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.
Thanks everyone this is very helpful. Especially the below! I will add e-cigs to my smoking policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Manager
Add who changes light bulbs, batteries in smoke detectors, and air filters because tenants will expect you to rush over and change the light bulbs if you don't. Also a solid no smoking policy that includes e-cigs and prohibits smoking on the premises not just in the dwelling. There has been some evidence to suggest that the vapor will discolor things so you want to avoid that happening.
You should also have a section that makes the tenant responsible for knowing the local rules and laws, think HOA rules here if you have them, and requires them to follow those rules and laws. This will encompass so many things it will make your life easier; like weeds in a non-HOA community that I seem to have some problems with on one rental. It allows me to cite the law governing weeds and issue cure or quit notices on it among other things.
When I started 10 years ago my lease was 3 pages and has increased to 7 with a smaller font and margins. I seem to add or change something in it every year because of something that happens.
Add who changes light bulbs, batteries in smoke detectors, and air filters because tenants will expect you to rush over and change the light bulbs if you don't.
Yes ^^^
I have a tenant now who is saving burned out light bulbs, so that I can replace them . Tenant is being evicted.
Thanks everyone this is very helpful. Especially the below! I will add e-cigs to my smoking policy.
I would think long and hard about doing that. Not only would it be damn near impossible to act on unless you catch them in the act, but it's questionable if such a lease provision would be enforceable.
I would think long and hard about doing that. Not only would it be damn near impossible to act on unless you catch them in the act, but it's questionable if such a lease provision would be enforceable.
Generally speaking, tenants are given wide latitude to use their rentals just as a home owner would under the idea of quiet enjoyment. For a landlord to limit this use generally requires a real, objective need. It's pretty debatable if a court would find the banning of e-cigarettes to fit that criteria given that there is no measurable harm to the landlord or the premises by their use.
Simply put, I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig for the case law if I were a landlord.
Generally speaking, tenants are given wide latitude to use their rentals just as a home owner would under the idea of quiet enjoyment. For a landlord to limit this use generally requires a real, objective need. It's pretty debatable if a court would find the banning of e-cigarettes to fit that criteria given that there is no measurable harm to the landlord or the premises by their use.
Simply put, I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig for the case law if I were a landlord.
I wouldn't worry the slightest about it. From a HUD doc released in 2014, and they have been pushing aggressive smoke free rules for years. They just had an open comment period on making all public housing smoke free that ended in January, I do not believe they issued a final ruling yet.
Quote:
Smoke-Free Policies Are Legal
Smoke-free policies are legal, do not unlawfully discriminate against residents who smoke, and do not violate residents’ privacy rights. As of the date of this publication, no organization that has implemented smoke-free housing has faced a legal challenge.
Smokers are not a protected class and do not have any special legal status. Smoking is a public health issue, and smoke-free policies are not discriminatory because they do not prohibit anyone from renting a unit. They merely set rules as to what activities are permitted on the property.
I wouldn't worry the slightest about it. From a HUD doc released in 2014, and they have been pushing aggressive smoke free rules for years. They just had an open comment period on making all public housing smoke free that ended in January, I do not believe they issued a final ruling yet.
I think it's pointless because e-cigs don't "damage" anything.
I wouldn't worry the slightest about it. From a HUD doc released in 2014, and they have been pushing aggressive smoke free rules for years. They just had an open comment period on making all public housing smoke free that ended in January, I do not believe they issued a final ruling yet.
What HUD does has little to no bearing on the opinion of courts though. Also, cigarette smoke emits a tar like residue that sticks to walls and furnishing and is also a fire risk, so it satisfies the objective need criteria that a court would be likely to apply. Since neither of those issues is present with an e-cigarette, a landlord would have a pretty tough time defending that in front of a judge.
Moving beyond that though, how would a landlord ever enforce it? From a practical standpoint it's pretty much a lost cause.
I just want to mention that doing really good tenant screening is what will help you avoid problems, much more so than a lease telling people what they can't do. You have to start out with a tenant who is just not likely to do anything crazy or damaging. And if you start out with someone who will damage your property, they aren't going to care what's in the lease.
My point being that screening is most important to avoid problems.
What I learned that I'd do in the future, is add a clause requiring renters insurance, and specifically require their policy include a loss of use rider. This is the one thing that will save you headaches if a tenant has to be moved out because of flooding or whatever. They will look to you to pay for their hotel bill.
And, even if you put in your lease that you're not responsible for any costs for displacement, other than reimbursing them for their actual rent amount for those days, and you're not responsible for the damage to their things, and even if you look them in the eye and explain it before they sign it - they will probably not get insurance, if it's not required.
So, when their apartment floods because of a back-up from upstairs, and they have to move out for a few days, and their stuff is wrecked, and they are freaking out when you tell them you aren't responsible - you would be able to tell them that that is what the loss of use rider pays for that you required, so all they have to do is call their insurance company.
Been there. It's not a fun conversation to have, if they need to move out while you fix the unit, and they don't have insurance.
I think it's pointless because e-cigs don't "damage" anything.
Fact and opinion are two different things and until the facts are in I wont risk exposing future tenants or my workers to it. Facts around e-cigs are uncertain but what has come out through research is that second hand emissions (second hand smoke) contain formaldehyde, benzene, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are all carcinogens but they also produce other toxins. Some flavoring ingredients are also known to cause lung disease. Just because you can't see the damage doesn't mean it isn't there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II
What HUD does has little to no bearing on the opinion of courts though. Also, cigarette smoke emits a tar like residue that sticks to walls and furnishing and is also a fire risk, so it satisfies the objective need criteria that a court would be likely to apply. Since neither of those issues is present with an e-cigarette, a landlord would have a pretty tough time defending that in front of a judge.
Moving beyond that though, how would a landlord ever enforce it? From a practical standpoint it's pretty much a lost cause.
The issue with cigarette smoke isn't the tar. Simply put you evict and the precedence is already set for you regarding no-smoking enforcement. It is a nuisance and public health issue and the courts have already taken up cases on it. Even worse, as a LL, it is a habitability issue and a breach of quiet enjoyment when neighbors are smoking and you do nothing to address it, assuming the unit is either a multi-housing unit or in an HOA. Furthermore if you don't act you can become liable for your other/future tenant/employee health problems caused by the exposure to second hand smoke that may arise due to your inaction.
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.
. Tenant is being evicted.
