Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is precisely why you need to get professional legal help and you can't expect to find that on a forum such as this. Respondents here can help lead you to applicable statutes and offer advice based on their own experiences but are in no position to give legal counsel.
That's all I asked for. Experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita
In most cases, its because the law isn't a simple thing to understand. There many ways to look at this issue based on a specific leases and state laws, so without a specific state you have in mind, it would just be an insane exercise in trying to provide enough examples to make sense.
Hint: Does the law say you must give a 3 day Cure or Quit, or does it say you can give a 3 day Cure and/or Cure or Quit?
Hint: Does the law say a Quit under a Cure or Quit terminates the lease or just the violation that caused the notice?
Hint: When does the Quit in a Cure or Quit sunset?
I have read the state statutes and they are vague.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Annie
OP, as others have said, you are being too literal and not understanding the application of the laws.
It's also important for you to know that the majority of landlord-tenant statutes were written to protect tenants from (then) unscrupulous landlords who believed in self-help evictions and violated the laws that existed more than honored them. I know this because I was involved with a CLE organization during the time of this proposed uniform L-T group of laws. It didn't become uniform across all states but the model presented is the basis for many, if not most. As such, those statutes, written by lawyers trying to stop the abuses, are frequently referred to as the Tenants' Bill of Rights; meaning that they are mostly slanted towards the tenants.
Others have given you specific advice concerning your specific questions. You don't seem to want to accept that certain things will not go your way: specifically an ability to punish a tenant for violating/breaking one of your rules or a section of your future contract/lease. Your thinking is one of the reasons the L-T statutes were written favoring tenants.
I strongly urge you to follow the above advice and consult with a r/e lawyer in your state. AND I further suggest you hire a property management company who will not bring emotions into the contract - either in the writing or adherence.
You've read into my post something that is not there.
I am not looking to be punitive. There should be some avenue for redress on the injured party which, in this case, would be the landlord. Redress, by its nature, is punitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke
This is going to depend upon what you put in your notice. I wouldn't give a cure or quit notice for a dog or extra person. I would give a 72 hour notice to cure a breach of the rental agreement. It would say to get rid of the dog or extra person within 72 hours or I would start the eviction proceedings.
There is nothing in that that gives the tenant the option of keeping the dog, moving out, and not paying the rent. So, if they move out without proper notice, they are on the hook for the balance of the lease, or whatever your state law allows, which often isn't the entire balance of the lease.
If you take a tenant to court and get an eviction, they will not owe you for the balance of the lease. A judge will not allow you to charge rent for a place you refuse to allow them to live in.
If you give a cure or quit, or a pay or quit, and the tenant decides to quit, then no, they don't owe the balance of the lease. You gave them the option to leave and they did. Your idea. You offered to let them go.
For non-payment of rent, it is going to depend upon what state you live in. Even though we all call it a "Pay or quit", in some states, it is a pay or get taken to court, with nothing about "quit".
Some advice, though: if you have a problem tenant and they move out, you won. Clean up and try for a better tenant. The one who left will owe you for back rent and for clean up and damage. You might be able to get them for breach of lease and for more rent, but no guarantee that you will actually collect any of the money. You might have to settle for being glad they are gone.
Thank you for taking the time to read and understand my question and give a thoughtful response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta
Agreed. If they are willfully violating the lease, you just want them gone, in most cases. And in most cases, someone who is willing to injure their rental history in order to break their lease instead of following the guideline you lay out in your lease for the procedure to break the lease, isn't someone you are going to be able to collect against anyway. In our lease, it has a lease break penalty equal to 2 months' rent.
But I agree, in most cases, if they are violating the lease or not paying rent and you give them a 3 day notice to pay/cure or quit, and they quit, you can only collect for time that they were there, and any damage that they did. Hopefully, you have enough deposit to cover that, because you usually will not see any more from them.
Also, something to be aware of is that not all areas actually have much in the way of rental law. Idaho, for instance, says practically nothing IN LAW about the rental process. The attorney general has a set of guidelines they update periodically, based on court findings, but there is practically nothing written in law. So it isn't always as simple as looking up what the law says about a given situation. I suggest you find a good rental attorney for your area so you can ask questions when odd situations come up.
Thank you for taking the time to read and understand my question and give a thoughtful response.
For everyone else, I just wanted general experiences. I'm not going to make a decision for another year. I understand the importance of getting quality legal advice, although, it was not purpose of this thread and I never asked for any.
I think I've gotten as much information as I can get here and will move along.
The thread title is not exactly right, but I don't know how to change the title.
I know every state is different, but I'd appreciate some general guidelines.
If a tenant knowingly violates the conditions of a lease, does that negatively reflect on the tenant later when they try to rent elsewhere?
For example, the tenant moves in another person or takes on a pet. You give them a notice to remedy the situation and they do not and, instead, choose to move. Are they still on the hook for the remainder of the (mitigated) lease and any other penalties?
I think the answer is obvious but just want to double check.
I'm considering renting out my house next year and I want to be as prepared as possible. What I know so far:
Always do a criminal background and credit check. < Where do you draw the line on the criminal background and credit check? And where do previous evictions show up? How do you know if a person has given you a fake landlord?
Get an adequate deposit.
Know well the landlord/tenant laws of the state.
File appropriate paperwork immediately if rent is not paid on time, and follow through with all other remedies as soon as possible.
Have a very detailed lease agreement.
Thoroughly documenting, with photos, the condition of the home prior to move-in. And then, again, after.
My recent landlord did twice yearly inspections of the property and I really like that idea. Is this the new thing now? I'd like to include this.
It's better to wait for a good tenant and leave a house sit empty than to rent to a less than desirable tenant just to get it rented.
What else should I be considering?
Hi, Everdeen, welcome to the Land of Snarks!
First of all, let me start by saying I only rented out a house I owned once many moons ago. However, I retired from an apartment manager job last year, with 25 apartments. This is in California.
Managing a rental is not rocket science. People like to go on about how complicated it is, but in my opinion, it's really not. The simpler you think of it, the better, IMO. No need to pay for a lawyer, just get a good book on landlord laws in your state.
This is true for your rental agreements/leases, too. The simpler the better. I used the contracts and forms that come with this book. They are super easy for a tenant to read and understand. They make landlord books for many different states. I suggest you search their site and see if there is one for your state:
I find no need to intimidate tenants with confusing contracts, and it can bite you in the rear later, IMO, if you end up in court because the tenant feels tricked, etc. Judges appreciate a simple, clear document, as well. If your contract is easy to read, and the terms are easy to understand, there will be less problems down the road, in my experience.
As far as a tenant getting evicted, and do they owe you on the rest of the lease? Yes, they do. When you give a tenant a 3 day notice to comply or quit, you are giving the tenant the choice of either breaching the contract and leaving early - or complying. If the tenant chooses to breach the agreement and move out early, you have all of the rights of a landlord whose tenant broke the agreement and moved out early.
In other words, you give a tenant a 3 day notice to get rid of the pit bull or leave. The tenant decides to move out with the pit bull. That tenant now owes you for the rest of the lease (depending on your state laws), or until you find a new tenant - plus, any damage/cleaning, advertising fees, termination fees, etc., that are legal in your state for a breaching tenant.
The owner I worked for preferred month-to-month contracts, and there is a lot to be said about using these instead of year leases. It's easier to get rid of a bad tenant. Just give them 30 days notice. In CA you don't have to say why. I only had to use this a couple of times, and they knew why - usually some BF/GF moved in and they had screaming fights, and couldn't stop even after getting warnings. Same with loud parties.
As far as my experience renting to good tenants - screening is key. There are many services out there. We used one that would run credit and eviction and identity checks. He was too cheap to run background checks for criminal searches. I would do Google searches with their name and addresses I have for them. I would check the Megan's Law website to see if they're a registered sex offender.
What I looked for on the credit report was evidence of someone who manages their money. In other words, no $135 collection accounts for their heating bill, or unpaid cell phone bills, that sort of thing. I played this by ear. I did not have a hard and fast rule about making 2 or 3 times the monthly rent. I can live on nothing, and always pay my rent. Others make a ton of money and can't pay their bills on time. Obviously, more money is good, but I didn't deny someone based on not making 3 times the rent, if they looked like a good gamble.
Checking previous landlords: Ask for a personal check to pay for the application fee, and to see their driver's license to verify they are who they say they are. This will give you 2 addresses to write down. Then, see if either of these addresses shows up on the application they filled out for you. Just gives you more info, in case you need it.
I required tenants to have a bank account in their name. Even immigrants can get one with their passport at Chase Bank. I don't want to deal with anyone who doesn't have a bank account. They either have had banking problems in the past, or are afraid of being levied, or they are too immature to handle their own banking. If they're here illegally, and that's why they can't get a bank account, this is a way to not have to rent to them. Some states say you can't ask about citizenship. But you CAN require all tenants have a bank account.
If they say they don't have a social security number, but they are working, that's a red flag, too. Anyone working in the US has a social security number - even temporary immigrants. You can't run a credit check without a SSN. Students who are here on visas will not have a SSN. I would just get them to get me proof they are a current student, and a copy of their student Visa. I had great luck with international students, so I would rent to them without running their credit. They were the only exception.
Google the address of the previous landlord. If it's an apartment complex, get the phone number from the web site and call them up for a reference - rather than calling the name and number of the person on the application, if different.
Same with employer. Call the HR department, not the name and number of the supervisor they write on the application. Get a copy of their last pay stub - this will show you year to date earnings, and that also gives you a way to see how long they've been working at this job, at least the current year. Just another thing you can use to see if their info is true.
Unfortunately, most corporate landlords won't give you any real information regarding a reference. What they'll usually say is something vague like, "If he qualified, we would rent to him again." But, if you ask them if the tenant fulfilled the lease or was given any warnings or was ever late with payments, you might get that info out of them.
Which is why the credit report and eviction checks are so important. Some stuff will still fall through the cracks, but when you see if they pay their bills, and they were never evicted, and the other stuff all seems to look good and ring true, you've probably got a winner.
If a prospective tenant is late for an appointment with me, or doesn't follow through like they say they will, I do not rent to them. End of story. They will definitely be a problem tenant.
I also like to see who they bring with them to see the apartment. Is it a woman whose boyfriend won't let her talk and wants to do all the talking to me, even though he won't be on the lease? No way, Jose. Or someone brings their mother who also does all the talking - no way. I want to deal with the tenant ONLY. If the tenant is not adult enough or responsible enough to understand a contract with me, forget it. Bringing a friend to help them decide is a different story. This also gives you an opportunity to see what kind of friends they have. Is the friend rude and dismissive? Loud? This person will be on your property possibly bothering your other tenants.
Are they picky? Do they ask if you'll do things that sound ridiculous? Like, "I don't like those kinds of curtains. Will you install some room darkening blinds for me?" "Will you move that rod in the closet to the other side?" Don't rent to this person, unless you want to be hounded over stupid small stuff constantly.
Do they smell of smoke? You can bet that a smoker will end up smoking in your building when it's too cold to go outside - even if the rules say no smoking inside.
And remember, that there are very few things that you cannot discriminate for. Your job is to discriminate. You can deny someone based on the fact that you found them to be rude, or smelled of smoke, or had obnoxious friends, or because they didn't fill out the application completely or honestly, or were late to an appointment with you, etc., etc. None of those are protected classes under the law. If they start screaming about discrimination, just say it's not against the law to discriminate against people who smell like smoke, etc.
These are just some things I learned to do over the 8 years I managed that 25 unit building (SF Bay Area).
And, yes, unless you are desperate for money, it's definitely better to leave a unit empty until you find a tenant you feel good about.
The twice-yearly inspections are good, too. Ours were very quick and non-intrusive. We'd go in and check the smoke detector battery, look at the plumbing to see if there were leaks, if the toilet was running, ask if anything needed to be repaired, and out the door we went.
Good luck to you. You have some laws to learn, but it's not rocket science. Get a good tenant in there, and you will have minimal problems. And if you fell asleep before you got all the way to this point, I will not take it personally...
Last edited by NoMoreSnowForMe; 12-19-2014 at 10:32 PM..
It seemed a bit fantastic that there was no remedy for a landlord should a breach by the other party happen.
The 'remedy' is a 'quit notice,' 'an eviction (by a sheriff if necessary),' and a 'judgement.' You can follow up a judgement with further collection or legal action to get paid if you think the tenants have assets.
I am not looking to be punitive. There should be some avenue for redress on the injured party which, in this case, would be the landlord. Redress, by its nature, is punitive.
You aren't looking to be punitive yet you want redress. Do you know the meaning of oxymoron?
You asked repeatedly why the tenant should not be held liable for the remainder of the lease when a landlord gives the tenant the option of ending the lease: cure or QUIT! and you have harped on that issue claiming landlord is an injured party. Sorry, that's the nature of landlording. You get the benefits of someone paying the mortgage on your property so you accept the risks involved. You are still benefiting by the months the tenant has paid.
Some people aren't satisfied with eating the cake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe
No need to pay for a lawyer, just get a good book on landlord laws in your state.
This is true for your rental agreements/leases, too. The simpler the better. I used the contracts and forms that come with this book. They are super easy for a tenant to read and understand. They make landlord books for many different states. I suggest you search their site and see if there is one for your state:
I find no need to intimidate tenants with confusing contracts, and it can bite you in the rear later, IMO, if you end up in court because the tenant feels tricked, etc. Judges appreciate a simple, clear document, as well. If your contract is easy to read, and the terms are easy to understand, there will be less problems down the road, in my experience.
As far as a tenant getting evicted, and do they owe you on the rest of the lease? Yes, they do. When you give a tenant a 3 day notice to comply or quit, you are giving the tenant the choice of either breaching the contract and leaving early - or complying. If the tenant chooses to breach the agreement and move out early, you have all of the rights of a landlord whose tenant broke the agreement and moved out early.
In other words, you give a tenant a 3 day notice to get rid of the pit bull or leave. The tenant decides to move out with the pit bull. That tenant now owes you for the rest of the lease (depending on your state laws), or until you find a new tenant - plus, any damage/cleaning, advertising fees, termination fees, etc., that are legal in your state for a breaching tenant.
I totally disagree with this and obviously so do others: cure or quit you give the tenant a choice whether to stop the violation or to leave the premises. PERIOD. You don't say or leave the premises and still owe rent. For one thing, it makes no sense. As a tenant faced with that choice, I'd choose NEITHER. You want me out but then you want to make me keep paying? hahaha. If I have to pay rent, I'm staying - and the cure? nope, make me.
[quote]
You aren't looking to be punitive yet you want redress. Do you know the meaning of oxymoron?
You asked repeatedly why the tenant should not be held liable for the remainder of the lease when a landlord gives the tenant the option of ending the lease: cure or QUIT! and you have harped on that issue claiming landlord is an injured party. Sorry, that's the nature of landlording. You get the benefits of someone paying the mortgage on your property so you accept the risks involved. You are still benefiting by the months the tenant has paid.
Some people aren't satisfied with eating the cake.
I totally disagree with this and obviously so do others: cure or quit you give the tenant a choice whether to stop the violation or to leave the premises. PERIOD. You don't say or leave the premises and still owe rent. For one thing, it makes no sense. As a tenant faced with that choice, I'd choose NEITHER. You want me out but then you want to make me keep paying? hahaha. If I have to pay rent, I'm staying - and the cure? nope, make me.
My my, such anger.
Being made whole, and being punitive are, in fact, two separate things.
Disagreeing with me doesn't make me wrong. Look it up.
If a tenant is accused of violating a lease provision, the tenant should review the lease to see if the accusation is true. If the tenant is in violation of the lease, the tenant should consider either correcting the violation, or consulting with the landlord about obtaining an exception or about the possibility of being released from the lease and moving. Please note that if you are violating a lease, the landlord can evict you and still charge you rent for the period following your eviction, up to the point in time when either the lease expires or a replacement tenant can be found.
And yet, there are plenty of opinions which believe that eviction is an end to the contract as the tenant is no longer renting/living in the premises and therefore the agreement/contract is now null due to the actions of both the tenant and the landlord: the tenant in violating the contract and the landlord in exercising the right of eviction.
Although it's been many years since I worked in this area, I think a landlord would be hard-pressed to find a judge willing to charge the now former tenant for the remainder of the lease being that it was the landlord who insisted the tenant move out. It is MY opinion that a particular judge might charge a former tenant with some time for the landlord to re-rent the premises but charging the tenant for the entire remainder of the lease is not going to happen. The landlord must attempt to mitigate damages but there is a prevailing thought that the landlord chose to issue a cure or quit, not a cure alone notice and the tenant chose the latter option. The premise now being that the lease/contract is not in effect due to the actions/choice of both parties.
To wit:
Second, cure or quit notices are generally mailed out when a tenant does something wrong or violates a term of the lease agreement. These are often mailed out if a tenant brings in a pet that is specifically not allowed under the terms of the rental contract, or fails to maintain the property in a state acceptable under the contract. Like a pay rent or quit notice, these notices generally provide a tenant a short amount of time in which to cure the defect or else face eviction - See more at: Rules for Landlords and Property Managers when Evicting a Tenant - FindLaw
State laws set out very detailed requirements to end a tenancy. Different types of termination notices are required for different types of situations, and each state has its own procedures as to how termination notices and eviction papers must be written and delivered ("served").
Our rental attorney drew up our eviction notice for us. In it, he included the following wording:
Quote:
You are further advised that if you fail to pay the rent or deliver possession of the property as required by this Notice, upon the expiration of the specified three (3) days or pay the rent, an application to the Court pursuant to Idaho Code, Title 6, Chapter 3, for a Writ of Restitution of the property described as [address] will be made. An award of attorney’s fees, court costs and other expenses will be awarded against you. Be advised that under Idaho law, surrender of possession of the property does not release your obligation for payment of the rent now due and owing.
Also, if eviction proceedings are initiated, this lease shall not be automatically terminated. If you intend to terminate this lease, you are still obligated to give a 30 day prior written notice. If you fail to give a 30 day written notice before vacating the premises, you shall still owe 30 days of rent or until re-rented, whichever occurs first.
To me, that pretty clearly says that, in Idaho at least, you can charge them up to 30 days worth of rent if it takes longer than that to rerent, but not more than that, and definitely not the remainder of the lease. We disagreed with even that much, and deleted the last paragraph from our notices we serve, so all they owe is for the time they are actually living at the house. An argument could easily be made that you could also charge rent for a reasonable amount of time to make the place "rent ready" again, especially if they trashed it.
But in almost all cases, if you evict, it is because the person has no money, so you aren't going to see any payments anyway, so whether you can charge for them is sort of a moot point.
Last edited by Lacerta; 12-22-2014 at 10:19 AM..
Reason: I hate the font changes caused when I copy/paste
To me, that pretty clearly says that, in Idaho at least, you can charge them...
Really? I didn't read it that way.
To my ear, that "obligation for payment of the rent now due and owing" describes only rent currently
in arrears and any additional time until they actually "deliver possession".
Quote:
But in almost all cases, if you evict, it is because the person has no money, so you aren't
going to see any payments anyway, so whether you can charge for them is sort of a moot point.
^^DingDing the underlying and most important point.
Really? I didn't read it that way.
To my ear, that "obligation for payment of the rent now due and owing" describes only rent currently
in arrears and any additional time until they actually "deliver possession".
Yes, the part you put quotes around does say exactly what you just said, but the 2nd paragraph clearly states that we could charge for 30 days after the eviction is finalized, or until we put a new tenant in, whichever is sooner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
