Community Chat

[Irshgrl31201]

On 8/6/2014 Dagna said:

On 8/6/2014 CardinalGirl_ said:

On 8/6/2014 TheKingsMistress said:

On 8/6/2014 CardinalGirl_ said:

On 8/6/2014 TheKingsMistress said:

On 8/2/2014 CardinalGirl_ said:

On 8/1/2014 occasional rain said:

On 8/1/2014 Jannabelle said:

On 8/1/2014 occasional rain said:

Because the security deposit and the interest it earned belongs to the tenant until there has been damage beyond normal wear, the judge can't very well exclude that from his judgement. Damage is a separate issue.

But they are still living there, so shouldn't they still have to pay a security deposit, until after they move? ...and then get the credit?

In my state a landlord cannot sue for a security deposit, after the tenant moves he can sue for damages but suing in one thing and collecting is another. The OP's tenant is unlikely to pay the back rent much less any damages so it's basically the cost of doing business and a write off.

We don't always collect, but we have a pretty high collection rate. We can garnish wages. We can impound their vehicle. We can garnish their bank account.....or put a lien on their tax returns.

And you pay a lawyer to do it don't you?I suppose you expect them to pay your legal fees. Sometimes it's better to cut your losses short than to make another person's life miserable over small change.

Actually, we do not use an attorney for the collection. It's simple to do and costs less than $100 to file all the proper forms. Whatever we spend on it does, of course, get added to their judgment and they end up paying it.

It isn't a matter of making another person's life "miserable". It's about holding them accountable for money they rightfully owe. And what is "small change" to you, may not be small change to the owner of the property. Even if their property is paid-off, they still have property taxes, insurance and maintenance costs on the property.

Boggles my mind that you think it's ok for people to owe hundreds or even thousands of dollars and never pay it.

I didn't say it was OK. If someone is having financial hardship how do you expect them to pay legal and court fees and so forth. For you to go after them like a shark, garnishing wages, attaching liens, etc, boggles my mind. I'm not saying you should give someone free rent but I would assess each situation on a case by case basis. You've already taken them to court and won but now you're sweating whether or not they will do damage to your property. I suppose you can sue them butts off for damages once they move out.

Goodness, funny how you are trying to make the wronged party out as the bad guy.

And yes, we can sue them for damages. We wouldn't have to do so, however, if their security deposit had not been wrongly credited towards the rent they failed to pay, which is what this thread is about.

Actually, since you are so worried about whatever financial hardships the tenants may have, would you like to pay their debt for them? I would gladly take a cashier's check from you and wipe their slate clean. I mean, that's what you expect the owner of the property to do.....so why not step up, yourself?

Exactly. It's just astounding how compassionate people are - with other people's money.

People are VERY compassionate when it comes to other peoples money. It always amazes me.

I feel for you CG, I too am a property owner and we have gone through stuff like this. We have levied bank accounts and garnished wages and I don't feel bad in the least. I try to work with people but when they stop working with me I have no choice. Why shouldn't I be paid back the fees that I had to pay? That shark comment was totally over the line and really very ignorant. You should not be made to feel bad by something you have every right to do. Why should you eat all the costs? I don't even have to ask to know that this person is not a business owner because with that type of attitude, they certainly wouldn't be in business for very long. Do I feel badly when people get into a bad position and try to do what I can to help? Yes I do, but I also realize I have employees to pay and their salaries aren't just going to magically appear if I took that lame approach or just forgiving debt and not collecting fees that I have to pay.

[Irshgrl31201]

On 8/6/2014 LipstickDiva said:

As a landlord, posts 28 and 30 really bug me.

That so-called "small change" adds up, especially if you only own a couple of houses.

Also, some of the maintenance and repair costs involved aren't just a straight write-off on your taxes either. Some of the costs are amortized and the yearly write-off is very small.

You can bet that if someone stiffs me on rent, I'm going after them for it. I pay my bills and I expect others to do the same.

Yeah it ticked me off too. Spoken like someone who has never run a business or had employees to pay.

[occasionalrain]

Anyone who is in business knows there will be losses and plans for them. Restaurants have spoilage, grocery stores have shoplifting and spoilage, car dealers have repossessions, and apartment owners have nonpaying tenants. In some states when filing for back rent the security deposit is, by law, deducted from what is owed. If there is damage, the landlord can sue the tenant for it.

If you look at it another way; a tenant owes rent but leaves the apartment in perfect condition, do they get their security deposit back or is it used for back rent? You can't have it both ways, either it's separate or it's not. Either the security deposit is only for damage or it isn't.

[croemer]

On 8/6/2014 TheKingsMistress said:

On 8/6/2014 CardinalGirl_ said:

On 8/6/2014 TheKingsMistress said:

On 8/2/2014 CardinalGirl_ said:

On 8/1/2014 occasional rain said:

On 8/1/2014 Jannabelle said:

On 8/1/2014 occasional rain said:

Because the security deposit and the interest it earned belongs to the tenant until there has been damage beyond normal wear, the judge can't very well exclude that from his judgement. Damage is a separate issue.

But they are still living there, so shouldn't they still have to pay a security deposit, until after they move? ...and then get the credit?

In my state a landlord cannot sue for a security deposit, after the tenant moves he can sue for damages but suing in one thing and collecting is another. The OP's tenant is unlikely to pay the back rent much less any damages so it's basically the cost of doing business and a write off.

We don't always collect, but we have a pretty high collection rate. We can garnish wages. We can impound their vehicle. We can garnish their bank account.....or put a lien on their tax returns.

And you pay a lawyer to do it don't you?I suppose you expect them to pay your legal fees. Sometimes it's better to cut your losses short than to make another person's life miserable over small change.

Actually, we do not use an attorney for the collection. It's simple to do and costs less than $100 to file all the proper forms. Whatever we spend on it does, of course, get added to their judgment and they end up paying it.

It isn't a matter of making another person's life "miserable". It's about holding them accountable for money they rightfully owe. And what is "small change" to you, may not be small change to the owner of the property. Even if their property is paid-off, they still have property taxes, insurance and maintenance costs on the property.

Boggles my mind that you think it's ok for people to owe hundreds or even thousands of dollars and never pay it.

I didn't say it was OK. If someone is having financial hardship how do you expect them to pay legal and court fees and so forth. For you to go after them like a shark, garnishing wages, attaching liens, etc, boggles my mind. I'm not saying you should give someone free rent but I would assess each situation on a case by case basis. You've already taken them to court and won but now you're sweating whether or not they will do damage to your property. I suppose you can sue them butts off for damages once they move out.

You can not be serious? Landlords are not in the business to rent to those who do not pay their rent...how long would they be able to hold on to the properties using that logic. They are going after what is owed them rightfully. The landlord has bills to pay owning the properties as well: a mortgage, taxes and upkeep.

[CardinalGirl]

On 8/6/2014 occasional rain said:

Anyone who is in business knows there will be losses and plans for them. Restaurants have spoilage, grocery stores have shoplifting and spoilage, car dealers have repossessions, and apartment owners have nonpaying tenants. In some states when filing for back rent the security deposit is, by law, deducted from what is owed. If there is damage, the landlord can sue the tenant for it.

If you look at it another way; a tenant owes rent but leaves the apartment in perfect condition, do they get their security deposit back or is it used for back rent? You can't have it both ways, either it's separate or it's not. Either the security deposit is only for damage or it isn't.

Yes, actually, if it's mutually beneficial and agreeable, we MAY use the deposit towards rent. But don't HAVE to.

And, judging by your post, am I to believe that you don't believe shoplifters should be arrested and be made to pay restitution?

[CardinalGirl]

Double post AGAIN

[Kalli]

Commercial rentals are so much easier. They pay on time and keep the place nice because it is in their best interest to do so.

Residential rentals can be a nightmare. It's not always easy to evict. And while that long process is going on, the landlord is footing the bill, and for the landlords I know, this is their investment and source of income. When rents aren't paid, the bank doesn't tell the owner it's ok to not pay the mortgage because the renter isn't paying his/her rent. The bank still expects mortgage payments on time.

-Kalli

[Burnsite]

Since the judge has decided, the verdict is final unless you appeal. We have heard your side, but not the whole story. I can't take your side, as law cases involve both sides of the story.

My family had my dad's building as a 4 unit rental and there surely are deadbeats out there, but the commercial rental was worse than the residential units. In the S FL city I live in, commercial non-payment of rent is a huge problem to the economy, not so much the private residential rentals. It's gotten better since 2008, but that year almost halted the ecomony here, and it wasn't foreclosure, it was businesses that stopped paying rent and then folded.

All I'm saying is that realty is kind of like the canary in the mine. When realty goes bad, everything else quickly follows suit, at least where I live.

[CardinalGirl]

On 8/6/2014 Burnsite said:

Since the judge has decided, the verdict is final unless you appeal. We have heard your side, but not the whole story. I can't take your side, as law cases involve both sides of the story.

My family had my dad's building as a 4 unit rental and there surely are deadbeats out there, but the commercial rental was worse than the residential units. In the S FL city I live in, commercial non-payment of rent is a huge problem to the economy, not so much the private residential rentals. It's gotten better since 2008, but that year almost halted the ecomony here, and it wasn't foreclosure, it was businesses that stopped paying rent and then folded.

All I'm saying is that realty is kind of like the canary in the mine. When realty goes bad, everything else quickly follows suit, at least where I live.

We won't appeal.....we'll just file small claims for any damages. I still can't believe he issued a ruling that goes directly against State Law.

Ah, well.....he was up for reelection and lost the primary last night, so I won't have to deal with him much longer.

[Kalli]

On 8/6/2014 Burnsite said:

Since the judge has decided, the verdict is final unless you appeal. We have heard your side, but not the whole story. I can't take your side, as law cases involve both sides of the story.

My family had my dad's building as a 4 unit rental and there surely are deadbeats out there, but the commercial rental was worse than the residential units. In the S FL city I live in, commercial non-payment of rent is a huge problem to the economy, not so much the private residential rentals. It's gotten better since 2008, but that year almost halted the ecomony here, and it wasn't foreclosure, it was businesses that stopped paying rent and then folded.

All I'm saying is that realty is kind of like the canary in the mine. When realty goes bad, everything else quickly follows suit, at least where I live.

It's always risky to rent to start up businesses. Better to go with established ones, those that have a history in the community and also ones that have a dependable $ base for reliable monthly rent checks.

Stuff was really moving in FL from the early 00s until 08. Real estate was booming and even folks from out of the country were purchasing vacation places on the water for large amounts of $. As soon as the Sold signs were posted, For Sale signs went up for more than what the place had just sold for. This went on for several years with values continuing to spiral. Those vacation homes took a major hit in 08 with regard to value when the bubble burst but that also meant that after things caved, there were good deals to be had if you had the means to purchase then and hold.

-Kalli