House Lease Form: Is this NORMAL? (Tucson: leases, houses, buy)

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by jaredC

Yea but here's the thing. Do you want to rent from a landlord that is trying to levy a lease on his/her terms over the tenant? It means you would have to fight that landlord on EVERYTHING! Yea, the law might be on your side, but it can get old fighting the landlord each and every time. It completely ruins and sours the experience. Do yourself a favor, keep looking. You WILL find a reasonable lease out there. Renters already have it pretty bad, don't make it worse for yourself by intentionally allowing a landlord to word a lease in their favor.

This is kind of weird. Here in Las Vegas it is a standard fill in the blank clause in the lease. You don't have to do it but virtually everyone does. So if you wish to rent a nicer house...you really don't have a choice. You can of course find an apartment complex or a property manager place without that clause...but for other reasons these are the places I advise my renter clients to avoid.

So apparently the nice places are all run by the bad LLs. Nah...that is not how it works.

I think some of these folks are too smart for their own good. Out of the fryng pan into the fire.

[AZ Manager]

Originally Posted by lvoc

This is kind of weird. Here in Las Vegas it is a standard fill in the blank clause in the lease. You don't have to do it but virtually everyone does. So if you wish to rent a nicer house...you really don't have a choice. You can of course find an apartment complex or a property manager place without that clause...but for other reasons these are the places I advise my renter clients to avoid.

So apparently the nice places are all run by the bad LLs. Nah...that is not how it works.

I think some of these folks are too smart for their own good. Out of the fryng pan into the fire.

Just because it is common doesn't mean it is right or even good business on the landlords end. Small problems get avoided when you try to get tenants to help pay maintenance which then turn into big problems. Cheap and lazy landlords try to stiff tenants with repair costs simple as that.

#1 is the only item that concerns me with your list as the rest are pretty common here. Early termination fees are pretty standard though yours doesn't release you from the lease so I would be careful with that, my fee is 1.5 times the rent but it releases from the lease. I wouldn't be surprised if you were also being charged an extra % management fee every month too.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by ScottsdaleMark

Interesting...Do you really trust tenants to correctly and safely do...well, anything?.

No, it`s not their property and if a repair call is going to cost them $75 they may not call and the problem continues to get worse.

Better to have them call and let me get the work done.

Yet, it`s a two-way street. I do my best to ensure the property is maintained in good condition and I expect the rent to be paid on time. Also if there are any weird calls like the "smell of mold" or the tenants complain about having to waited 5-days (which is allows by law) for a say an AC part to be shipped then I don`t renew their lease.

I`m not out to rip anyone off and return calls as soon as possible. However, if renters won`t accept that a repair can`t always be fixed in 24-hours then perhaps it`s best we part ways. I always run everything by a RE attorney to be sure what I do is in occurrence with the law.

(I own a rental home in San Francisco and you best believe I`ve learned you can`t be sloppy. SF is the exact opposite of the PHX metro. In SF renters pretty much call the shots. Check out this new ordnance:
http://www.smallprop.org/newsletter/...nature_111.htm)

[BjornT]

Originally Posted by AZ Manager

I wouldn't be surprised if you were also being charged an extra % management fee every month too.

The broker explained that the $200 admin fee was their way up being upfront about the charge, rather than adding it in to the monthly fee.

Still, pretty weird. I've rented in Idaho, New Mexico, and California, and the rent was always the rent, no tax, no fees other than the damage deposit (not really a fee).

Hey, if I don't like it, I can always move somewhere else, right? I'm all for a free market. If ever the fees get to be too much, an enterprising property manager can always advertise "No extra fees!" and attract business that way. A couple of percent less each month beats an entire non-leased month.

[Roger427]

Originally Posted by jaredC

When I was looking at renting another house a couple of years ago, I came across a few landlords that had those " tenant covers first $75 of each and every repair unless it's something like water heater and a/c". I walked away from those minefields. It pretty much dismisses liability of maintenance for the landlord, financially. I wouldn't rent from someone like that.

It's for the home warranty. The LL has a home warranty and the deductible is $75. If the LL doesn't have that provision and you get a nut job renter who calls every week, it adds up fast. There are those nut jobs and they are common. Don't ask me how I know..

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by Roger427

It's for the home warranty. The LL has a home warranty and the deductible is $75. If the LL doesn't have that provision and you get a nut job renter who calls every week, it adds up fast. There are those nut jobs and they are common. Don't ask me how I know..

Yeah, but that's really a cost of doing business - if they're calling for light bulbs, your lease is written wrong (I have an exclusion in mine that covers batteries, bulbs & filters). Other than that, things like appliances, rather than getting burned doing multiple repairs on washers / dryers & fridges, most experienced landlords don't include them in the lease. If you want to attract a tenant who might not have a fridge/washer or dryer, hey, there's appliances in the garage, the tenant is welcome to use them till the appliances die for $0, and the landlord can call the scrap guys to pick them up whenever the tenant wants. I don't want a tenant thinking they can "save" $75 by doing their own repairs or hiring an unlicensed contractor to work on my house.

The whole idea of a home warranty being a substitute for a property manager who actually gets repairs done is bad for all parties involved. If a tenant burns up my phone for minor repairs, their lease just doesn't get renewed. After the first year, I've let my leases go month-to-month. Better for the tenant if they decide to move or buy a place & better for me if they decide to start nickel & diming me on repairs, because they can be booted in 30 days.

[jaredC]

Originally Posted by lvoc

This is kind of weird. Here in Las Vegas it is a standard fill in the blank clause in the lease. You don't have to do it but virtually everyone does. So if you wish to rent a nicer house...you really don't have a choice. You can of course find an apartment complex or a property manager place without that clause...but for other reasons these are the places I advise my renter clients to avoid.

So apparently the nice places are all run by the bad LLs. Nah...that is not how it works.

I think some of these folks are too smart for their own good. Out of the fryng pan into the fire.

Hey, if it works out for you to impose a fee for your appliances breaking, then good on you. I would think, that if one had a clause that imposes the $75 tenant responsibility for any repairs, then said tenant would be hesitant on calling in those repairs. I know I would. Take my current property I am renting. Our backyard gate has broken several times. It's not my fault the gate hinges fall out of the wall. It's the landlords fault for not using the proper materials to fasten that gate to the brick wall. Now, as a tenant that is to pay the first $75 for each and every time that gate comes off the wall, after the first three attempts at the landlord to temporarily "fix" that gate, I would just stop calling it in. I'd also be pretty upset that I, the tenant, am paying $75 for the landlord to continue fleecing me.

[jaredC]

Originally Posted by Roger427

It's for the home warranty. The LL has a home warranty and the deductible is $75. If the LL doesn't have that provision and you get a nut job renter who calls every week, it adds up fast. There are those nut jobs and they are common. Don't ask me how I know..

Well, hmm, as a tenant, that's not really my problem. That is the cost of doing business isn't it?

[mzbk2l]

Originally Posted by jaredC

Hey, if it works out for you to impose a fee for your appliances breaking, then good on you. I would think, that if one had a clause that imposes the $75 tenant responsibility for any repairs, then said tenant would be hesitant on calling in those repairs. I know I would. Take my current property I am renting. Our backyard gate has broken several times. It's not my fault the gate hinges fall out of the wall. It's the landlords fault for not using the proper materials to fasten that gate to the brick wall. Now, as a tenant that is to pay the first $75 for each and every time that gate comes off the wall, after the first three attempts at the landlord to temporarily "fix" that gate, I would just stop calling it in. I'd also be pretty upset that I, the tenant, am paying $75 for the landlord to continue fleecing me.

Too true.

I rent out three condos and a house, and I'd much rather get the call as soon as something goes wrong so I can fix it or call in a repair before it becomes a problem.

The last tenants in the house delayed calling in the slight leak they saw on the front of the water heater, and now I have to replace hardwood floors, baseboard, and closet walls where the water running down the back side of the water heater soaked through the garage wall and into the house.

They didn't get renewed.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by jaredC

Hey, if it works out for you to impose a fee for your appliances breaking, then good on you. I would think, that if one had a clause that imposes the $75 tenant responsibility for any repairs, then said tenant would be hesitant on calling in those repairs. I know I would. Take my current property I am renting. Our backyard gate has broken several times. It's not my fault the gate hinges fall out of the wall. It's the landlords fault for not using the proper materials to fasten that gate to the brick wall. Now, as a tenant that is to pay the first $75 for each and every time that gate comes off the wall, after the first three attempts at the landlord to temporarily "fix" that gate, I would just stop calling it in. I'd also be pretty upset that I, the tenant, am paying $75 for the landlord to continue fleecing me.

I believe $75 to be too high of a burden personally. That I agree. A small nominal fee? I don't see the issue, I charge $50, two of my homes have had the same tenants for 3 years now.

It costs me more than $50 to either get myself to the house, or call my handyman to address the issue, it also removes the likelihood that the tenants will call me about simple issues like light bulbs or cheap simple fixes.

Maybe it varies by house? The homes I own, and am discussing, are old and have all sorts of minor issues coming up. You could own a house in this area and have the entire burden of maintenance, or you could put $50 down, call your LL and say the fridge is broken, have the LL send his handyman to assess it and have it fixed in a few days. This is true of large issues, think an AC, AC goes out, $50 is less than a service call if you owned the house. For $50 the entire issue resolves itself when you call.

Most people renting, not all, don't know how to do home maintenance in the first place and probably won't attempt it for losing their deposits.