What can go wrong? Update in #149

[barnwife]

The landlord tenant law in our state in the midwest is on the strict side with regards to eviction process and tenants rights.  That's fine, the law is relatively well explained and those are the rules everybody knows going into the game.  It does make it difficult for someone with no or bad references to get a decent (safe/efficient/affordable) place to live on their own, being a huge part of the cycle of poverty, but I didn't make the rules, I just live with them.  

 

From my perspective the advertisement that said something like "negotiable for long term tenants" is the red flag (blood in the water?) that allowed these tenants to find the OP.  If you want to reward long term tenants, be a good landlord and don't raise their rent (bet these people didn't ask how often you've raised the rent in the past, I rarely get that question, but I'm always glad to answer it).  Don't advertise that you're a sucker.  

 

Mrbarnwife

Edited February 11, 2016 by barnwife

[Sarah CB]

Now I'm curious whether Americans have stale-dated cheques. Here it used to be stale-dated at a year old, now it's 6 months.

 

Me, too.  Here in Canada the date actually means something.  I've actually had a couple of the kids' birthday cheques go stale when I forgot to cash them within six months.  

[Valley Girl]

If by stale-dated you mean a bank will no longer accept a check that was written some time ago, then yes, at our bank in Florida that date is 6 months.  I have never heard the term stale-dated before but now I know what to call it. 

 

Maybe different states or banks do things differently. When a school lost a check I wrote, I was told that even if a bank's policy is six months, I could still be held responsible for the check if it were cashed. The recipient could find the check and deposit it in a bank with a different policy. Even if they used the same bank as I did, the teller might not notice the date. Either way, the money would be taken from my account. This was a year after the check was lost and replaced. A stop payment was only good for 6 months and would have to be renewed at $35 a pop. I ended up having to close the account and open a new one. It was the only way to protect myself.

[TammyS]

Sort of why don't you go to the workhouse, then.

 

 

Yes, why don't YOU go to the workhouse?  You are fine with people stealing others' income, which would send them to the workhouse.  So, since you are fine with that, then you should take that person's place there and go yourself.

 

 

[TammyS]

 

 

I find this great house that I can just barely afford, apply for it, and the landlord checks my (admittedly not great) references and says okay.  Yay!  She says in the email to bring cash or a money order for the deposit but I won't have the deposit until I get mine back from the last place, or until payday or something, so I bring post-dated checks to the lease signing and hope for the best.  If the landlord says no, that won't work, I plan to go find another place, but they seemed nice so I am hoping.  I will have the $ in the account for the date on the checks, and it is when the lease officially starts, so I am not planning to scam anyone.  While meeting the landlord, I ask when it will be available to move stuff in, and he says he'll just give me the keys now and I can move stuff in and etc. for the next week before the lease starts.  Great!  This is a big help since I have to be out of the old place on the 16th or whatever and I was worried about doing it all in one day, or whatever.  So I move stuff in.

 

 

 

You're missing a step.  You first didn't bring the money to the lease signing, then you gave post-dated checks, then (here's the step you are missing), you called again and said, "Actually those checks that were dated for the 16th won't actually be good until the 19th".  Meanwhile, you've moved in and paid NOTHING.

[eternalsummer]

Yes, the new set of dates is concerning.  Did they give a reason for the change in dates?

 

Moving in and paying nothing, again, is not an indication of scamminess in itself - the OP's husband volunteered the keys, and if the renter pays on time from now on, the OP and her husband will be out exactly nothing.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

Not being snarky here. I wonder, though, if a discussion of the systemic issues might not work better as a separate discussion. This one is more focused on a very specific situation and the specific situations that others have had. For an individual landlord putting his or her property and own financial future on the line, often general behaviors or red flags have to be used as a guide since they can't see into the individual tenant's soul to determine if that particular person is going to play fair or not. They have to look at the available information of which showing up for the lease signing with proper payment in hand is one factor. But seriously, there are enough people here with both good and bad experiences as tenants and landlords that you could probably get a good discussion of the overall systemic issues going.

 

I think that would be an interesting discussion if people were interested, but I wasn't really looking to get into all that.  I just really did not like the tone of some of the posts.

 

The post anenome made above is a pretty good example of what I was thinking as a very possible scenario for this kind of thing, something that is IME quite common - a lot of people live from paycheck to paycheck, and when they have something like moving they hope for the best.  They are financially insecure, but there are a heck of a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck.

[Bluegoat]

Yes, why don't YOU go to the workhouse?  You are fine with people stealing others' income, which would send them to the workhouse.  So, since you are fine with that, then you should take that person's place there and go yourself.

 

Are you serioous?

 

Your comments aren't doing much to make me think you aren't in favour of that sort of system.

[eternalsummer]

I think it's important to clarify:

 

Of course we judge the likelihood of people's future behavior based on their current behavior and our experience (or society's experience) of people with similar behavior.  If you're risking several thousand dollars in revenue, of course you make this judgement as you see fit and it is wise, financially, to be very cautious.

 

When we hire someone, we generally know well before the interview is over whether we want to hire them.  Sometimes we dismiss someone based on factors that might not actually be as bad as we suspect - say they were late to the interview and had no car that day or something.  That person could be a great employee!  But we don't want to risk it.  That makes sense.

 

However, there is a distinction between saying I'd be cautious renting to someone who couldn't pay the deposit in cash before the official start of the lease and saying that someone who can't pay the deposit in cash before the start of the lease is by definition scamming you, or morally corrupt, or something.

[TammyS]

Are you serioous?

 

Your comments aren't doing much to make me think you aren't in favour of that sort of system.

 

It's your analogy.  You brought the workhouse into it.  If you don't like the workhouse, pick another analogy.

 

My point is that since you are in favor of stealing that you should be the first to surrender YOUR money/property, before validating the taking of others' money/property.

[TammyS]

 

 

However, there is a distinction between saying I'd be cautious renting to someone who couldn't pay the deposit in cash before the official start of the lease and saying that someone who can't pay the deposit in cash before the start of the lease is by definition scamming you, or morally corrupt, or something.

 

They didn't just say they couldn't pay by a date and then ask for grace for a later pay date.

 

They said they were bringing money - then didn't.

 

They gave post-dated checks - then called to say that they aren't good for the late date, but for a later date.

 

They are changing the terms of this deal on the fly, have taken possession of property, and paid not one red cent to put some skin in the game.

[eternalsummer]

Right, because the OP and her husband have not required them to.  They didn't force their way in; they didn't steal anything; they just said, hey, we don't have the $ yet but will on this date, and hoped for the best.  Luckily for them (and perhaps unluckily for the OP, we'll see), the OP's husband gave them the keys and didn't insist on payment beforehand.

[Carol in Cal.]

Right, because the OP and her husband have not required them to.  They didn't force their way in; they didn't steal anything; they just said, hey, we don't have the $ yet but will on this date, and hoped for the best.  Luckily for them (and perhaps unluckily for the OP, we'll see), the OP's husband gave them the keys and didn't insist on payment beforehand.

And then they DIDN'T have the money on that date.  No, wait, on two dates when they supposedly would have it.  Let's not whitewash that part.

[creekland]

Sort of why don't you go to the workhouse, then.

 

Who said anything about it being ok to trash places? 

 

I think you guys are totally missing the fact that we are talking about making unwarranted generalizations, and systematic problems with housing and low incomes.  Those are exactly the attitudes that lead people to conclude that people reacting to systematic paradoxes are immoral.

 

I think you're missing that these aren't unwarranted generalizations.  They are odds based upon previous experiences.  When red flags go up, they go up.  In the real world, red flags can lead to expensive consequences, so an investor needs to be wary and know their odds.

 

Workhouses?  In the real world I can't end poverty or make sure people pay their bills as they should or anything similar with our personal finances.  We make plenty of charity donations to help others.  We're pretty darn lenient as landlords (never had a single complaint from a tenant).  But we need to make sure we don't need the workhouse in our retirement age too and to get the best odds for that, we look carefully at tenants when red flags pop up.

 

These folks may be fine and all might work out well.  We all hope so.  But personally, I wouldn't be renting to them given the red flags we've seen and the real world experiences we've had.

[TammyS]

Right, because the OP and her husband have not required them to.  They didn't force their way in; they didn't steal anything; they just said, hey, we don't have the $ yet but will on this date, and hoped for the best..

 

Then they called back and said they wouldn't have the money on that date, either.

[Carol in Cal.]

Something everyone might do well to keep in mind here is that it is pretty consumer-friendly to continue to have small business owners that have and run just a few (or maybe even just one) rental properties, as opposed to maybe two monopolistic management firms or something.  An individual owner is less likely to run up rents on existing tenants, and more likely to consider situational nuances.  There are some real advantages to the public in not having every single landlord be a totally 'by the book' impersonal corporation.

[TammyS]

Something everyone might do well to keep in mind here is that it is pretty consumer-friendly to continue to have small business owners that have and run just a few (or maybe even just one) rental properties, as opposed to maybe two monopolistic management firms or something.  An individual owner is less likely to run up rents on existing tenants, and more likely to consider situational nuances.  There are some real advantages to the public in not having every single landlord be a totally 'by the book' impersonal corporation.

 

Interesting that you mention this.  I was just reading, or hearing, something a little while ago about major investment firms buying up huge numbers of rental properties and creating a sort of "landlord" portfolio of investments.

[eternalsummer]

Right, and instead of saying, pay by that date or we will start the eviction process, the OP's husband (in my understanding) said okay, no worries.

 

I understand being very suspicious of these people and this circumstance; I'm just saying that not only have they not stolen anything from anyone (they've just asked for grace and been given it), they are not certain *to* steal anything from anyone (though they very well may).

 

I'm pretty sure I said earlier in the thread (sometimes I type-delete, so maybe not) that business and charity are best done separately.  I speak from experience, terrible awful experience!  And now I am very wary of a few things that other people might not be, and I certainly have no intention of either mixing business and charity or advising anyone to mix business and charity.

 

But that is different than saying that all acts of charity in the course of business are doomed to disaster, and that requesters of charity are somehow morally bankrupt.  They're not bad people, they're just asking for as much as they can get until you say no more, because they don't have anything and they perceive that you have a lot to give (that's my theory, anyway).

[Carol in Cal.]

Interesting that you mention this.  I was just reading, or hearing, something a little while ago about major investment firms buying up huge numbers of rental properties and creating a sort of "landlord" portfolio of investments.

It is a huge issue here in booming NorCal.

[KathyBC]

Maybe different states or banks do things differently. When a school lost a check I wrote, I was told that even if a bank's policy is six months, I could still be held responsible for the check if it were cashed. The recipient could find the check and deposit it in a bank with a different policy. Even if they used the same bank as I did, the teller might not notice the date. Either way, the money would be taken from my account. This was a year after the check was lost and replaced. A stop payment was only good for 6 months and would have to be renewed at $35 a pop. I ended up having to close the account and open a new one. It was the only way to protect myself.

Aren't banks associated with attention to details and taking responsibility? Meaningless dates and this lack of protection for the public is a little mind-boggling.

[creekland]

Interesting that you mention this.  I was just reading, or hearing, something a little while ago about major investment firms buying up huge numbers of rental properties and creating a sort of "landlord" portfolio of investments.

 

We turn down generic mailings to buy ours fairly often - some "guy" looking for rental properties.  Guy is in parentheses as that's how he portrays himself.  With bulk mailings it could easily be something larger.

 

We have no interest in selling.

[zoobie]

Now I'm curious whether Americans have stale-dated cheques. Here it used to be stale-dated at a year old, now it's 6 months.

 

UCC says banks have no obligation to pay a check over six months old, but it may do so in good faith. (Good faith is not defined, but in practice, it usually means they do so by mistake.) Bank policy and state laws vary. 

[PrairieSong]

We've had honest tenants of varying income levels and deceitful ones of varying income levels. The amount of money you have doesn't determine your character. I don't recall anyone here saying that. We were saying that the new tenant not paying a cent before moving in, and then changing dates of payment, are big red flags. From what the OP has shared, I probably would not have rented to these people. Admittedly I don't know the whole story. I have to make judgments all the time about potential tenants' ability to pay and about what kind of people they are via background checks. I am not judging their souls. I'm just trying to be as certain as I can that they will pay their rent and take care of my property.

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Bluegoat]

Yes, the new set of dates is concerning.  Did they give a reason for the change in dates?

 

Moving in and paying nothing, again, is not an indication of scamminess in itself - the OP's husband volunteered the keys, and if the renter pays on time from now on, the OP and her husband will be out exactly nothing.

 

I thought it said it was because that was their payday. 

[Bluegoat]

It's your analogy.  You brought the workhouse into it.  If you don't like the workhouse, pick another analogy.

 

My point is that since you are in favor of stealing that you should be the first to surrender YOUR money/property, before validating the taking of others' money/property.

 

No one has said that they are in favour of stealing.  In fact I don't think I single person has said that a landlord has no reason to be worried about tenants with money problems of any kind, or that they should rent when they think they are likely to lose money.

 

My point was that responding to the problems of housing security by sending people to the food bank s pretty much the same as Scrooge saying the poor should go to the workhouse.  It totally misses the point.  If a starving person in a well-off society steals food, the problem is likely not that they are dishonest by nature, and if they are hesitant to go to the workhouse as an option, that shouldn't invite some show of moral superiority on your part, unless you are really unaware of what going there means.

[Bluegoat]

I think you're missing that these aren't unwarranted generalizations.  They are odds based upon previous experiences.  When red flags go up, they go up.  In the real world, red flags can lead to expensive consequences, so an investor needs to be wary and know their odds.

 

Workhouses?  In the real world I can't end poverty or make sure people pay their bills as they should or anything similar with our personal finances.  We make plenty of charity donations to help others.  We're pretty darn lenient as landlords (never had a single complaint from a tenant).  But we need to make sure we don't need the workhouse in our retirement age too and to get the best odds for that, we look carefully at tenants when red flags pop up.

 

These folks may be fine and all might work out well.  We all hope so.  But personally, I wouldn't be renting to them given the red flags we've seen and the real world experiences we've had.

 

I've said half a dozen times now, as have others, that it is ok for a landlord to worry about a tenants potential ability to pay and act accordingly.

 

That is totally different than making moral judgements about their individual situation or actions without a lot more information, or worse, making a generalized view about why people act like that.

 

Honestly, this is no different than making generalized judgements about people's responses to things like racial discrimination.  You know - it is totally justified statistically to say that some groups of people may be more inclined to be involved in crime, or terrorism, or drugs.  And people who have money problems. 

 

What is not appropriate is to ignore the fact that those kinds of statistics are very often reflective of the systematic structures those people find themselves in.  What do you do about that - well you don't have to offer them a place to live, necessarily.  You should refrain from making moral judgements and inappropriate generalizations about them.  And you should think about the systematic problem and, as a landlord it might be a good thing to think about the part you are playing in that system in a structural sense - what is the role of private rental properties in our society?

 

Saying you will advice someone in Victorian times to go to a food bank means sending them to the workhouse.  But I think we can all understand why people would be pretty desperate to avoid that, and would refrain from moralizing about it.  We might steal to avoid our kids going there too.  What I am suggesting is that some people need to adopt a similar lack of personal moral judgement in cases like this, where people seem to be trying to muddle through and where you really know little about their circumstances.

[Spryte]

I hope this turns out well for the OP. I do think her DH made some mistakes that could be costly, but only time will tell. The signs don't look good to me, but still hoping for the best.

[TammyS]

No one has said that they are in favour of stealing.  In fact I don't think I single person has said that a landlord has no reason to be worried about tenants with money problems of any kind, or that they should rent when they think they are likely to lose money.

 

My point was that responding to the problems of housing security by sending people to the food bank s pretty much the same as Scrooge saying the poor should go to the workhouse.  It totally misses the point.  If a starving person in a well-off society steals food, the problem is likely not that they are dishonest by nature, and if they are hesitant to go to the workhouse as an option, that shouldn't invite some show of moral superiority on your part, unless you are really unaware of what going there means.

 

 

So not only should society provide for the poor, but it should do so in the way that the poor choose, or suffer the consequences?  Hm.

 

And if the poor choose to "rent" a more expensive house, and then not pay, rather than a less expensive house, then society should just deal with?  And by society, we mean the landlord who will be out of their income, and lose even more money trying to oust the (thieves) poor, unfortunate, souls.

 

And yes, I do believe that stealing food from a grocer when you have a place to go and get free food is a morally inferior choice.

 

But we can't expect the poor (stupid, low, unworthy) to be held to the same standards as us upright people, now can we?

[Alessandra]

I hope this turns out well for the OP. I do think her DH made some mistakes that could be costly, but only time will tell. The signs don't look good to me, but still hoping for the best.

This.

[Carol in Cal.]

I thought it said it was because that was their payday. 

Yes, but they didn't say that UNTIL they had taken possession of the property.  Before that, they had given a postdated check with an earlier date.  Then they took possession of the property.  Then they said, Oh BTW, that check won't actually clear until a few days after the date on it.

[Pen]

Don't know if anyone else has suggested this, but if being poor is the total issue for the OP's renters and they are otherwise terrific tenants (which I do have strong doubts about due to the apparent dishonesty going on so far)...     Let's change this beginning....

 

 

 

If someone is a terrific tenant but only has major issues in terms of poverty, it is possible that the person can qualify for Section 8 housing and the landlord can be the Section 8 housing LL (if the property qualifies).  I know someone who is disabled and impoverished, who, rather than seek out official Section 8 housing of which there is almost none in our area, they were able to get a desired LL to be able to qualify an available apartment to be the Section 8 housing. I don't know all of the details, but know that both the renter and LL worked together to make it happen.

 

 

 

Also, my DS is taking a co-op class dealing with homelessness in our area, and previously had one on city planning. There is precious little good homeless sheltering available, but for people who are concerned about poverty issues, working with that could be a good thing to get involved in. The one my DS's co-op is helping to build shelters for allows people to stay for 6 months while they get themselves on their feet...find a job, collect enough money to make rental deposits and first and last month's payments, etc.  Apparently it can be extended somewhat if it is clear that the person is making progress, but needs just a bit more time. At least as I understand this from DS's explanations.  There is also a homelessness citizen task force at our library. Possibly other places have similar things, or if not, they could be started.

 

 

Anyway, there are potentially other approaches available in our society other than what the tenants in this thread seem currently to be doing.

 

Since it seems to be the DH who handled both the original situation where the tenants were given keys early without any payments and also was the recipient of the phone call in response to the email, it is hard to say what is the tenants getting away with things and what is the DH just saying some version of "okay fine."  

 

I think OP and her DH need to work out some plan whereby DH will not answer responses from the tenants right away, but instead defer until he has been able to discuss it with OP and perhaps others.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Pen

[Susan Wise Bauer]

TammyS, ramp down the sarcasm. It doesn't work well online. Thanks.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

TammyS, ramp down the sarcasm. It doesn't work well online. Thanks.

[Amira]

I agree that there are major concerns here about the tenant's actions, but in the end, the OP's husband *chose* to give the tenant the keys without payment and gave verbal permission to move in early.  That choice is the problem here and at this point, no one knows the current motivations or future actions of the tenant.  I still think it's entirely possible that everything will work out just fine, but if you give people keys to your property and tell them to move their stuff in, why should they be blamed for doing so?  If you tell them that you'll accept the check later, why is it the tenant's fault that you agreed to it?  Their asking to pay the rent late is a major concern, but they're not dishonest for asking.  They should have said they wouldn't have the money till the 19th, but would the OP's husband have ended the deal at that point?   I get the impression that he was willing to overlook a lot. If that would have been a deal-breaker, then I agree that one thing is a problem on the tenant's part, but it's hard to imagine that would have been when the OP's husband gave them the keys without payment anyway.

 

There are risks to being a landlord, but it's your own fault if you get burned because you allowed someone to move in without paying anything.  There are also risks to being a tenant, but it's my fault if I move into a house with obviously inexperienced landlords who either don't know or don't care about being a responsible landlord.

[idnib]

I thought it said it was because that was their payday. 

 

They gave the post-dated checks for the 16th before moving in, and then after moving in, said their payday was not actually until the 19th. It implied they would be getting paid on the 16th and after they were in, they gave the actual date.

 

No one has said that they are in favour of stealing.  In fact I don't think I single person has said that a landlord has no reason to be worried about tenants with money problems of any kind, or that they should rent when they think they are likely to lose money.

 

Likewise, not a single person has said that these people are morally bankrupt or are definitely scammers.

[Tess in the Burbs]

If by stale-dated you mean a bank will no longer accept a check that was written some time ago, then yes, at our bank in Florida that date is 6 months.  I have never heard the term stale-dated before but now I know what to call it. 

 

My mom and I wrote a check to a scouting group that was cashed 15 months after we wrote it.  Ticked us both off.  And I know the lady who deposited it.  I haven't said anything about it, but oh my gosh, for a few days I was ready to go off!  My mom is retired/limited income, so that check was a big deal to her.  

 

Banks have rules, but apparently checks do go through well after a year. 

 

 

Ok, OP, what about utilities?  I rent and I have to put all utilities in my name when I rent.  In fact, once I tried to set up for the day before we got keys and the utility would not allow it, b/c they had the owners on the bill until the next day.  Are you paying utilities?  I hope you are asking them to pay that as well.  

[Valley Girl]

Aren't banks associated with attention to details and taking responsibility? Meaningless dates and this lack of protection for the public is a little mind-boggling.

 

You would think so, wouldn't you? I was really upset at the complete lack of protection I had from that check being cashed long after it had been replaced.

[texasmama]

How awful. How could there not be legal consequences for the people who caused the damage? If they weren't on the lease and were living there illegally, why didn't the court hold them responsible? Especially if they were conducting illegal activity on the premises as well. It's heartbreaking to hear about good landlords who try to work with tenants who run into hard times and end up repaid with such trouble. No wonder people on this board who ARE good tenants and have unique situations run into so much difficulty finding a decent place to live. That's not fair either. The bad tenants destroy the trust for everyone. It's stories like these as well as the experiences of family members who rented out property that will forever keep us from wanting to be landlords. (For the record, the tenants my family members dealt with were NOT low income. They were, however, low lifes who broke major terms of the lease, repeatedly didn't pay on time despite some grace, and left damage in their wake.)

 

I don't know how there are no legal consequences.  It is bizarre to me that squatters have rights.  If someone broke in my front door right now, I could call the police and have them arrested, but if I owned a vacant home and someone moved into it without my permission and destroyed it, I have to pay to file court papers and wait to have the sheriffs come to evict them and then carry all of their things to the curb, being careful not to break anything because then I would be liable to them, all the while they are cursing me and threatening outside the sheriffs' hearing to come back and burn down the place and how they have a right to be there.  

 

It's like something out of a bad movie.

[Ravin]

The fact that the cheque was post dated would make it impossible for the landlord to cash it before the rent was due...

 

This depends. In some states, the date on a postdated check does not have to be honored on the front end, it just ensures it remains cashable for the time period on the check AFTER the date. Which means it can be validly cashed as soon as it's in hand--you don't hand a postdated check to someone you don't trust to honor the date.

[texasmama]

Holy moly, both landlord and tenants are at fault here. It's not uncommon.

 

Private landlords need to know what they are doing, in order to protect their asset/s That's on them.

Did you read my story? We did everything we could to vet tenants, and it still went badly. It seems harsh to say that the huge financial loss is "on us".

[texasmama]

I wasn't referring to your story, which I haven't read. I was talking about the OP, and the shifting of responsibility away from the landlords in that situation, to the 'scamming' tenants, when in fact there is mutual responsibility for a non-optimal situation.

 

I feel sorry for everyone who has had a bad or even terrible experience leasing out an asset, or a bad or terrible experience with being a tenant.

Thank you.

[texasmama]

It really is an awful story, and I'm sorry that happened to you and your family.

Muah. Thank you, dear.

[Seasider]

It is a huge issue here in booming NorCal.

Also happened in New Orleans after Katrina.

[Anne in CA]

It is a huge issue here in booming NorCal.

My community was reeling from the consequences of this for a long time. Finally we are getting out from under some of this.

[Tsuga]

So it's ok to lie, because they are hard up....but not ok for others to say that lying is not ok?

 

As a low income person, this is the kind of thing that drives me bats.

 

What you are suggesting is that low income people should be held to a lower standard, because they're low income, because they aren't good enough to meet the standard of non-low income people.

 

It's demeaning and insulting.

 

I agree.

 

I have low income family all over.

 

Seriously... They don't lie.

 

Even where Section 8 is inconvenient, better to beg than to front and I have seen one cousin (son is disabled) beg from the church.

 

She is not a liar and has not let 35 years of hard knocks kick the honesty out of her. She might be making canned food drive beans and handmade tortillas but she is not going to front for a fancy apartment. I know her.

 

Tell me poor people deserve a chance without begging and I agree, but misrepresenting your means is not the way.

[goldberry]

Regarding the post-dated check issue..

 

We once wrote a post dated check that was cashed early.  Our bank said too bad, so sad.  All checks are legally valid when they are written.

 

Not long after that, my DH worked for this horrible employer who gave him 3 postdated checks for a job he did.  (This was technically illegal since it was payroll, but we didn't have the time or means to pursue it at the time.)  When we went to our bank, they wouldn't accept them.  We said, just a few months ago you said checks were valid as soon as they were written and that's why you weren't liable for cashing ours early.  The checks are either valid or they aren't.  They said they could *decide* not to cash them, but if they did cash them they weren't liable.  They refused to cash them.  Banks = :(

[Tsuga]

nm

Edited February 12, 2016 by Tsuga

[Sarah CB]

Regarding the post-dated check issue..

 

We once wrote a post dated check that was cashed early.  Our bank said too bad, so sad.  All checks are legally valid when they are written.

 

 

 

Except in Canada where they are legally valid for only six months *starting* with the date actually written on the cheque.

 

[gardenmom5]

So it's ok to lie, because they are hard up....but not ok for others to say that lying is not ok?

 

As a low income person, this is the kind of thing that drives me bats. 

 

What you are suggesting is that low income people should be held to a lower standard, because they're low income, because they aren't good enough to meet the standard of non-low income people.

 

It's demeaning and insulting.

 

 

 

I wish I could like this more.   I've been low income. (irony is, this month we've already had as much in income as we did for an entire year when we were below the poverty level.

 

my girls did girl scouts. someone in the cookie mom's house, stole ALL the cash she'd collected from all the girls for the scouts. (it was most likely her husband. she wasn't shy about telling people he'd recently gotten out of jail. - he was a s3x offender.)  another mom did exactly what is being done here.  she completely excused it, and even offered to just write a check to cover the theft.  because they were "low income", dishonesty was *expected* of them. well, I was  also a ptsa treasurer during our period of low income, I handled even more cash, and I *didn't* steal any money!

 

to add: my mom gut told me to only put checks into the envelope going to this mom (I was dealing with two cookie moms.), and put all the cash going to the other mom.  I was listening to my mom-gut, and felt bad for feeling like I was stereotyping. no - in that case, my mom-gut was warning me.

 

and I didn't exactly grow up in an honest family. we were middle class -but I was five and with my mother when SHE was arrested for shoplifting.  not to mention all of my brother's illegal activities which she just let go . . .

Edited February 12, 2016 by gardenmom5

[ThisIsTheDay]

 

 

 

No, I think it is about being low income. 

 

I think the overwhelming general opinion is that you're choosing to see it this way, when it's not.  We had renters with the husband who made in excess of $90K per year. They were in their mid-late 50s, and the husband worked a full time regular job with a large national company anyone here would recognize.  They'd recently lost their house to foreclosure and had filed bankruptcy.  They didn't have many bills.  However, they consistently had trouble paying $1200 in rent every month, and they were late more often than they were timely.  They also allowed their aging dog to use one carpeted bedroom as a sick room.  Although we were able to track them down and get them to cough up the money to replace the carpet (it was in excess of the deposit), it did not pay to actually replace the carpet.  Our state law mandates that we pro-rate it, so we still had to cover much of the replacement cost.

 

My mom, otoh, had property that was rented to a working couple who struggled every month to meet their rent.  They were always up front about it, and they always paid when they said they would.  They won my mom over when they had trouble in December but came up with the cash halfway through the month.  She knew they were sacrificing their Christmas--but she still had a mortgage to pay on the house, and with the housing market, she was still covering an extra $200/mo. that the rent didn't cover.  They lived in the house for four years, and my mom was sad to see them go.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Well, that's why you have insurance I guess.

 

There will always be a small element of risk. If you can't tolerate that small element of risk, or insure your property against that risk, or understand the processes by which you reduce that risk, you shouldn't be in the landlord business.

 

I'm not entirely sure that people who cannot take that small risk should be in the business of providing rentals. To do it properly takes time, knowledge and money.

 

I would guess you've had limited experience with 1) renting out property, and 2) dealing with insurance companies in the U.S.  It is no small matter, and whatever happens, you end up screwed.

 

I have health insurance too, but that doesn't mean I take every measure that I can to remain healthy.  And I have car insurance, but I don't drive like an idiot, thinking I can hit other cars, because, hey! I have insurance!! 

 

It's fascinating to see the people on this board who always are so vocal about someone else taking responsibility, but who are unwilling to commit to the same.  After all, the other people have more money, and they should be paying for everything, right?