U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-10-2017, 08:37 PM
 
1,675 posts, read 784,849 times
Reputation: 2849

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat View Post
A landlord goes to court and obtains what is called a "money judgment" for monies owed. He can do this even after the tenant has abandoned the property or been evicted. His wages at his next job can be garnished to satisfy the judgment.
It depends on the state, and for sure not in Texas. There is no garnishment allowed for debt. Just child/spousal support, student loans and taxes. Money judgements are only enforceable against non-exempt assets, and most people with judgements against them only have exempt assets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2017, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,121 posts, read 22,978,628 times
Reputation: 35305
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyDogToday View Post
I have been looking at local ads lately and I am seeing something I've never seen before: owners of houses and apartments stating that they do not rent to retired tenants on SS or pensions because they cannot garnish wages should they fail to pay rent.
They also mention not renting to self-employed or people working multiple part-time jobs. Only full time workers. One even wants employer references detailing job security. I think that is particularly ridiculous.
But regarding retirees, I would rather rent to someone who has guaranteed monthly income like SS or a pension rather than someone who could be fired or laid off. No guarantees there of payment as one can lose their job at any time.
Anyway, I feel this is age discrimination and I was shocked to see a prejudice against renting to someone who is retired on SS and/or a pension.
Have you seen this? What do you think?
Have not seen this in CA. Not sure if it's only a CA law, but in CA it's not legal to discriminate based on source of income. So, would not be legal here.

I don't see how you can bring up this discussion without it becoming a legal discussion. What you've brought up is discrimination - which is a legal matter. So getting irritated by people who want to discuss the legal discrimination issue - is kind of unreasonable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,121 posts, read 22,978,628 times
Reputation: 35305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
You make an excellent point there. My only quibble would be to say that a rational landlord is going to look at the amount of SS income as it compares to the amount of the monthly rent to see whether it is a "tight squeeze" for that particular prospective tenant. The ideal tenant would not find it a tight squeeze to pay the rent every month.


But your general point is valid. While there is no absolute sure thing in this world, SS income is about as sure as it gets.
Exactly. Any landlord who is looking at how to screen tenants based on who they can collect from, is really bad at screening up front.

Even landlords who accept Section 8 tenants can screen as stringently as they want to, as long as it's within the law. Which includes, being able to set a minimum credit score, verifiable dependable income history, employment history, good verifiable landlord references, personal references, criminal checks, eviction checks, credit checks. PLUS, they can ask for the maximum security deposits allowed - which are not subsidized for Section 8 tenants.

For instance, I'm now a Section 8 senior, and the place I moved into in May required me to prove all of the above plus come up with 1 month's market rent for my deposit of $1264 out of my pocket. If my credit had been iffy, but they would have been willing to take a chance anyway, they could have legally asked for twice that.

So, any landlord who is screening out people based on who they might not be able to collect from, is doing their screening back as*wards. The place to hedge your bets is up front, with people who obviously care about their credit reports and reputation and references, etc.

My guess, is that wherever the OP is, the landlords are trying to avoid Section 8 tenants. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. And what they often don't realize, is that they just have to have tough criteria for all applicants, which can be applied the same way to Section 8 tenants, which will screen out most Section 8 applicants. For instance, if you have a criteria of a credit score of at least 750 for all tenants, you won't likely have to worry about Section 8 applicants or anyone else you won't be able to collect from. But, they probably just don't know what they're doing, and there aren't any advocacy fair housing groups harassing them over it, like there would be here in the SF Bay Area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Planet Woof
3,139 posts, read 3,510,190 times
Reputation: 9889
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Have not seen this in CA. Not sure if it's only a CA law, but in CA it's not legal to discriminate based on source of income. So, would not be legal here.

I don't see how you can bring up this discussion without it becoming a legal discussion. What you've brought up is discrimination - which is a legal matter. So getting irritated by people who want to discuss the legal discrimination issue - is kind of unreasonable.
I wasn't irritated. Just did not want the issue shut down as if it's all black and white and hinder discussion. Yes, it's discrimination but if there are no laws on the books it isn't "illegal". Unethical maybe, but illegal probably not. And maybe it should be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 12:10 AM
Status: "Re-edit status" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
4,181 posts, read 1,903,923 times
Reputation: 3211
We (retired), few years ago, were investigating renting a place in Seattle near DS's home.
We would have been declined since we were only on SS and small pension but a lot of deferred annuities and owned home.
A year later we received an inheritance. We this time we looked into getting a investment rental. We discovered that we would have difficulty in obtaining a 70% loan. So we paid cash for the property (Seattle, near Amazon Hdqr).
This year we decided to buy our downsize home in the Seattle area. Found an ideal place, paid 22% over asking beating out 15 others. Mortgage wanted 40% downpay with 4.8% apr to qualify for conforming loan requirements, Debt to Income ratio was our hurdle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 12:22 AM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
22,612 posts, read 39,986,663 times
Reputation: 23754
Tell them you have an 'emotional support companion animal', That clause displaced all my senior tenants this yr (who had enjoyed a GREAT, safe, cheap place during my years of ownership.)

'Companion' animal permits (with Dr orders) can be had for FREE on the internet, and they are excluded from ANY 'pet' rules.

Some foolish rules and 'entitled' tenants make life miserable for landlords (and other tenants) so I had no choice but to sell a great place for a great bargain, and ALL my 'senior' tenants were displaced.

Boo-Hoo

Back to the drawing board / plan C

good luck (to landlords and tenants)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 04:38 AM
 
11,137 posts, read 8,548,081 times
Reputation: 28133
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyDogToday View Post
I have been looking at local ads lately and I am seeing something I've never seen before: owners of houses and apartments stating that they do not rent to retired tenants on SS or pensions because they cannot garnish wages should they fail to pay rent.
They also mention not renting to self-employed or people working multiple part-time jobs. Only full time workers. One even wants employer references detailing job security. I think that is particularly ridiculous.
But regarding retirees, I would rather rent to someone who has guaranteed monthly income like SS or a pension rather than someone who could be fired or laid off. No guarantees there of payment as one can lose their job at any time.
Anyway, I feel this is age discrimination and I was shocked to see a prejudice against renting to someone who is retired on SS and/or a pension.
Have you seen this? What do you think?
Have links to any of these ads? Some of them sound real wordy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 06:41 AM
 
7,982 posts, read 11,667,446 times
Reputation: 10473
Quote:
Originally Posted by leastprime View Post
We (retired), few years ago, were investigating renting a place in Seattle near DS's home.
We would have been declined since we were only on SS and small pension but a lot of deferred annuities and owned home.
So a first hand account. That's crazy, what are retirees supposed to do? Not sure where I'd live in them mean time but if I got turned down because I was retired on SS or pension I'd be visiting my senator. No no, I'd get a tent and camp out in front of my senators home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 07:19 AM
 
11,137 posts, read 8,548,081 times
Reputation: 28133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giesela View Post
So a first hand account. That's crazy, what are retirees supposed to do? Not sure where I'd live in them mean time but if I got turned down because I was retired on SS or pension I'd be visiting my senator. No no, I'd get a tent and camp out in front of my senators home.
Why? Landlords have income requirements. Most times, the source doesn't matter. I just rented a place and I was required to have a minimum monthly income of $3600. Would those on SS only be able to show that much regular income? Having a home and investments don't matter since they are not considered income. If one wants to tout homes and investments, then convert some of them to cash and pay the entire lease upfront.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 07:24 AM
 
210 posts, read 151,082 times
Reputation: 628
When I retired in 2010 I bought my retirement home in WA using a PenFed ARM. I asked them if I could do this and pay off the loan after my house in MD sold. They agreed. So I was "pre-approved". What followed surprised me at first. Yes, we had several times the money to buy the house outright but most was tied up in retirement accounts. These didn't count since they were protected. All we really had was our pensions and Social Security. I think the bank account balances counted too. We had an easier time securing a loan right after we finished school and were working at our first jobs. Not even our almost perfect credit scores seemed to count for much. Retirement money of all types doesn't seem to hold the weight that work salaries do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top