I have perpetual rental clients, whom I totally adore. In their late 20s/early 30s, I have been helping these kids find a place to live for the past five years. Their last stint lasted two years and they really had no intention of calling me ever again. They loved their home. They were never planning on moving. Ever.
But, the owner has opted to sell and "my kids" are once again searching for a new home.
Enter optimistic me from a week ago.
My clients wanted to find a home, rent it out and then live happily ever after once again. So, we started the process. I sent them rentals from the multiple listing. They sent me outdated Zillow and Trulia ads. I explained the ones they sent me weren't available (seriously!!!! Why don't people actually believe me when I tell them stuff on those sites is not updated as often as the multiple listing? There is a reason these sites are free!).
We went back and forth with this for a number of days--seeing lots of homes--before they called me on Saturday to share the great news with me. They found the rental home of their dreams on Craig's list.
The home in question was "perfect." It was "stunning." It was like "no other rental home they had ever seen." They then asked me questions about how best to obtain this home. Of course, because I wasn't involved, I don't get my measly commission which wouldn't have covered the gas and time I have spent with them. I still adore them anyway.
Fast forward to today. The husband emailed me and told me they decided to pass on the home. The owner was a lawyer, and added a lot of lawyer speak to his 11 page lease. He put things in there such as he could, with no notice, at any time he chose inspect the property. The tenants were not to store anything in the attic and doing so was a violation of the lease. And my favorite: under no circumstances were the tenants to walk on the roof. Every paragraph was numbered. Paragraph number three said, and I am not making this up, "Intentionally left blank."
Then there was this bit of gobbledygook: Rent was due on the first of every month. However, rent was to be received before the first of the month. If rent was received on the first, it was considered "late" and the late fee was $15 per day. However, the lease started on the first. Go figure.
I think under the circumstances the tenants made a good choice. The landlords lost me with the bit about inspecting the home at will. And, I wouldn't have signed off on not utilizing the attic. It makes me wonder what kinds of tenants they have had in the past if they need to make them initial next to "you will not walk on the roof. Ever." And, someone please explain to me, if rent is "due" on the first. How can it be late on the first?
The good thing that came out of all of this is "my kids" are now thinking about buying. And, they are no longer looking on Craig's list.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thought I'd do a little translation for you. If your rent is due "by" the first of every month then technically it becomes late when midnight rolls around. As for the paragraph left intentionally blank, that is common contract. You state that this paragraph was intentionally left blank so there can be no illicit modifications to it after the fact. Now, having said that, I have never ever in all my years understood why that paragraph space had to be there to begin with. I've only seen this whole paragraph scenario enacted in contracts involving mergers or public offerings...that kind of thing..where the negotiations are not quite finished and there is a possibility that the contract might be amended before execution. Personally, I think Mr. Lawyer is playing this game a little too close to the vest. I'm sure he doesn't want anything stored in the attic for fire purposes as there are folks in this world who insist on storing paint cans or possibly some other flammables in the most inappropriate of places. Walking on the roof really is out there...I got nothing for that.....These folks were really smart not to sign with this guy. He sounds like the kind of landlord that would fully (and often) use the clause stating he could enter at his will.
Good info! Thank you. I have always wondered why the "intentionally left blank" was inserted. In this case, it was a Word document and it seems like it would have been easier to just delete the blank space and move on--the way it was formatted nobody would have noticed alleged "Paragraph 3" was missing.
There was a lot more to this lease document, but I threw in the highlights. Personally, I wouldn't do business with these landlords, just because I don't want a landlord deciding to come inspect the home at 7 a.m. Sunday morning with no notice.
There is a standard Arizona Association of Realtors rental lease they didn't use (wife was a commercial leasing agent, so she has access to it). I wonder about the kinds of tenants they have gotten in the past if they needed clauses such as "don't go into my attic--and don't store anything there either" (because people who want to store illegal substances won't do it in the garage??). Those kinds of clauses aren't thrown in lightly. Or, the other issue that came to mind is what kind of tenant would be willing to agree to such terms in the first place.
Post a Comment