Update: COA and Your Property Rights (Austin, Center: real estate, renter, condo)

[aaauger]

Recap: A tenant pulled a COA building permit on our property without our knowledge or permission in order to avoid hiring a licensed contractor (i.e. he wanted to perform the work himself despite not having permission or qualifications). COA initially stated that anyone could pull a permit on anyone's property and perform work without permission. At the same time, COA was inspecting the ongoing work and we were being excluded because we weren't on the permit.

Issue: This position seemed to violate property ownership rights and put the property owner in the position of having to pursue expensive and slow legal action. Also, in Texas, in certain instances, if someone acts as if he/she owns a property and the property owner doesn't object, the encroacher can place a restriction on the property's title or even file for ownership of the property. (For more info, see TAMU's Real Estate Center site.)

Update: After many phone calls and a lot of stress, Brewster McCracken intervened and pulled COA personnel together to resolve the issue. It was determined that only an OWNER or AUTHORIZED AGENT can pull a building permit. Anyone else that obtains a building permit is doing so fraudulently. So COA cancelled the building permit. COA also promises to educate its personnel on property ownership rights.

Bottom line: 1) Stand up for your property rights or lose control of your property. 2) Mr. McCracken represents the average person - i.e. most of Austin. 3) I would make a good real estate attorney with all I've learned.

[Trainwreck20]

I think the part of this process that is unsettling is that you apparently informed them that the permit was obtained fraudulently and they still restricted your control on your property. From my experience with bureaucracy, I am not a big fan of additional requirementsm such as having to demonstrate authorization to get a permit. The fact that this guy even bothered to get a permit us weird, and he could have just forged authorization, as well. On the other hand, if someone has illegally and fraudulently obtained a permit, I am rather worried that it was not corrected more easily and promptly.

Congratulations on your success in getting the legal side straightened out....I hope that you manage to recover some (if not all) of the damages .

[b. frank]

Did I miss the post where aaauger explains why the renter went to all this trouble?

[tibbar]

glad this turned out well for you.

***Also, in Texas, in certain instances, if someone acts as if he/she owns a property and the property owner doesn't object, the encroacher can place a restriction on the property's title or even file for ownership of the property.***

So true! This happened to my Father-in-law and cost him well into the $20,000 range before it was over. The "encroacher" was in the legal profession and knew exactly what he was doing.

[love roses]

But I'm a little curious about it too? Was the person trying to make a nice improvement? I know they aren't supposed to, at least without permission of the property owner and at their own expense. I look at some of the rental properties in my neighborhood and sometimes wish that improvements could be made. I know you needed to nip this in the bud, especially as it was a fraudulent deal and if he'd gotten away with doing whatever it was he was trying to do he'd just try to do it again. My step dad owned a condo that he rented as an investment, and pretty much allowed the tenant to make whatever improvements they liked as long as it didn't detract anything from the value. Of course, he asked to be notified first and most of his tenants were decent enough to comply.

[Trainwreck20]

It sounds like the tenant caused some damage and was going to hire a contractor to have it repaired, rather than pay for the owner to repair. That is just me reading between the lines, and maybe a little outside the lines, so I am not sure....

[atxcio]

I could imagine it being something like converting the garage, building a kennel or other outdoor structure... or even making changes to interior walls, all of which could cause the property value to go down. But the fact that the OP mentions that the tenant pulled the permit because they didn't want to get a licensed contractor, could be updating a bathroom or something. Seems a bit strange for a renter to do that, though... so I am curious also.

[aaauger]

The reason that the tenant got the permit was to avoid our requirement that he hire a licensed contractor instead of doing the work himself. In other words, he decided to do the work himself and get COA inspectors to bless it while forcing us out of the picture - all via the COA permit. Since the permit was issued to the tenant, we weren't allowed by COA to have anything to do with the permit, the work, the inspections. We were barred from having control over our property.

We originally had a licensed contractor do an estimate that came out to just over $13,000 in tenant damage (much of it revealed when tenant removed business property). The lease also specifies (as most do) that any repairs must be preapproved. This is to ensure that repairs are done correctly. The tenant didn't want to pay a licensed contractor so he decided to do the work himself and buy materials of his choosing.

The tenant was in no way qualified to do the work himself. The work he performed under the fraudulent permit more than proved that point. As a result, we're having to do a lot of undoing and redoing - increasing our costs. We're having to remove dry wall to inspect work done on wall interiors. The electrical work was so bad as to be a fire hazard. And while some of the repairs may be functional, they are not professional. The property has lost value and curb appeal. There's a good reason that licensed contractors exist. Another issue was that the drawing that was submitted was inaccurate and would have become permanent record within COA. That would create problems down the road if we had to submit another permit for additional work - ex. showing the true nature of the space would appear as if unpermitted changes had been performed.

These reasons aside, people can't obtain a permit without the owner's consent - as the permit states right under the signature line and as COA reconfirmed. It's unlawful. Period. That's what this whole experience confirmed. And it's a darn good thing for property owners who have a lot at stake - like their livelihood or retirement. Also, I can't emphasize enough that people have no idea of what consequences may await if they are careless with their personal information (ex. identity theft) or property (ex. title restrictions). There are people out there that prey on others - and tend to be very creative.

PS Tibbar - There are actually web sites that offer to teach you how to legally take property away from others. Google "negative easement" or "prescriptive easement" to get started. Sickening but legal.

[austin-steve]

Was this a commercial property? What damage did the tenant do and how did the damage occur.

[aaauger]

Industrial property. Bulk of damage: Walls & doors, carpet, electrical and plumbing. The damage to the walls was due to a forklift and pallet racks. A forklift is a risk but necessary for many industrial tenants. We have another tenant with a forklift that has caused zero damage: employees are trained on its operation and supervised.

We thought we were vigilant but apparently not sufficiently. We're now having bi-yearly inspections by a licensed contractor. Our leases now also state that unauthorized modifications will result in eviction except in case of emergency.

Landlords have to balance keeping properties rented with property upkeep. It's tempting to let certain tenant actions slide, but, really, property value is key: in a bad rental market, you can always sell or convert to another use.