Timeline for Why would my tenant want me, landlord, to buy his leasehold interest in my own property?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2020 at 12:23 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @aroth that's why it's "some portion of" the expected return and not the entire expected return. | |
| May 2, 2020 at 9:51 | comment | added | aroth | Plus the caveat that in this case, it's the tenant who approached the landlord asking to be bought out. It's one thing if the landlord wants them out and maybe has already lined up a new tenant. Quite another if/when the landlord is taken by surprise with no plans or desire to see the current tenant leave early (let alone plans to pay them for leaving early). | |
| May 2, 2020 at 9:45 | comment | added | aroth | @frankc Because that puts all the risk on them. Expected returns might not eventuate, and then they're worse off than if they'd done nothing. Presumably when they signed the current tenant they set rent at a profitable amount. There's no risk in keeping a reliable tenant; they'll definitely earn a profit. And sure, if they're greedy enough/trying to min-max maybe they'll go for "spend $500 now to maybe have $1200 extra a year from now". But many things can go wrong with that plan, and the more the landlord spends on getting the tenant out early the fewer things they can survive going wrong. | |
| May 1, 2020 at 21:03 | comment | added | nomen | I've had landlords that would drop tenants at the drop of the hat if the rental market was hot. They didn't think the profits were hypothetical... | |
| May 1, 2020 at 19:36 | comment | added | frankc | @aroth i'm not sure why this sounds mildy delusional. it happens all the time, especially with commercial leases that are long (think 5 to 10 years). If the market rate of the apartment has gone up a lot, its in the financial interest of the landlord to get the current lesee out. Why wouldn't he be willing to pay some portion of his expected return to make that happen? | |
| May 1, 2020 at 15:46 | history | edited | Joe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2020 at 15:46 | comment | added | Joe | I think that the last sentence is confusing, and I'll edit it to more clearly reflect what I think the answer means - OP please correct if that's not what you mean. There's nothing explicitly wrong with this logic: while a $100 difference isn't significant enough, it is very much possible that a much larger difference, or over a much longer lease, could justify paying the tenant to leave.This is not signifciantly different from the condo developer paying tenants to vacate early so they can tear down the old apartment and replace with new condos. | |
| May 1, 2020 at 12:49 | comment | added | Criggie | Could you clarify plainly which party is paying $500 to which party for early termination of the lease contract? I guess the occupant pays to the landlord, who is then free to re-rent the property ? | |
| May 1, 2020 at 12:02 | comment | added | aroth | Doesn't seem like sound advice. The landlord will incur costs/risks (time, agency fees, advertising, unoccupied weeks/months, etc.) trying to re-let. The tenant has no reasonable grounds for trying to extract some portion of the change in the market rental rate from the landlord, imo. They can stay and enjoy getting a $200 place for $100. Or seek permission to leave without paying the next 11 months' rent. Saying they'll leave if the landlord hands over ~50% of their hypothetical, unearned profits just seems...mildly delusional, at best. | |
| May 1, 2020 at 6:56 | review | First posts | |||
| May 1, 2020 at 11:54 | |||||
| May 1, 2020 at 6:54 | history | answered | jimmy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |