“Undefined” Rental Payments

Posted September 3rd, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

We understand evicting is off the table and do whatever we must to make it work and keep them in the home, no matter what.

Dear Rob,

Your amended lawsuit talks about “undefined rental payments.”

Huh?

That would never happen (and never has), so however you came up with that one, you’re once again mistaken.

Here’s how it works . . .


rent based on ownership

If we agree to co-own a property with a seller, we also agree to a fair rental amount for our share of the property. In other words, if we agree to buy a 50% interest in the property, we typically will require what amounts to 50% of the fair market rent.

Not always, though. There are times when we don’t require rent (like on a raw land deal), but when we do, it’s based on our percentage of ownership.

I’ll ask the seller, “What would it rent for?”

And if he says, “Probably somewhere around $800 a month,” I’ll let him know we’ll require half for our interest, and most sellers will agree that’s fair.

“Can you afford to pay $400 a month?” I say.

“It’ll be tight,” says the seller, “but we can manage $300 better.”

“Are you sure that’s doable?” I say.

“Yes, we can do $300, no problem,” says the seller.

“Well, let’s just write it up for $250 and call that good,” I say.

Or something like that.


My concern isn’t the rent

I’m not really too concerned about the amount of the rent because I have my doubts they’ll pay as agreed.

Typically, they’ll make a payment or two and that will be it. Not always. Sometimes we’re delighted to discover they can keep up and that’s always nice.

Sure, those who don’t, we’ll ask them to try to do a better job because what we’re really hoping to do is cover expenses (property taxes) we know we’ll be facing sooner than later.

And if they don’t pay?

We figure something out.

We understand evicting is off the table and do whatever we must to make it work and keep them in the home, no matter what.

And that’s how people who had and have zero ability to own a home are in their homes today.

Here’s what your complaint says about it . . .

. . . the defendent retains complete control over the rental amount . . . — Amended Complaint, dated June 21, 2007

And . . .

. . . if the former property owner is as little as five days late with the undefined rental payments . . . — Amended Complaint, dated June 21, 2007

Complete control?

Undefined rental payments?

Your investigator has dropped the ball, again. There’s nothing undefined about the rent payments because we’ve agreed in advance as to what rent, if any, will be required.

There’s nothing whatsoever undefined about it, Rob. In fact, unless someone dropped the ball, there will be a rental agreement of some sort right along with it. If not, it’s noted somewhere on the agreement itself.

Undefined?

Never happened.

Could not possibly happen.

What this does is demonstrate yet again just how little you’ve learned about what it is we do. Suggesting we create agreements where there’s an “undefined rental payment” makes no sense to us.

How would that even work?

I can’t imagine.

My guess?

Dots poorly connected.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser


2 Responses to: ““Undefined” Rental Payments”

  1. spyboy responds:
    Posted: September 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 am

    Greetings,

    Hummm, Motion To Strike perhaps ?

    Joe; I’m interested to hear if, and how you have “Answered” their Complaint. Pray tell.

    Thank You.
    SpyBoy

  2. Davido responds:
    Posted: September 4th, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    Indeed. Do tell.


Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:


You may write the following basic XHTML Strict in your comments:
<a href="" title=""></a> · <acronym title=""></acronym> · <abbr title=""></abbr>
<blockquote cite=""></blockquote> · <code></code> · <strong></strong> · <em></em>

  • If you’re a first-time commenter, your response will be moderated.
  • If your response includes a link, it will require moderator approval.
Enter Your Comments:



Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.