Get It Rented Blog

By Robert L. Cain, Copyright 2021 Cain Publications, Inc.

PROPERTY NEWS SERVICE

American humorist Josh Billings observed, “Ignorance ain’t not knowin’ stuff; ignorance is knowin’ stuff that AIN’T TRUE.”   Landlords knowing too much that ain’t true easily fall victim to the bad tenant who knows less that ain’t true, and who is thinks in the words of the song by Blondie, “I’ll getcha getcha getcha getcha.”

That’s one reason we have rental agreements and leases.  Without everything in writing, both tenants and landlords come up with all kinds of things they know that ain’t true.  When it is spelled out in a lease, the lease language revokes the things someone thinks he or she knows.

Here are four things that landlords, tenants or both know that just ain’t true.

Ain’t True #1: A tenant can use the security deposit to pay the last month’s rent or for any unpaid rent.

The security deposit can be used for rent only if the landlord agrees to it. A security deposit is to pay for damages that the tenant may cause while moving in, living in or moving out of the property, not for rent.

Ain’t True #2: A tenant doesn’t have to pay rent if he or she gets a 30-day notice.

Tenants owe rent for the entire time they stay in or use a rental property. That may include rent for periods that only their belongings are in, or for when they have access to the unit. The fact that the landlord has asked a tenant to move in no way relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent.

Ain’t True # 3:The judge will give a tenant 30 to 90 days to move if he or she has children or a person with a disability in the household.

If a tenant loses an eviction case in court, the judge can order him or her to move out immediately. The law does not provide for extra time to people with disabilities or children.  The law does not single out families with children or the disabled for special treatment if they don’t pay rent, are a bad neighbor, or damage the property.

Ain’t True #4: A landlord can’t charge more rent or a higher security deposit to one tenant than another.

The only reason a landlord may not charge one tenant more than others is for an unlawful discriminatory reason such as race, disability, or children. A landlord can charge more if it is for another, businesslike reason, such as pets, smoking, or bad credit.

Bad tenants make a living off knowing the law far better than an unread landlord.  They wait for us to make a mistake so they can “getcha getcha getcha getcha” and live free for two or three months.

It’s all in the lease, assuming the lease comes from an apartment, landlord or rental owners’ association, and not from the local office supply store or free off the internet.  Drag the lease out of the file, dust it off and read it.  It’s not what you know, it’s what you know that ain’t true that can result in a huge hit to your bank account.

by Robert L. Cain, Copyright 2021 Cain Publications, Inc.

PROPERTY NEWS SERVICE

A property manager I knew told the story about the time she was talking to a landlord about her rental property and said “the law says. . .”

The landlord replied aghast, “There are laws!!!?”

Yes, ma’am, there are laws.  And in most states those laws were written to protect the “poor, abused, downtrodden” bad tenant.  Also in most states there are too many judges who take it a step farther and interpret the laws and rule in ways that provide bad tenants even more rights to not pay the rent and trash property.

Shame on the legislatures and shame on the judges, but that is the situation we face when we own and manage rental property.

Rental property is one of the most regulated industries in the country.  It is filled with traps, pitfalls and snares awaiting the unwary landlord.  The rental property business is also one of the easiest to get into.  All you have to do is buy house, tidy it up a little, find a tenant, and rent it out.

Blissfully unaware of the landlord-tenant law of the state, landlords enter without proper notice, harass tenants when the rent is late, apply the apartment complex’s rules unfairly, select tenants in violation of the Fair Housing Act, and handle security deposits improperly.

Bad tenants often know the law. They know the law because they have had experience using it and have probably sued a landlord or two over the course of their bad-tenanthood pillaging and devastation.  Again and again they catch landlords unaware that laws govern our business.  They lurk behind moldy tall grass and under rocks waiting for their landlords to violate the law even a smidgen, and then they slither out to try to get a judge to let them live rent free for months and months.

The landlord-tenant laws of most states can be found online from your state’s secretary of state, or from your local apartment, landlord or rental owners association.  Having them on your bookshelf is one thing, but actually taking the time to read them and understand them is another.

Whenever I traveled to another state to speak, I always printed out that state’s landlord-tenant act and read it.  The first thing I look at are notice requirements, that is, how much time a landlord has to give to terminate a tenancy, change the terms of the rental agreement, allow after the rent is due before filing an eviction, and before he or she can enter a tenant’s home for inspection or repair.

Next I want to know the security deposit requirement.  Is there a limit on how much a landlord can collect? Does the deposit have to be placed in a special bank account? What are the requirements for accounting for it when a tenant moves out?

In most states’ landlord-tenant laws, you can expect to see similar rights and responsibilities for both landlords and tenants. The real differences lie in entrance, notification and security deposit requirements.  Those are the ones that get landlords in trouble if they violate them, and the ones that bad tenants can probably recite like scripture.

If you don’t know the law, you leave yourself like a sitting duck to the scheming of bad tenants.  These people will take your property, your money and your sanity.  Know the law, know the law, know the law.

By Robert L. Cain

PROPERTY NEWS SERVICE

Millions of Americans face financial difficulties because they just “don’t get it,” their financial health on a knife’s edge. On a basic five-question financial literacy quiz, 80 percent couldn’t answer four of the five questions correctly. The world runs on money, but they don’t “get” how money works. Because of their ignorance, their illiteracy, they sheepishly admit to losing an average of $1634 a year reports the Financial Educators Council.

These are 18 to 34 year olds, Millennials, who on the literacy quiz got wrong such questions as “Suppose you have $100 in a savings account earning 2 percent interest a year. After five years, how much would you have?”  They didn’t even ask them to do the math, just if it would be more or less than $102.  Or even a “super tough” one “Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account is 1 percent a year and inflation is 2 percent a year. After one year, would the money in the account buy more than it does today, exactly the same or less than today?”

“Financial literacy is the ability to understand and effectively use various financial skills, including personal financial management, budgeting, and investing. Financial literacy is the foundation of your relationship with money, and it is a lifelong journey of learning,” defines Investopedia.

Investopedia also warns, “The lack of financial literacy can lead to a number of pitfalls, such as accumulating unsustainable debt burdens, either through poor spending decisions or a lack of long-term preparation. This in turn can lead to poor credit, bankruptcy, housing foreclosure, or other negative consequences.”

Gflec.com reports the following facts. One in four Millennials, 24 percent, are financially fragile. Half could not come up with $2,000 if they encountered an unexpected financial issue. Thirty percent overdrew their checking accounts. They keep the payday loan companies and pawn shops in business since the half of them that have only a high school education use either or both sources of alternative financial services even including the 39 percent who have bank accounts and the 35 percent who have credit cards (presumably at their credit limits.)

Financial literacy helps answer such questions as how many credit cards someone should have, is borrowing for college worth it, should I buy or lease a car, should I rent or buy a place to live, and how much can I afford to pay for a mortgage or rent? Financial illiteracy can doom someone to poor or even disastrous economic decisions.  They simply don’t know how to figure out what makes most financial sense.

It continues its decline. All age groups find themselves worse off than 12 years ago, but Millennials saw the sharpest drop in financial knowledge. Just between 2009 and 2018, they saw an eight-percentage point drop in the literacy from 42 percent to 34 percent.  For the math averse and financially illiterate, that’s a 19 percent drop in literacy. But their parents’ generation, even though their literacy slipped, 51 percent could still answer four of the five questions correctly.

A National Financial Capability Study (NFCS), reports the TIAA Institute, shows that Millennials tend to rely heavily on debt, engage frequently in expensive short- and long-term money management, and display shockingly low levels of financial literacy while student loan burden and expensive financial decision making increased significantly from 2009 to 2018 among young adults.

These data bode poorly for the financial well-being of the country.  After all, in a few years, the Millennials will be in charge. Today, they are mostly our employees and renters.  They will be the bosses, the company owners, the teachers, the government workers, and filling every slot in the economy.  The older generations will be retired and depending on the Millennials to get it right. It doesn’t look promising.

This illiteracy pervades the entire country, border to border, coast to coast, north to Alaska, and across the ocean to Hawaii. WalletHub analyzed financial-education programs and consumer habits using 17 metrics that included high school financial literacy programs and the share of adults with rainy-day savings to learn the extent of illiteracy around the country. Even the most financially literate state, according to wallethub.com, Virginia, comes in at only 68.25 percent financially literate slightly over two-thirds. 

The most financially illiterate state, Alaska came in at 53.39 percent financially literate, followed closely by Mississippi (54.2), South Dakota (54.76), Oklahoma (55.57), Louisiana and Arkansas (54.15), New Mexico (54.57), West Virginia (56.4), and District of Columbia (56.54 percent).  The District of Columbia figure brings up several obvious questions. All the people in states bumping on the bottom of financial literacy are ripe for scammers. The financially illiterate simply can’t see through the scammers’ flimflam.

As we might expect, their amount of education correlated with the financial literacy. Those with only some high school show a financial literacy rate below 50 percent while those with graduate degrees come in at about 80 percent.

On a knife’s edge, one step ahead of financial disaster, their economic wellbeing can all blow up at any time with late or unpaid rent, auto repossession, collections, and bankruptcy. It affects not just them but all those around them and with whom they do business including employers and landlords.

Written for Zip Reports where they do employment and rental screening.

Contact Robert L. Cain at bob@cainpublications.com

By Robert L. Cain, Copyright 2021 Cain Publications, Inc.

PROPERTY NEWS SERVICE

Q:  I have a new tenant that asked if they could put a California closets style closet system in the master walk in.

Can you give me advice on a tenant doing changes to the property on their own dime? I’m okay with the closet system as long as they do not then remove it when they leave (holes in the wall, damages, etc.)

Thanks, Steve, Dayton, Ohio

The short answer is any improvements done to the property by a tenant stay with the property.  That means that if the tenant installs a California closet system, it becomes a fixture and part of the property as Steve has indicated he is are aware of.

There is a longer answer, though.  A number of years ago, I was friends with Jack, an apartment manager, who managed a small apartment building that attracted high-end, long-term tenants. An older building, built in the early 1900s, complete with hardwood floors, concrete walls between units and huge rooms, it was in a desirable part of town that attracted yuppie-type residents.

Jack marveled that when many tenants moved in they wanted to carpet their apartment with top-of-the-line, wall-to-wall carpeting, texture walls and even hired professional decorators to trick out their new digs.  He couldn’t imagine spending that kind of money as a renter. But he welcomed anyone who wanted to make improvements such as those. What that meant to him was that these tenants were planning on being there long-term—none of this moving after a year or so. 

The California Closets case is similar. I checked some websites that sold California Closet systems and found a couple that would allow you to “build your own” and calculate the cost.  Even a small closet organizer is going to cost around $500—a lot of money to spend for a fixture in a rental house.

So the longer answer is that we probably should welcome tenant improvements such as those.

The fly in the ointment is when tenants move out and think that the fixtures they installed belong to them.  If a tenant installs a fixture, we need to be sure he or she understands the ramifications of installing that fixture.

We can handle it a couple of ways.

One is, as this landlord suggests, that the closet system remains in the property and that they assure you that no damage will result from their installing the system.  Creating an addendum to their rental agreement that explains that any item installed as a fixture remains with the property is an excellent step.  On that addendum be sure to provide examples of what would be considered a fixture. The tenant needs to sign the addendum and receive a copy.

The other way to handle it would be to tell them that they can install the closet system and take it with them when they leave, but that there must be no nail or screw holes left in the property that could be attributed to the closet system and that the existing closet must be restored to its original condition.  Take pictures of the closet as it was at move-in so there can be no question.  With items such as wall-to-wall carpet it is less likely that tenants will expect to take it with him, but you never know.

Regardless, this procedure would apply to all kinds of improvements tenants want to make on a property, whether it’s wall-to-wall carpeting, garage cabinets, or custom lighting.

In either case, what we also must be concerned with is that the installation of any fixture to the property could be either sloppy and damage the property, or could create a safety issue.  Always supervise and/or inspect any such installation to ensure it is done both properly and safely.  Remember, as property owners we are responsible for any work done on our property, regardless of who does the work. And we need to diligently protect our investments.

By Robert L. Cain, Copyright 2007 and 2021 Cain Publications, Inc.

 If you have dealt with contractors, you have probably heard the same lies I have. They erupt from their mouths as rationale for their questionable behavior and unreasonable demands. They are often accompanied by “righteous indignation” that anyone would question this contractor’s forthrightness.

 Here, in no particular order of deceitfulness, are four of them.

 It’s a standard agreement

Sure it is. It’s your standard agreement that requires the property owner to give away the store and that doesn’t require the contractor to complete the job in a workmanlike manner or, for that matter, even complete it at all. The “standard agreement” does require you to pay, though.

 One electrician who did work on a property of a landlord I know had a “standard agreement” that didn’t even require him to clean up his mess or repair the wall he put holes in for the wiring.

 Everybody does it that way

I certainly hope they don’t, because if everybody did it that way, buildings would be falling down all over the country. Those are the words you hear when you ask about the corners the contractor cut to get the job done cheaper. Because contractors always “did it that way” we have building codes. Those building codes were not instituted because every contractor was meticulous in his work. They were instituted because of the work that goes along with “everybody does it that way.”

 I need the money up front

Then you don’t need to work on my property. You get paid when you are finished and the work is done properly. Not getting paid should not be a problem for a contractor because of contractors’ lien laws, which can result in a lien on the property they worked on if the owner doesn’t pay. If the contractor doesn’t have the money or credit to buy the necessary equipment to do the job, that should raise a crimson flag.

 I couldn’t sleep nights if . . .

This is the one that says “Liar, crook, and scam artist!” When you hear those words, tell the contractor he has five seconds to leave the property.

 A number of years ago I heard those words come out of the mouth of a furnace repairman. The oil furnace didn’t work and the tenants, instead of calling me, opened the Yellow Pages and called the number in the biggest ad. They called me in a panic after he told them the “furnace was shot,” and could blow up. When I arrived he tried to con me with those very words. He couldn’t sleep nights if he didn’t replace this furnace. I told him to leave in none too kind words.

 After he left I called Bill, the furnace repairman I always used. He came over, fiddled, messed around, and tweaked, then said, “Are you sure you’ve got oil?”

 When he measured the oil in the tank, there wasn’t any to measure.

 Reputable contractors don’t have “a standard agreement,” they have agreements that can be amended and corrected to fit the job. They don’t necessarily do work the way “everybody” does it, they do it the way that is correct. They also have good credit so don’t require money up front. And “they couldn’t sleep nights” if they did sloppy work or cheated a customer. Lies that both you and I have heard are those that should tell us to send a sleazy contractor on his way and call a reputable company. 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072JHCPM8

By Robert L. Cain

Half of all renters live in SPRs, industry lingo for Small Property Rentals. The Census Bureau defines those as one-to-four family dwellings, and they make up 76 percent of rentals. Individual owners own 92 percent of them. That’s the good news.  I’ll explain why in a minute.

The bad news is that SPRs reported a decline in revenue of more than 10 percent in 2020.  The pandemic resulted in 15 percent of tenants in those properties lagging at least six months behind in rent for a median past-due rent of $2200. With evictions beginning again on August 1, it will mean more vacancies and more opportunities for landlords to do proper screening and ensure qualified tenants.

More good news is that owners of SPRs have an advantage in screening over large apartment complexes. They can insist on face-to-face screening, something the large complexes have difficulty doing. Because with all the would-be tenants scrambling for places to live, many leasing agents get overwhelmed by the number of applicants they need to process. 

Transunion reports that digital fraud transaction attempts have increased 46 percent worldwide and 22 percent in the US alone.

Most large complexes do screening digitally, meaning applications are filled out online, documents presented online, screening done online.  Applicants may rent units sight unseen relying on the photos and descriptions on the apartment websites.  They fill out the forms, present all the documentation online, and only maybe talk on the phone to a leasing agent.  The opportunity for fraud approaches overwhelming.  It turns out, reports Snappt, that 97 percent of properties have experienced some kind of renter fraud and 15 percent of applications have been falsified in some way.

Because they have so many applicants, leasing agents must rely on the truthfulness of the applicants.  Big mistake. “This is where the story really goes sideways,” explains a 35-year property manager in Multifamily Executive who prefers to remain unidentified. “They hit you in a week with 25 applications, and you’re overwhelmed with the paperwork. Then, they inundate the staff, calling and asking the same questions over and over, putting you in crisis mode to wear you out and try to get through. They know the more pressure they put on you, the more mistakes you’ll make.”

As more and more evictions take place, and more and more evicted tenants look for new places to live, more and more falsified documents will show up to “prove” what qualified residents these folks will be.  Considering how long it takes to screen each applicant, and the leasing agent having to rely on the documentation the applicant presents, agents skimp on verifying information.

Leasing agents’ jobs are to get tenants in units, to fill vacancies.  They have to show paperwork to their bosses that they have done their due diligence in screening, but they also need to show they are doing their leasing jobs by filling vacancies. But with so many applications, they can only cull the most obviously unqualified, the ones who haven’t produced the most credible fake documents.

“It’s absolutely a crime,” says Alec Page, vice president at Park City, Utah–based RET Ventures, as reported in Multifamily Executive. “Unfortunately, it’s very hard to track down and prosecute someone who’s rented an apartment sight unseen with entirely fake documents. Once they’ve done that, the damage is done.”

Here’s how they do it. Application fraud comes in three permutations:

One is application and document fraud.  Numerous websites offer fake paystubs, W2s, bank statements, IDs, and anything else for applicants to slither their ways into rental properties.

Two is synthetic fraud. They use synthetic identities to establish credit histories involving false Social Security numbers with credit reporting agencies.  Those synthetic identities are used to obtain credit cards in the names of fictional people; then they use online credit processing to charge transactions to credit cards.

Third is old-fashioned ID theft. They use false, fraudulent, or fictitious identification documents belonging to actual people, using existing accounts, such as credit or other financial accounts.  Javelin Strategy & Research reported in 2008 how they do it:

• Lost or stolen wallet, checkbook, credit card (33 %)
• Off-line transaction (23 %)
• Personal connection to identity thief (17%)
• Mail theft (6.0%)
• On-line identity theft (12 %)
• Data Breach (7%)
• Other (2%)

Once established, they go to town, often on unsuspecting, over-trustful landlords and people whose identities they have stolen.

Brian Zrimsek, industry principal for Cleveland-based MRI Software, says that when a fraudulent applicant slithers through screening, it takes six-and-a-half months to resolve the issue.  Figure average rent in $1500 a month times six-and-a-half months and the loss to the company is just under $10,000 for one unit.  For even a 20-unit building, that puts $200,000 at risk.

Because there’s just no time for multifamily leasing agents to do a proper job of verification with all the applications and to fill those vacant units, SPRs (Small Property Rentals) and their owners have a real advantage.  First of all, the owners take applications in the order they are received, put a date and time on them, and verify first applications first. 

And they verify everything.  Marygrace Navarro of Stonemark Management in Atlanta, reminds all property owners, landlords, and managers, “You can’t just accept the employment and rental verifications the applicant gives you. You have to invest the time and energy to check it all yourself.” Check that the phone and address of the “employer” are real by looking them up online. Check that the previous landlord is real by checking county tax records to verify that the person listed as the landlord actually is. Do a Social Search, which tells every address where the applicant has lived. Get picture ID and meet every adult who is moving into the property.  

That’s how to cut the fraudulent documents off at the knees, how to keep lying applicants from ever getting to move into your properties.  Small property owners have a huge advantage over the huge multifamily companies in screening and ensuring top-notch tenants because they can and will take the time to do it properly with an eye on protecting their investments.

By Robert L. Cain, Copyright 2009 and 2021, Cain Publications, Inc.

Why would a landlord ever rent to someone with a dog?  One reason would be because the rental market is so slow that the only tenants you can get are those with dogs. Another reason might be that you are just itching to put yourself into a sea of disaster.

When you allow a dog to live in your rental property (or don’t allow a dog but the tenant sneaks one in anyway), a myriad of potential disasters slink over the horizon. The damage dogs can do to rental property is something that I hardly need to mention, but there is an additional concern that makes dogs’ property damage look docile. It is when your tenant’s dog bites someone.

Dog bite law has almost become a recognized legal specialty since lawsuits result so often. A dog owner can be held liable under the following circumstances:

• the dog bites someone who is on the property legally 
• the dog bites anyone off the property
• the dog jumps on someone and injures him or her
• the dog chases someone resulting in that person injuring him or herself
• the dog scares someone causing that person to be injured some other way, such as being hit by a car

But that’s just dog owners, you say. Yes, but landlords can and will be held liable for the actions of their tenants’ dogs under many of the same circumstances. 

Three legal terms come into play here: foreseeability,  knowledge, and deep pockets. In order for you to be held liable both those conditions have to be met. 

Foreseeability: One, you would have had to know, or would have reasonably been expected to know, that the tenant’s dog was vicious.  In that event you could held liable for the dog biting someone on your rental property, even if you don’t live there.

Knowledge: A second condition would be where you should have foreseen a problem could occur, such as when you failed to keep the fence around the property in good repair, or even had no fence at all. The dog escaped; then, after escaping, it bit someone.

Deep Pockets: The third is if you have more money or assets than your tenant.  Assuming you do, it means that since your tenant has barely enough money to pay for dog food for this “wonderful dog,” the lawyers will come after you because you either knew or should have foreseen a problem with the dog.

If the dog was off the premises because the tenant unchains it or takes it for a walk and it bites or otherwise injures someone, then probably the tenant alone is liable, but only under specific circumstances.

Let’s look at two recent court cases that deal with those issues.

Mrs. Carter was 72 years old and lived in a building owned by Metro North Associates, her landlord. As she walked in the complex one day she heard a dog’s “vicious” barking, turned, and saw a fellow tenant attempting to walk a pitbull on a leash. The dog’s owner was upset at the disobedience of the pitbull and the fact that children playing nearby were “aggravating” the dog.

Apparently, the dog’s owner wasn’t hanging onto the leash tightly enough because moments later the dog jumped up on Mrs. Carter and bit her face.  All she remembered, she said, was feeling “a strong, muscular presence” that knocked her into the security cabin.

Mrs. Carter sued Metro North Associates (deep pockets) claiming it was responsible because the employees knew about the dog and failed to enforce the complex’s “no pets” policy. One employee allowed as how that was true.

The landlord asked for a summary judgment, claiming it wasn’t responsible for the dog or its behavior. The landlord’s defense was that there was no proof of negligence on its part. In order for the landlord to be liable, Mrs. Carter would have had to prove that the dog had “vicious propensities” and that the landlord knew or should have known about those propensities.

The judge, however, disagreed and awarded judgment to Mrs. Carter. The court dismissed any need for proof of the dog’s propensity for viciousness since the judge recognized on his own that pitbulls were a vicious breed.

The landlord appealed, saying that there was no evidence that the dog was vicious since it had never attacked anyone before or even displayed vicious behavior.

The appeals court reversed the judgment, finding for the landlord. 

Mrs. Carter, the appeals court said, would have to prove that that particular dog was vicious—there was no evidence that pitbulls were by nature vicious, though they could be trained to be.

Moreover, even if Mrs. Carter could show that the dog was vicious, there was nothing to prove that the landlord knew about it or should have known about the dog’s vicious nature.

The mere fact that the employees knew there was a dog living in the property in violation of the rules did not prove knowledge of viciousness.

The second case involves a dog escaping from the yard of a rental property.

Mr. Pillar rented a house to a couple who, unbeknownst to him, had a dog. In fact, the lease specifically prohibited dogs unless they were agreed to in writing.  The landlord had the authority under the lease to remove any pets present in violation.

The couple had a Rottweiler that liked to wander the neighborhood. An officer of the local civic association said she was told the dog had been running loose all over the neighborhood and threatening neighbors. She contacted Pillar, the landlord, about it and also about the condition of the falling-down fence around the house.

One day the dog on its rounds of the neighborhood the dog entered the Hill’s yard. It bit the Hill’s daughter on the buttocks, calf and arm, requiring her to get medical attention and stitches. 

The Hills sued the tenants and the landlord. The tenants settled for $1,000, but the landlord was off the hook the court said. 

The Hills appealed saying that Pillar was responsible because he knew the dog was vicious, and he had the right and ability to control the dog’s presence at the rental house. In addition, because the fence was in disrepair and the dog could escape, he had an additional liability.

The appeals court still held in favor of the landlord, but the reasons why should make you question whether you ever want to rent to someone with a dog. Pillar couldn’t be held liable for a dog attack that occurred off the property of the rental house, primarily because there was no evidence that the dog escaped through the broken fence.

While landlords have been held liable for dog attacks on their own rental property, the Hills were unable to cite any occasion where landlords were held liable for off-premises attacks. One legal expert I spoke with disagrees, saying that the landlord would normally be held liable no matter where the attack took place if he knew or should have known that the dog was vicious and if he did not keep the fence in good repair. Just the fact that there is a fence burdens the landlord with a higher duty to keep it maintained and restrain the dog.

In both of these cases the tenant/dog owner was liable for damages, but the landlord wasn’t. However, it is only by the slimmest of serendipity that the landlord did not have to pay damages.  Even so, the landlords’ attorneys’ fees had to be staggering.

Who Is Being Injured?
It is just too much of a risk to rent to tenants who have pets who could harm or cause harm to a visitor, another tenant or a neighbor.

Pediatrics, a journal published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, cited statistics about children bitten by dogs. Cases of 40 children were reviewed from three different hospitals. The median age of the children was 50 months, 60 percent were boys and 87 percent were white. Most of the dogs were medium to large-sized and knew the child. Offending breeds were German Shepherds 22 percent, Rottweilers 16 percent, German Shepherd mixes 11 percent, Pitbulls 9 percent, Huskies 7 percent and Wolf mixes 7 percent. 

In 49 percent of the cases, the dog belonged to a neighbor, and in 30 percent of the cases, it was a household member. Only 7 percent of the time was it a stray that did the damage, and in only 5 percent of the cases was it a guard dog.

Your tenants’ dogs are most likely to bite a neighbor’s child, possibly one of your other tenants’ children. Then you not only get sued, but you probably lose a tenant, too.

Guide, Signal and Service Dogs
The Fair Housing Law and the law in most states requires that landlords allow guide, signal and service dogs in their rental properties, even if they don’t allow pets otherwise.

You needn’t worry as much about misbehavior and biting by these animals since they are extremely well trained—they have to be, their owners’ lives depend on it. However, dogs are dogs, so you need to establish reasonable rules regarding how the animals must behave and how their tenant/owners must control them. These rules might be things such as:

• animal must always be under direct control of the owner
• animal is not allowed to run loose
• animal must not disturb neighbors and other residents of the building without legitimate cause
• tenant shall be responsible for any damage to real and personal property caused by the dog.

What’s a Landlord to Do?
Think hard before you rent to people with dogs, and check up on any reports you get that a tenant has a dog. Allowing dogs in your rental property can do far more damage than just a torn-up yard and filthy, damaged rental property. It could mean that you lose everything you own in a lawsuit.

Best solution: don’t rent to people with dogs of any size. Second best solution, if you rent to them, write strict rules about the control and behavior of the dog and enforce them to the letter the instant there is a violation. And always make sure that you keep all fences and other restraints in good repair and respond to any neighbor or resident concerns.

Citations: Carter v. Metro North Associates, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., 1st Dept., No. 1873 (1998);
Hill v. Pillar, Court of Appeals of Texas, 1st Dist., Houston, No. 01-97-00994-CV (1999)

propertymanagment #rentals #landlord #rentalproperty #renting #landlords #getitrented https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072JHCPM8

By Robert L. Cain, Copyright 2021 Cain Publications, Inc.

In Attorney Tom Moorhead’s excellent book, Owner’s Manual for Landlords and Property Managers, I came across this great point:  “With all the valuable information that you will be receiving on your rental application, why would you ever not give someone a rental application?”

Many landlords dismiss applicants out of hand because the landlords have a “fifth sense” about the quality of applicants due to these landlords’ lengthy experience in the business.  It’s a fifth sense because it doesn’t quite make the grade of a sixth sense and is wrong at least one out of six times. Attorney Moorhead points out that many landlords decide on the spot, for example, that someone is “too young,” that is, under 18, and thus unable to enter into a contract, so never offer an application. That is in spite of the fact that someone being underage would become immediately apparent in the screening process such as when the landlord looks at the picture ID of the applicant.

Here’s my point.  We can’t tell by looking only by screening.  Bad tenants are past masters at appearing to be outstanding, upstanding citizens because they rely on landlords assuming that appearance is everything. Masters of finding new places to live because they have to do it so often, they are “practiced at the art of deception.”  But we can cut their evil plans off at the knees; the best way to get rid of a bad tenant is to hand him or her a rental application that contains the message “we carefully screen all applicants.”

Landlords may dismiss some truly outstanding applicants out of hand simply because they don’t meet some preconceived prejudice.  Suppose, for example, that a construction worker is on his way home from work and sees a for-rent sign, drives by the property, notices the landlord is there, and knocks on the door?  This man doesn’t do too well dealing with the public, but is great at construction work. He doesn’t even talk a good line and stammers when he says why he stopped. Mr. Knows-instantly-the quality-of-an-applicant landlord takes one look at the applicant in his dirty, work clothes and outside at his work truck that could use some washing and immediately acts as if this prospective tenant is imposing on him.

This prospective tenant has worked for the same company for five years, was just promoted to supervisor, earns in excess of $60,000 a year and drives a late-model, paid-for Toyota Camry on weekends.  In addition, he has lived in his current home for seven years and never been late with the rent. His wife wants to move so the kids can go to a better school than the one they attend now that is deteriorating.  But the landlord could tell just by looking that this prospective tenant was unqualified.  He never offers an application.

Later that same day, another prospective tenant drives down the same street on his way back from some questionable activity and sees the same for-rent sign.  This man, well-dressed and driving a new Lexus, has some credit issues. Because he hasn’t made a payment for three months his Lexus is about to be repossessed.  He has to park several blocks away from his current home so the tow truck driver can’t find the car.  He also has to sneak into his apartment because he hasn’t paid any rent lately—or at all.  He has been too busy trying to impress people with his free drinks and meals while trying to suck them into his latest scheme.

He strides into the property full of self-confidence, wearing his $1,000 suit and Hugo Boss shoes, smiles, introduces himself, and compliments the landlord on a “beautiful property.”  He adds that he “could really feel at home in a place like this that is maintained so well.” He wouldn’t live in just any rental home. After all, his home has to be one that fits his carefully crafted public facade.

With his “unerring” fifth sense, Mr. Knows-instantly-the quality-of-an-applicant landlord takes one look at the prospective tenant and knows that this would be a wonderful person to have living in his property.  He thinks about offering an application but decides against it for fear of driving off a potential, platinum-quality tenant by doubting his quality.  In fact, he asks this applicant, “when can you move in?”

As I pointed out above, the best way to get rid of a bad tenant and to entice a good tenant is to offer an application with the words “we screen applicants carefully” somewhere toward the top (and then do it, of course).  The most successful landlords do screen every applicant carefully no matter how “good” or “bad” they first appear and offer each person who looks at his property an application.

#propertymanagment #rentals #landlord #rentalproperty #renting #landlords #getitrented https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072JHCPM8

By Robert L. Cain, Copyright 2012 Cain Publications, Inc.

How do landlords screen tenants? The US Census Bureau’s Property Owners and Managers Survey shed some interesting light on screening methods. Many do it by breaking Rule Number 7.

The Survey reported that most private landlords (64 percent) use personal interviews as their main source of tenant screening as do multifamily units (75 percent). It makes you  wonder, though, what happens to the rest of the applicants? Do the landlords even speak to them or do they just take the money, hand them the keys and let them move in? More than a third of the landlords of single-family properties, and a quarter of multifamily landlords don’t use personal interviews as a tenant selection source. But is that all bad?

Rule Number 7, from my speech, “The Rules,” is “Never decide to rent to an applicant while you are listening to him.”

There are only two times a landlord gets into trouble, when he’s in a hurry and when he feels sorry for somebody, and bad tenants are pros at making landlords do both.  You never knew there was so much misery and hard luck in the world until you listen to a bad tenant try to worm his way into your property.  A black cloud follows them around wherever they go, in every aspect of their lives.

These folks are so pitiful, and have such hard luck stories, that it is enough to make the most stony-hearted property manager’s heart bleed. They have a knack for going to work for the most unreasonable, rotten, cruel, mean, obnoxious bosses on earth, and for companies that are about to lay people off.

They have a knack for getting into accidents and getting sick, which, of course, runs up huge doctor bills that they have to pay, so they can’t pay the rent.  And because they seem to always rent from the most unreasonable, uncaring, rotten, cruel, mean obnoxious landlord, they always get evicted.  “You’re not like that, are you?” they ask.

Once you’ve been sucked into their universe of bad luck, it tends to rub off on you.  They don’t pay you any rent, either.  And do they have some unique excuses! Their advantage is that they have a new set of stories to take to the next landlord after you boot them out. At that point, some landlords feel such pity that they hand the keys to their new “tenant” and even say they’ll wait for the security deposit and the rent until the tenant gets paid on the first.

And that was all because of breaking Rule Number 7? Could be.

Where the survey gets even more interesting is the remainder of the selection methods. Some 61 percent of single-family landlords don’t even consider the responses on the application form, and similarly half of landlords for two-to-four plexes don’t either. As a matter of fact, the majority of landlords don’t even consider other criteria, income, rental history, and such  Seventy-five percent of single-family landlords and 71 percent of plex landlords don’t even check to see if an applicant makes enough money to pay the rent. That means that almost two-thirds of landlords decide to rent to an applicant solely, with no other consideration, on the basis of the interview.

One telling statistic is how often landlords call the previous landlord for a reference and verification. While 84 percent of large apartment complex managers check landlord references, only 43 percent of single-family and 51 percent of plex landlords do. They don’t even call to find out if the tenant actually lived there, much less to find out when and how good a tenant he was. Then they can’t understand why they have problems with misbehaving renters.

Look at how the people who manage large complexes do it. They check credit and references, they check employment, they check previous landlords, and they make sure the applicant earns enough to pay the rent. One of the reasons for this thoroughness is that most large apartment complexes have written procedures for dealing with tenant selection. They have those procedures because they realize that tenant selection is the most important thing that landlords do, and they want to make sure to do it right.

Good management and tenant selection mean having procedures and following them. It means verifying everything.  It means making sure the person we are talking to is worthy of renting from us. Doing it “right” includes personal interviews, certainly, but doing it “right” also means abiding by Rule Number 7, never decide to rent to an applicant while you are listening to him. 

By Robert L. Cain–Copyright 2021 Cain Publications, Inc.

Don’t you wish that bad tenants had a big red “B” on their shirts like the “A” Hester Prynne had to wear on her dress in The Scarlet Letter? Then you wouldn’t have to play a guessing game about whether to believe their sob stories and their “variations” of truth about what fine, upstanding, but misunderstood tenants they are?

Fact is, liars may as well put the “B” on their shirts. They give sure signs that they are not telling you the entire truth, or any of the truth, when they spit out their lies. We’ll look at some of the ways here.

I had a boss once who always gave away his lies. He made a weird gulp in his throat immediately before and after the lie came out. He’d make that noise, and I would immediately dismiss any and everything that followed it or preceded it.

Our last landlord, the one we had over 40 years ago, also gave herself away when she lied. She got a glazed look in her eyes and looked at empty air. Then she made up or otherwise embellished a story. We always knew it was an outright lie when she got that look in her eyes.

I know one sleazy jerk who gives away his lies with a short “ha-ha” laugh. Ask him a question and he makes up an answer that he thinks will please you, then places a “ha-ha” exclamation point on the lie.

Most people have no idea they are giving away their lying through body language or vocal spasms.

Paul Eckman, of professor of psychology at the University of California in San Francisco, says that catching liars is an art almost anyone can learn. People show tell-tale signs, he says, when they lie. “Liars usually do not monitor, control, or disguise all their behavior.”

In the book The Art of Questioning: Thirty Maxims of Cross-Examination Peter Megargee relates this anecdote.

“Attorney Lloyd Paul Stryker was a keen observer. He would watch carefully how the witness behaved in the courtroom and on the stand. He would rivet his eyes on the quarry during direct examination. . . . He looked for clues in the ways the individual expressed herself or himself. He listened for variations in tone of voice caused by the tightening of vocal chords. He notices pauses. He noted flashes of anxiety, dryness of mouth, moistening of lips, hesitations, discomfort, and uncalled-for repetitions of coached material. He watched for stammer and for needless reference by the witness to counsel’s name. ‘I never was there, Mr. Prosecutor.’ Eyes were of particular interest. How and when did pupils shift and dart? When did eyes narrow or blink? The giveaway laugh and wipe of forehead. Hands wring, cling, scratch, and readjust. Legs shuffle. A hand touches the pocket with notes taken from his lawyers on what to avoid at all costs.”

Body language and strange vocal noises can be indicators of a lie.

What we will look at are some of the things that people, including bad tenants, do that are giveaways that they may not be telling you the entire truth.

When you ask a question, just as Stryker did a witness, watch your applicant or tenant carefully. A question is called a “probing point” in body-language expert talk. A probing point may appear when a word or phrase “touches a nerve” during a conversation, especially one that involves whether an applicant will get to move into your rental property.

One of your questions may elicit a lip-purse, a shoulder-shrug, or a throat-clear, for example. Other signs may be stumbling over words, a higher voice pitch, or repeated swallowing. However, Dr. Paul Eckman points out that “is no guarantee that a lie is being told, but it signifies a hot moment when something is going on you should follow up with interrogation.” The question has hit some kind of sore spot with the applicant. Is it always something that will disqualify him or her as a tenant? Of course not. It could just be a bad memory. But you owe it to yourself to find out if it is important to you in your selection process and your decision whether to believe a tenant.

Body language expert John Mole provides the following list of body-language cues that could indicate someone is lying:

• Touches face

• Hand over mouth

• Pulls ear

• Eyes down

• Glances at you

• Shifts in seat

• Looks down and to the left

How does it work on the field of battle with an applicant in front of you and rental application in hand? Here’s an example:

Finally! You have an applicant! They look and talk like terrific people. They tour the property and pronounce it a “really nice place, someplace we could live forever.” They even talk about how close the unit is to the school their children attend and that they have friends just a couple of blocks away

The prospect of them living there forever pleases you because the last three tenants have moved out after just a couple of months. Now here is someone who wants to stay a long time.

Hardly able to contain your excitement, you ask a simple question, “Do you think your last landlord will give you a good reference?”

“Oh, sure, no problem,” the wife says as she covers her face with her hand.

“Yeah, we got along—along fine, yeah, uh, fine,” says the husband while pulling his ear lobe. “He’s uh, uh, uh, uh, going to sell the building. That’s why we’re getting kic—, er,. Moving.” At that point, he stares at the ground, seemingly intensely interested in the bug crawling along the sidewalk. Then he glances at you out of the corner of his eye.

Too bad. And here you thought these folks looked so promising. You wonder why they don’t just tattoo “LIAR” across their foreheads. You vow to quiz their last landlord after making sure the number they gave you for him on their application is indeed their actual last landlord and not their best friend

Other things to watch for that indicate deception are pupil dilation and fast blinking rates. Eckman observes that people make “fewer hand movements during deception compared to truth-telling.

None of these clues is absolute proof that an applicant is not telling the truth. They do mean that the person you are questioning is anxious or feeling stress. But liars, other than the pathological subspecies, always feel stress or anxiety when they spout their lies

These cues should arouse suspicion about what they have told you. Remember at which question or at what point their body language indicating deception took place, and be extra vigilant in checking out that piece of the rental application. You are simply using your applicants’ body language to give you a better idea about where they might be trying to put one over on you.

Once you catch them, send them big “B’s” for their shirts along with the rejection letters

#propertymanagment #rentals #landlord #rentalproperty #renting #landlords #getitrented https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072JHCPM8