family Watchdog and Family Beacon. You just enter the street, zip code and such, and then pow: up pops an interactive map with color-coded indicators of particular offenders: Offenses Against Children, Rape, Sexual Battery, and "Other". The details are pretty nice, too, including photos and descriptions of the offender.

I do believe I've actually seen one of the offenders near one of my properties.

Obviously this service is valuable in helping an investor when analyzing a new potential region for purchasing property, or for re-analyzing the marketability of properties currently in a portfolio. After all, safety is indeed a selling point.

But I do wonder a bit about the "Other" section being lumped in with rapists and such. Do I really want to get worked-up over a neighbor with a load of traffic violations? I mean, what is IN "Other"?

Super Phantom Anti-Hero Landlord

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:46:00 -0600

Took a week or two off from the tales told here in order to get a bunch of personal things in order. It’s been HECTIC, but it’s been the good kind. Well, the kind that will hopefully soon be good to me.

Okay, that was cryptic. And it'll stay that way for the time being!

Speaking of hectic (and absolutely fascinating) what’s up with this (alleged? Supposed? I have no idea how to refer to this guy) Landlord up in NYC? The charges are simply flabbergasting. And I don’t mean the attempted murder or arson.

Well, maybe the arson part. But only because it’s inferred that the arson was perpetrated on his own property.

But what’s really got me confused is how this guy is potentially managing to own MULTIPLE properties in New York City (Manhattan AND Brooklyn) with a collective value well into the millions of dollars, with hundreds of documented building violations spanning more than thirty years, yet NO ONE questioned why he was only claiming $52k as income? And on top of that, they can’t seem to confirm his real name, let alone just how many properties he owns.

Why am I so worried that the curve on my depreciation schedules might be too steep on the downside? Obviously, I want to be ethical in my dealings, and I do feel compelled to do right by my tenants up to the point where it no longer makes economic sense to be involved, but seriously.

That guy’s some kind of super phantom anti-hero Landlord if it comes to pass that he’s that far off the map.

Bad Tenant? Bad Landlord.

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:25:00 -0600

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.

Moments In Dangerous Landlording

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:52:09 -0600

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.

Bad Tenant Database Discussion

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:25:00 -0600

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?

Don't Be That Landlord vol. III

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:49:23 -0600

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.

Getting Wired?

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:37:04 -0600

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…

Lose Those Bad Tenants Already: Vol III

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Thu, 9 Nov 2006 23:52:25 -0600

Finding Tenants is an arduous process. Full of potential legal pitfalls, and pre-screening failures. Criminals, practicing addicts, deadbeats and con artists. They all need somewhere to live, and there’s a chance that they’ll slip right through your defenses and end up with their name on one of your mailboxes.

If it happens, take solace in knowing you are far from alone in your tragedy. There are others who have suffered too.

It’s yet another installment of Lose Those Bad Tenants Already.

Property Grunt sifted through Teri Karush’s NY Times article on some of New York’s most disturbed tenants. Makes me feel fantastic about Landlording elsewhere. Obviously, in Gotham, it’s much more difficult to oust nasty tenants. In fact, having lived there for a spell, it should be known that nasty tenants are the norm.

Anywhere else? Dish the warning letters and prep for an eviction, ‘cause those people described in the article are big bags of CRAZY.

Bryc3 in Washington DC just recently took over an interesting apartment situation. Some fascinating porn involved, which should fall under personal preference rather than a reason to pressure a tenant, but interesting to run across nonetheless. Mainly, the issue with the previous tenant was apparently financial.

And they got the proper boot. Hopefully their lives aren’t in complete shambles. Regardless, it’s a funny read.

And if you don’t get the paperwork rolling on deadbeat tenants with a quickness, you’ll get stuck holding the bag. Quite literally. Which_chick has definitely endured a doozey of a tenant set. And now that the eviction has been properly served, there’s a whole unit full of garbage that must be STORED, and cannot be sold, pretty much until the delinquent ex-tenants show up to claim it.

I feel for you which_chick. I really do.

Are Bed Bugs The New Scourge For Landlords?

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:06:28 -0500

This New York Times article is quite possibly the best run-down on bedbugs I’ve seen to date. It dashes the myth that they’re only associated with filth and poor hygiene. It outlines the recent spike in reported infestations. It’s got Landlords a bit ruffled with all the talk of responsibility for eradicating infestations falling squarely on property owners’ shoulders.

The cost for remediation is prohibitive. Up into the thousands of dollars for a professional touch. And there are no guarantees that the little buggers won’t simply return. If a property does NOT have bedbugs one day, and then is infested the next, well, those bugs came from somewhere. Did the tenant bring them in? More than likely. Will they bring them in again? Difficult to say.

It’s especially difficult because of the stigma associated with bedbugs. Similar to the shadow cast over lice, it is assumed that bedbugs are the result of poor hygiene. This is a widely held fallacy, both for bedbugs and lice. But no tenant will want to take responsibility for bringing them into their own home, to save their pride if nothing else.

But some Property Managers aren’t taking the blame-game with a level head, as is seen here in a NY housing project where the tenant got evicted after she ceased making rent payments due to a child-horrifying bedbug infestation.

I’m not so sure it should be the responsibility of the Landlord. Not that they don’t have a responsibility to provide a clean and safe environment for Tenants, but certain infestations are NOT the result of poor property management. Most rodent infestations, or insect infestations (tree roaches, palmetto bugs, wasps, bees, ants, there are several potential examples) that result from poorly sealed properties, are understandably the responsibility of a Landlord. But what about infestations which obviously have no source in the quality of ownership? Kitchen roaches? Mosquitoes? Fleas? These are either brought in, allowed in, or openly attracted by the Tenants themselves.

Most pest control treatments are handled by the Landlord as a service, or as routine maintenance to ensure quality residences for rent. They aren’t wholly obligatory, most aren’t terribly expensive, and they rarely involve direct cleaning for the personal belongings of the Tenant.

So really, should Landlords take the financial beating brought about by remediation of bedbugs that were obviously brought in by Tenants? As is happening in NYC (based on the Times article mentioned above), where courts are finding in favor of Tenants, forcing Landlords to handle all remediation? I’m having trouble making that connection.

Fair Housing Laws: A Small Look at a Big Topic

nospam@example.com (Eryn) — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:45:00 -0500

The quickest way to get your company in a heaping pile of steaming trouble is to violate the Fair Housing Act, either in defiance or ignorance. It doesn't matter whether you consider yourself a fair-minded person -- you need to arm yourself with an in-depth study of fair housing laws and how they affect you as a real-estate business professional. It is equally important that you protect yourself by ensuring that everyone employed by your company complies with the Fair Housing Act. This law doesn't apply only to big businesses. According to Charles J. Jacobus, in his book Texas Real Estate:

The Fair Housing Act applies to the following types of housing:

Single-family houses owned by private individuals when (1) a real estate broker or other person in the business of selling or renting dwellings is used and/or (2) discriminatory advertising is used;
Single-family houses not owned by private individuals;
Single-family houses owned by a private individual who owns more than three such houses or who, in any two-year period, sells more than one in which the individual was not the most recent resident;
Multifamily dwellings of five or more units;
Multifamily dwellings containing four or fewer units, if the owner does not reside in one of the units.

Continue reading "Fair Housing Laws: A Small Look at a Big Topic"

Don't Be That Landlord Vol. 2

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:42:21 -0500

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�?.

Not sure what all the backstory is behind Anna’s quest to protect, but when your tenant gets a restraining order against you, and you’ve found yourself writing letters to them saying ANYTHING to the tune that their “actions will have fatal consequences�?, it is BEYOND time to consider a change in your line of work. You’re a bit too emotionally attached to Landlording, and you don’t want things to get criminal.

Personally, I do not mind pets being in my units, provided that proper deposits were paid, and whatever place the animal will be living in is properly prepared for it. Namely, I’d prefer to not have any carpet or freshly finished wood flooring/window trim involved. However, I understand that there are times when we as people, are picked by our pets. Ithych ended up being chosen by a kitten, even though her lease stipulates no pets.

Well, what’s supposed to happen then? Fess up? Hide the animal? Dump and ignore the creature?

Hopefully your tenants aren’t afraid to discuss this with you, and they assume that you’ll be reasonable about the situation. If you’ve suffered due to being too considerate of such situations in the past, your tenant should be understanding of your lack of enthusiasm. Regardless, you want to be available to make a compromise of some sort rather than them simply never tell you about the hidden animal until it’s too late. Too late to save your new carpet or freshly painted window sills (why must dogs choose to eat the expensive wood trim? WHY?).

Did you know that in Pennsylvania, you have to keep a skipped tenant’s crap for 30 days AFTER notifying them by certified mail to retrieve it? Even if they OWE you money? And you can’t sell it, ever, even if they never come to pick it up? Which Chick, that's insane.

Ridiculous.