Please Help
OK. Here is the situation. I have a tenant that has been given by me their 60 day notice to vacate when there lease expires end of August. Since April they have been late with their rent every month. I have been nice and let them pay with the late fee 10-20 days late. They were supposed to pay yesterday and nothing. I went over and the yard hasn't been mowed in a least 2 weeks, the pool is green with algae. I just put the liner in 3 weeks ago and showed the tenant what he needed to do. The house is on the market for sale thru a realtor and I am scared there is no way it will sell the way it looks now. We are going to go over and clean up there today. Can I file immediate eviction proceedings and not wait the three days for a quit or vacate? I am asking because of the consecutive months they have been late and I have had to tell them numerous times verbally and in writing about the yard.
Thanks,
Tim
Eviction proceedings follow a strict procedure and timetable. You need to consult an eviction attorney in the same county where the property is located.
In my state I have to give them at least a 3 day notice to pay or quit. Then file a writ of unlawful detainer, notice of default, etc. Search landlord / tenant law in your state on the net.
If there are safety issues or non compliance with localcode you can evict sooner than the standard time generally. Additionally in OR you can out them if they have made the same violation of your rules twice in 6 months.. Don't wait, give them a 3 day notice to pay or quit..
[addsig]
Tim,
I would venture a guess that you won't see rent at all ever from these tenants. In your best interest, I would consider offering the tenants an incentive to move now so you can get your property in the best shape for selling. Catch more flies with honey.
steve
Thanks for all the replies. I probably will offer them something to move on. Right now at least I have their security deposit that covers the rent in case they skip.
While they have all of the outward appearance of outright theft, public takings of private property are allowed under the doctrine of eminent domain. In limiting the practice, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says only, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
"Public use" is generally understood to mean that when homeowners and business people discover that their cherished properties are being removed from their possession without their consent, it's for a purpose that, allegedly, can't be satisfied in any other way - roads, for instance. The government cuts a check and takes the land so that a new highway can run straight from Point A to Point B without having to curve around holdout parcels.
That's not always the way it works, of course.
Matters get more complicated still when governments snatch property for uses that can be called "public" only through a stretch of the imagination. Many times property is seized and handed over to private businesses that would, officials hope, offer the city more tax revenue than it extracted from the existing landowners.
Such condemnations of private property on behalf of wealthier and better-connected private parties have grown increasingly common. The Institute for Justice, which provided legal representation for the besieged property owners in New London, has been tracking the practice in recent years. A report released by the Institute documents the worst abuses of eminent domain from 1998 through 2002. The examples in the report span the country, from a commercial building in Las Vegas, Nevada, grabbed to be used as a casino parking lot, to the condemnation of more than 1,700 buildings and the dislocation of more than 5,000 residents for a private commercial development in Riviera Beach, Florida.
In all cases, lower income people with relatively few political connections suffered at the hands of government officials exercising their eminent domain powers to benefit powerful interests who promise to fill public coffers.
My favorite site for this is http://www.castlecoalition.org/survival_kit/
But do keep in mind that you are an investor, contact the Casino Company and see if the offer would be profitable if so than sell.
I only choose fights that are of benefit and not based upon personal fillings as an investor one must pick and choose his or hers fights wisely!
Weigh it out! Do you really want to up set the city leaders who are looking at profit with this one deal or would it be better to profit on this and continue to profit in this city as one fight could and most likely hamper your future success as an investor.
In this world anything is possible I guess this is why there is some many lawyers here in the U.S.A. reading your post reminds me of a lady who lived in Atlantic City her house was right were if I remember correctly was were Ballys wanted to build there casino well what happen they put toghter the whole deal with the city to build the casino with out getting all the properties bought first well to make a long story short the lady would not sell to the casino and what was built was a casino that went up to her property then to the back of it and then back up to the street. It was a horrible site but got to hand it to the lady she was not going to give up her place for nothing.
By selling to the indians you will be taking a tax generating parcel out of the county coffers and making it tax exempt - only to be generating profit to a business that is owned by a true american would be illegal.
Personally I would ABSOLUTELY refuse to sell to them. You are running a legitimate business and paying your taxes; if they want your property, they MUST pay you a fair and reasonable value; be sure to include how much you will earn in profit for the next 30 years on your property .
Who said anything about Indians?
If your property is taken by eminent domain, you have up to two years to reinvest your "sale" proceeds into another investment property without any tax consequences.
I guess I am an onery person and say, ask for more $$ no matter what they offer...
I would get an attorney if necessary and ask for a higher amount. The people I know that have done this got more out of their property and it is allowed for in the condemnation process of eminent domain.
SLC condemed all kinds of properties to put in car dealerships that supposedly would generate higher revenues for the city. THose that came out whole where those that contested the price ...
[addsig]
My guess is that you will be quite happy with the price you get offered for the house. Having experienced media stinks over such things in the past the government has a tendency to over-pay for such properties. Keeps people happy and after all its only tax dollars its not like its real money.