|
Jealous Cow posted:My policy makes no reference to trampolines. Just read through it and searched for the word just to make sure. I'm not a lawyer Here's a little back and forth discussion on tenants and trampolines, but the long and short is that no contract in the world can keep you from getting sued and dragged into court https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/314206-tenant-trampoline-whos-liable You might win your motion to dismiss - but the question of gross negligence is fact specific, so if the tenant writes his complaint properly, you might have to go through discovery before a judge could decide that your lease disclaims your actions. And even if you did win the motion before discovery, you'd still need a lawyer to argue it. I imagine you'd also need a lawyer to tell you if your policy allows for trampolines with complete confidence. Does your landlord policy include Liability Insurance? If it doesn't, then they don't have to exclude trampolines because they were never going to help protect you for *any* lawsuits brought against you. quote:Liability insurance: This coverage protects you against liability claims and lawsuits. Whether a tenant, visitor or even a trespasser is injured on your rental property, you could find yourself in a legal mess. Your liability insurance will help you cover the costs associated with bodily injury claims on your property. These costs can include medical payments, funeral costs, legal fees and judgment or settlement costs. You will also be covered if you, as the landlord, are found responsible for another person’s property damage. For example, if you neglect to fix a leaking water pipe and mold damage destroys a tenant’s expensive collection of vintage albums, a liability claim can be filed against you by the tenant.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Devor posted:I'm not a lawyer Just spoke with my agent: There is no blanket exclusion on trampolines. They don’t care about them as a unique object. They would only not cover me if I had installed it myself and was negligent in its maintenance. My primary home policy and my umbrella would be in force as long as there was no negligence on my part. Granted, I only have about $1.3MM in coverage, but I’m not worried about it because that’d be more than enough to defend me against the claim. You guys got me all worked up over this
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Just spoke with my agent: That's because it's a big deal and potentially an exceedingly expensive problem. Say you have some rocky soil back there, and one of their idiot kids does a flip off the tramp onto rocky soil and breaks their neck? Do you think these tenants will stop at anything to claw every red cent out of you that they can? Do you know what it costs to care for an injured, quadriplegic child from life? Can you guarantee that the entirety of the property wouldn't be found by a jury of sympathetic peers not to be negligent of maintenance? Even if jumping OFF the tramp is what causes the problem, they'll sue wherever they land (your property, rentier). Sorry, but it's a big deal, and it's why poo poo like this should be verboten and actionable in your lease.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:That's because it's a big deal and potentially an exceedingly expensive problem. Say you have some rocky soil back there, and one of their idiot kids does a flip off the tramp onto rocky soil and breaks their neck? Do you think these tenants will stop at anything to claw every red cent out of you that they can? I’m not sure I can force them to remove it as it isn’t covered in the lease. I didn’t write this lease myself, either. It’s in use across thousands of properties in VA, so I guess that means there are a poo poo ton of landlords inches away from ruin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Just spoke with my agent: If the insurance you're planning to use excludes negligence, but your lease only disclaims gross negligence, you might not covered for ordinary negligence that injures your tenants or damages their property https://www.sawayalaw.com/blog/ordinary-negligence-vs-gross-negligence/ quote:What is ordinary negligence? Is noticing a trampoline that looks unsafe, and allowing its operation, ordinary negligence? Should a reasonable landlord know that trampolines need to have netting around them to make them safe? I don't know, I'm not a landlord with a trampoline on my property. Should you know? Maybe? The insurance company is your buddy right up until they might have to pay out a million bucks, and them saying not to worry as long as you weren't negligent isn't worth that much aside from defending you against a frivolous lawsuit, because your tenant probably wouldn't recover damages from you unless you were found to be negligent in some fashion Fake edit: Jealous Cow posted:I'm not sure I can force them to remove it as it isn't covered in the lease. I didn't write this lease myself, either. It's in use across thousands of properties in VA, so I guess that means there are a poo poo ton of landlords inches away from ruin. If you use a boilerplate/model lease, you get what you pay for. Is asking your tenants to remove something that looks unsafe a good idea? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but if I was the guy being sued and I had an email from last year where I said I wasn't sure if the trampoline they installed was safe, and suggest they remove it - isn't that all I can really do to protect them, since I have no trampoline addendum to point to, in order to force its removal? You may not be able to sue them to remove it, but it all just starts with asking politely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Devor posted:If the insurance you're planning to use excludes negligence, but your lease only disclaims gross negligence, you might not covered for ordinary negligence that injures your tenants or damages their property Ok, fair point. I’m going to ask them to remove it. If they won’t I may offer to purchase it from them in exchange for signing an addendum and then have someone remove it for me. If they decline even that I guess I have a record of my attempts to get it removed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
And then getting creative, if they refuse, couldn't you have your lawyer whip up a few sentences for them to sign disclaiming all liability stemming from its use? Please keep the thread updated on these tenants because this sounds pretty funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_VTvQLAfaE Something Offal fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Feb 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
I want to avoid antagonizing them. They keep the place very clean and have fairly expensive furniture, and they actually report maintenance stuff so I can get it fixed. That’s about as much as I can ask for. Edit: crisis averted. No trampoline. Jealous Cow fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Feb 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Hello rentees? Is that the right word? I currently own a non-rental townhouse. I am looking to sell it, and I know this association is popular for rentals (though it may be less so now that housing prices are up). As a seller, are there any resources for skipping the standard realtor listing as a shortcut to find someone interested in it as an investment property? I know that's exactly what a realtor will do, but I figured I'd ask in a thread where there are probably people who are on the other side of this that would know (if there is anything kind that). I also plan to ask the renter neighbors if they're interested in buying, since they've lived there for 5+ years. This isn't the house selling thread though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:Hello rentees? Is that the right word? I currently own a non-rental townhouse. I am looking to sell it, and I know this association is popular for rentals (though it may be less so now that housing prices are up). As a seller, are there any resources for skipping the standard realtor listing as a shortcut to find someone interested in it as an investment property? Approach local property management firms. They may have landlords looking to expand their portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
Who wants to talk about my combination neuroses and rental property aspirations? I recently (like a couple months ago) bought a new-construction 700k townhouse with 10% down in an up-and-coming Seattle neighborhood because I was woo'd by views and access to excellent public transit (and the house is nice too tbh), but it turns out I am more of an autistic baby than I thought and I don't seem to be getting used to hearing train horns at night. Now my sanity-preserving thoughts are that I want to rent the place out sooner than I expected, like 12-18 months after purchase. Maybe I'll get used to that poo poo eventually, but my plans are to dump most of my extra income into the mortgage to hustle to 20% equity, get rid of PMI, and rent this bitch out to an Amazon family who values nice views and proximity to light rail/downtown, but can also sleep through a train apocalypse 3-4 nights a week (like apparently all of my neighbors?!). I believe I can conservatively get to 20% in the next 12-14 months, not including any appreciation/refinancing considerations. I would plan on going back to renting an apartment to arbitrage my housing expenses; a suitable 2br apartment can be had for ~1k less a month than my mortgage in basically any part of the city. I did not "need" a 3br townhouse, fwiw. Partially I'm just venting and looking for people to yell at me for being an idiot baby, but my actual questions are the following: Do I lose preferential tax treatment if I'm not living in the property? Is 20% equity is required to rent out a property or if it doesn't matter as long as you've satisfied the 1-year owner-occupied minimum stipulation on your loan? How bad of an idea is it to rent out a property at a loss (obviously for as little time as possible) if you still believe you'll see asset appreciation and that eventually rent will cover your full costs? Note: I'm not *positive* I would rent it at a loss, but I might not be able to see positive cashflow until I get out from PMI at the least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
Before you think about big financial decisions, have you taken measures to soundproof your bedroom? Sound deadening drapes and double-glazed windows would be a start. Also if you can get any kind of barrier like trees or fencing between you and the direction of the train (although second floor might be a bit rough).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
TheLawinator posted:Before you think about big financial decisions, have you taken measures to soundproof your bedroom? Sound deadening drapes and double-glazed windows would be a start. Also if you can get any kind of barrier like trees or fencing between you and the direction of the train (although second floor might be a bit rough). This. I live at the corner of a busy intersection and the combination of modern windows and heavy, double curtains, and a box fan does the trick. I get that trains are lower frequency, but try some alternatives first. Whatever you do to reduce the noise will make it a better rental anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
Dreadite posted:Who wants to talk about my combination neuroses and rental property aspirations? I recently (like a couple months ago) bought a new-construction 700k townhouse with 10% down in an up-and-coming Seattle neighborhood because I was woo'd by views and access to excellent public transit (and the house is nice too tbh), but it turns out I am more of an autistic baby than I thought and I don't seem to be getting used to hearing train horns at night. Now my sanity-preserving thoughts are that I want to rent the place out sooner than I expected, like 12-18 months after purchase. I agree with others above that you should really look at your options to make the living situation tolerable before you move out. I agree that you should seek to remove the PMI as soon as possible. You can calculate the approximate marginal interest rate of the PMI by dividing the annual cost of the PMI by the required principal down payment to remove the PMI which will give you an idea of how to prioritize that money in your overall financial picture. If you are somewhere in the 80 to 90% LTV range this number is typically something like 10% effective interest rate of the PMI. Renting at a negative cash flow sucks but selling your recently purchased property for 6-8% in costs, very possibly at a loss to original purchase price also sucks. You can use an online calculator to determine your total internal rate of return and your return on cash by considering your all in cash expenses to purchase the property and then the sum of any cash flow and principal equity accumulation based on various hypothetical rental scenarios. Without some idea of the actual rent potential of the property it's hard to tell you what your least worst option is here but if you can at least break even or cash flow a little bit it is probably better than selling even if a little bit suboptimal in terms of your original deployment of capital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
I have nothing to add about if you should rent it or keep living there but I'd advise trying out earplugs. It takes a bit to get used to them but once you do you might be all set. I never thought I had any sound problems in the various places I've lived but then I tried our ear plugs and realized I sleep a lot better with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Somebody fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Mar 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
 BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Raise it $100 and say the single digit increase is due to taxes and insurance increases, which pretty much always happen anyways 
Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Sup leeches
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Every. Single. One.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Every. Single. One. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
"David Lloyd George” posted:The Landlord is a gentleman who does not earn his wealth. He has a host of agents and clerks that receive for him. He does not even take the trouble to spend his wealth. He has a host of people around him to do the actual spending. He never sees it until he comes to enjoy it. His sole function, his chief pride, is the stately consumption of wealth produced by others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
So did this end up in another subforum? (checks...no) If I didn't have someone willing to rent to me for a large portion of my life I would have been homeless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Lol that's some dumbass reasoning
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
What the gently caress is going on in here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
The French Revolution, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
Is it really surprising in a time of immense housing insecurity and expense that public ire against wastrels is up? I believe there is a difference between someone who is trading labor related to housing for rent, but plenty of people in this thread are profiting of an infinitesimal amount of their actual labor and hiking rents Scrooge McDuck style at every chance. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Is it really surprising in a time of immense housing insecurity and expense that public ire against wastrels is up? It's not surprising, but that doesn't make it less stupid. What are you supposed to do with your salary, after you've paid for your living expenses? You invest it. Some people invest in the stock market (i.e. in the economy as a whole or individual companies in particular), or bonds (investing in whoever issues the bonds, usually the government), or commodities (a.k.a. resource speculation), or in real estate (speculative or rent-seeking). What you don't do is just leave it sitting in a bank account, because a) you're steadily losing ground to inflation, and b) the FDIC only insures deposits up to $250k anyway. In other words, many landlords (certainly most small-time landlords like people in this thread) trade their own labor, whether related to housing or not, in exchange for the opportunity to collect rent. Now, it's certainly the case that the rental system in general is maximally profit-seeking, regardless of the impact that has on the renters. Landlords have a moral obligation to treat renters with respect, and where that isn't happening, there's a good case to be made that the market needs more regulation. By the same token, people shouldn't invest in companies (or countries, via bonds) that do unethical things. But if you think that's what's going on in this thread then you really haven't been reading it. By the way, you want Ebeneezer Scrooge, not Scrooge McDuck. Ebeneezer's the legendarily penny-pinching rear end in a top hat, McDuck is just ridiculously rich. edit: typo TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Is it really surprising in a time of immense housing insecurity and expense that public ire against wastrels is up? You’re right. If only there were no rentals available, and I would have somehow had to buy a house at 18 and then somehow sell it when I found work elsewhere in the country. I can see how it would have been so much better to own and then sell a house every 2-3 years when I moved from city to city to get better jobs. My mom rented as well after my dad left when I was 11. Stayed in the same rental house until I moved out at 18, and still lives there 17 years later. 24 years renting the same house. What a shame, right? If only she had been able to go from housewife who never worked to home owner in Los Angeles when my dad left. So easy! Too bad there was that evil landlord there to give her the easy way out. I should have sold my house instead of renting it out, I suppose. I bought it in 2014 and then was forced to move several states away the next year to help out with some family issues. I suppose I could have sold it after a year and eaten closing costs and lost tens of thousands on it. Turns out I can rent it for enough to cover the mortgage and then another hundred or so a month to go into a maintenance fund. There’s a constant low level fear, however, that my tenant will burn it down, injure themselves, or someone else, damage it, stop paying rent. And since it has a mortgage on it I can’t put it in an LLC, so I pay for a poo poo ton of insurance. But I suppose I should have just tried to sell it to these people instead. My first tenant, the recently divorced mom who wanted to let her son finish high school before moving, would surely have benefited from being forced to buy something for two years. Totally makes sense. My current tenant is obviously wasting her money. She put herself through college as an adult and got a job that brought her to the city from out of state. She has several school-aged children so she needs a lot of bedrooms, so an apartment wouldn’t do, but I guess I’m doing no favors by asking her to pay rent when instead I could insist she afford a mortgage to buy it from me. I really see the error of my ways now. I’ll kick out my tenants as soon as possible and put the house up for sale. I’m sure someone who can afford to buy it deserves it more than someone who can only afford to rent it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:
You could also keep going but set rent at a level commensurate with your labor. I rent to people too. I'm not an "all property is theft" kind of person. I just think there is a spectrum between fair exchange and exploitation, and from my experience, most small time landlords (and all institutional large ones) fall in the latter category, extracting far more in rent than they are offering in services/labor in exchange. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
what's up leeches  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2VDqr9koI
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I really see the error of my ways now. I’ll kick out my tenants as soon as possible and put the house up for sale. I’m sure someone who can afford to buy it deserves it more than someone who can only afford to rent it. nobody is saying you should kick your tenants out. we're saying they should appropriate the house out from your control edit: with no compensation, obviously Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:You could also keep going but set rent at a level commensurate with your labor. I borrowed money to buy the house. I pay a firm 8% to manage it. I assume the risk of owning it. I pay for repairs when repairs are necessary. My labor allowed me to buy the house and allows me to assume the risk that the expenses of owning and renting may exceed the value of the rent collected. My only options here are: A) Sell the home so I’m no longer collecting rent. B) Reduce the rent to some level below the cost to own and maintain the home that causes me to subsidize the tenant. I can see the social benefits of doing B. The tenant is currently paying somewhere around what the mortgage would be if she bought it at market value. I eat the other costs in exchange for her paying down my mortgage. If I were to reduce the rent, I would still be having my mortgage partially offset while allowing the tenant to save money toward buying something herself. Is that what you’re suggesting? Drop all the Marxist value of your labor bullshit and make a suggestion that would be acceptable in your worldview. Ruzihm posted:nobody is saying you should kick your tenants out. we're saying they should appropriate the house out from your control By purchasing it? Using violence? Using some other mechanism to secure ownership? Is it fair to sell it to them at the current market value? What if they can’t afford that? Should I sell it for whatever they can afford? What about my primary residence? Should I be forced to give it to a family unable to afford a home? Or should my mortgage holder give it to me? After all, they are profiting off my labor. Jealous Cow fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Drop all the Marxist value of your labor bullshit and make a suggestion that would be acceptable in your worldview. so i have a suggestion you're not gonna like it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:You could also keep going but set rent at a level commensurate with your labor. Another way to make rentals affordable is to make sure housing supply is high enough. But then again NIMBY.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I borrowed money to buy the house. I pay a firm 8% to manage it. I assume the risk of owning it. I pay for repairs when repairs are necessary. So you went into debt to become a leech. Good job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Judakel posted:So you went into debt to become a leech. Good job. If no one went into debt to own rental property there would not be enough housing supply. (AKA, rents would be even higher)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I borrowed... I pay... I assume... I pay... You are the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
my weird trick to reducing aggregate rent is by giving every squatter a shotgun and a box of shells
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
I can’t remember the last time this thread was brigaded. Not sure it ever has.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Then no one is going to want to build housing. FWIW, most of peoples complaints about rent are caused by bad government policies caused by people fearfully clutching onto the Character of My City (aka, they don't want those "other people" around). Blaming landlords and putting them against the wall is easy, but solving the actual problem is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:24
|
|