Moving back to Gilbert, how NOT to get screwed on a rental home?

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

The landlord has still has the right to collect rent during the default period, unless the lease says otherwise.

They can still evict the tenant for nonpayment if the tenant stops paying rent, even though everyone knows the landlord is pocketing the rent & stealing the deposit - unless the lease says otherwise!..

They are interesting points.

Looking at it from the landlord point of view. I'm fairly certain that most would never agree to the tenant not making rent payments when in a default period.

The person in default has until the TS to make all the back payments and stop foreclosure. It could be a temporary problem that caused them to get the NOTS and they are working to get caught up. If the tenant is allowed to live without making payments, then it could be more difficult to get caught up.

Anytime one wants to negotiate a term, they need to consider the other persons needs also, and make sure the term is going to have a benefit for both, otherwise there is no chance of making a deal.

When faced with a clause that allows a tenant to live rent free, I think most landlords would refuse, and their agents would advise them to refuse.

I do not support the practice of a landlord not making mortgage payments, and I cannot support the practice of tenants not making payments either.

The tenant and their agents, in today's foreclosure society, have to do the best research they can, and hope that a foreclosure does not happen.

The government has put into place a law that gives some protection to the tenant.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

They are interesting points.

Looking at it from the landlord point of view. I'm fairly certain that most would never agree to the tenant not making rent payments when in a default period.

The person in default has until the TS to make all the back payments and stop foreclosure. It could be a temporary problem that caused them to get the NOTS and they are working to get caught up. If the tenant is allowed to live without making payments, then it could be more difficult to get caught up.

Anytime one wants to negotiate a term, they need to consider the other persons needs also, and make sure the term is going to have a benefit for both, otherwise there is no chance of making a deal.

When faced with a clause that allows a tenant to live rent free, I think most landlords would refuse, and their agents would advise them to refuse.

I do not support the practice of a landlord not making mortgage payments, and I cannot support the practice of tenants not making payments either.

The tenant and their agents, in today's foreclosure society, have to do the best research they can, and hope that a foreclosure does not happen.

The government has put into place a law that gives some protection to the tenant.

Captain Bill, it's been established pretty well that you are honest & ethical, but tens of thousands of landlords in Phoenix have skimmed rent money, stiffed federally-insured banks of loan payments, and stolen (no other word fits!) tenant's security deposits over the past couple of years.

While it is possible to "cure" a default, 96% of the time, in Phoenix, the landlord is pocketing the rent and stiffing a taxpayer-insured bank. Escrowing any future rent monies is a reasonable solution to make sure the tenant is financially able to move on short notice & recover their security deposit.

A landlord who has a property that rents for more than the mortgage payment isn't going to be scared of a default provision - they have no intention of defaulting. A landlord who owns a property free and clear isn't going to be scared of a default provision.

Landlord-Tenant law in Arizona is heavily skewed in favor of the landlord - which is fine under normal circumstances, but in this environment - it's ripe for abuse.

Asking a tenant to "play fair" and continue writing checks to a known deadbeat is a perversion of the law that needs to be corrected.

Given a choice, I think "tar-and-feathers" would be too good for these dirtbags, but you use the tools you have available...

In the meantime, I think realtors have a duty under the "fair-dealing" doctrine to ensure any tenant they bring to a landlord is protected from the very real damage caused by deadbeat landlords.

[adreana]

Great posts Zippyman. Also liked that you pointed out that one doesn't need to rely on a realtor for many of these kinds of things.

Adreana

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

Captain Bill, it's been established pretty well that you are honest & ethical, but tens of thousands of landlords in Phoenix have skimmed rent money, stiffed federally-insured banks of loan payments, and stolen (no other word fits!) tenant's security deposits over the past couple of years.

While it is possible to "cure" a default, 96% of the time, in Phoenix, the landlord is pocketing the rent and stiffing a taxpayer-insured bank. Escrowing any future rent monies is a reasonable solution to make sure the tenant is financially able to move on short notice & recover their security deposit.

A landlord who has a property that rents for more than the mortgage payment isn't going to be scared of a default provision - they have no intention of defaulting. A landlord who owns a property free and clear isn't going to be scared of a default provision.

Landlord-Tenant law in Arizona is heavily skewed in favor of the landlord - which is fine under normal circumstances, but in this environment - it's ripe for abuse.

Asking a tenant to "play fair" and continue writing checks to a known deadbeat is a perversion of the law that needs to be corrected.

Given a choice, I think "tar-and-feathers" would be too good for these dirtbags, but you use the tools you have available...

In the meantime, I think realtors have a duty under the "fair-dealing" doctrine to ensure any tenant they bring to a landlord is protected from the very real damage caused by deadbeat landlords.

Thanks Zippyman. And I agree with you that there have been many deadbeat landlords, and will be more, and I also agree that Realtors must do what they can to help the tenants.

However, I can't write a clause that would protect a tenant against the possibility of a landlord bailing out and running off with the money. If I tried, it could give a tenant a false sense of security because it would probably have no teeth. Then I could become responsible if the tenant has a loss, because the language that I'm trying to use could be construed as being beyond the standard of care that I am qualified for.

We're authorized to write contracts and clauses, but this type of clause, in my opinion, would not be something that a Realtor would be qualified to write.

Any clause of that nature should be written by an attorney, not a Realtor.

The best we can do as Realtors is to help with the research and get a good feel from the listing agent as to who the landlord is; how long they've worked with them. They cannot give any financial information if they have it because that would be confidential.

And lastly, to advise the renter to consult with an attorney.

I wish Realtors could do more, but I don't see where we can.

I don't work with renters because I don't have the time. However, I do help clients who are going to be buying through me find a rental. Recently I helped a client find one, and I went through the same research process and questioned the listing agent. She personally knew the owner and had listed his property for years, and expressed that she was confident that this person would never be a dead beat landlord.

I'm also in agreement with the "tar and feathers" solution.

[kjcramer]

Wow, there's a lot more to consider than I thought.