Overreaction or not? (realtor question)

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The realtor is right and the OP is wrong.

 

[MixMasterTang]

I cant answer for those who sign a lease after rushing and skipping through parts of it. It should be apparent to anybody who realizes the importance of signing a legally binding contract that the entire document should be read.

That said, there is no fine print. All font is the same size. Every page gets an initial from the tenant proving they read it.

So that pretty much affirms you are trying to rent out the place without them actually knowing that, okay, makes perfect sense now.

 

[mindless1]

Overall I get the feeling this is to the OP like a chess game of "I'll out think you". That's a failing attitude for a landlord. Strive for fairness instead.

 

[MongGrel]

The realtor is right and the OP is wrong.

Pretty much this.

 

[Mike64]

In all seriousness, if yours was, for example, the first property a realtor got me to look at only by failing to give me what you consider "minor details" beforehand, after I'd turned around and left immediately without bothering to look at the second floor upon seeing the "construction zone" (if not the papered-over windows alone!), I'd stop answering or returning their phone calls and email. And I'd probably leave a less-than-flattering review of them (and certainly your rental) on Yelp or whatever online resource(s) it might be listed on. Not only do realtors not want to "waste time" (sometimes excessively so, given that showing properties is after all what they get paid to do), good ones don't want to get a reputation for trying to pull fast ones on their clients. Rational renters don't expect realtors to be their "best friends", but there are limits to what they expect to have to "grill" realtors and potential landlords about and/or figure out for themselves, and those limits are heavily tied to the housing market in your area. In tight and/or lower-cost markets, people normally expect less from realtors and landlords, but obviously the higher the rents and the more choices potential renters have, the pickier they can afford to be about whom they deal with and the sort of shenanigans they're willing to put up with.

And do I assume correctly you'll want a tenant who's employed full-time? That means they're busy during the day, too and will probably get extremely pissed off at a realtor who tries to drag them around to rentals they wouldn't dream of considering for obvious reasons - even less significant ones than major construction on the first floor of a two-floor/two apartment house - that the realtor "doesn't see any reason" to "disclose" beforehand. (And yes, full dry-walling and tiling is "major" as far as most people are concerned.)

As for the seeping basement, if a treadmill is the sort of "personal property" that "requires protection" to the point where you feel the need to put that in the lease to cover your own ass, and if the potential tenant specifically asks about putting one down there, then not telling them the basement is unsuitable for it may stop short of being downright "dishonest", but it certainly is shady. Especially since it appears that you'd object to them being told about it at all before they figure it out for themselves from whatever language you've inserted "somewhere" in a multipage lease, only after they've presumably looked at, and possibly passed on, more suitable rentals, have gone through the whole approval process, and are about to "sign on the dotted line".

PS: The more you write, the shadier that basement sounds altogether. How suitable is any area as "storage space" at all - except maybe for outdoor furniture or scuba gear - if anything someone puts there "requires protection" from otherwise-probable water or moisture damage? And must I really point out that even your choice of the legalistic word "disclosure" (versus "mention", "note", etc) itself suggests a certain shadiness? As in, doing the absolute minimum necessary to protect yourself from actual legal liability rather than looking to avoid renting the place to someone whose "disclosed" needs you know it affirmatively fails to meet in the first place? And who, I'll also point out, would therefore unlikely be satisfied, let alone happy, with the situation when they later discover it? Even from the standpoint of your own self-interest, that seems short-sighted, since such a tenant wouldn't exactly be terribly well disposed to dealing with you on anything but a purely "legalistic", adversarial basis.. And unless you're quite sure you'll always be able to stick to the exact letter of the law and your lease (something most individual landlords who don't use management companies, especially those who are otherwise employed full-time, often find difficult), you might not wind up being very happy about that yourself..

 

[Rifter]

Yes, it seems that you are a dishonest person who is perfectly comfortable with obscuring details that may disappoint the customer in order to make a sale.

can you read? he clearly stated:

"Im not hiding the seepage; I have it defined in my lease that the basement is prone to seepage and tenants are advised to protect all personal property."

So how exactly is he obscuring anything?

 

[Rifter]

So that pretty much affirms you are trying to rent out the place without them actually knowing that, okay, makes perfect sense now.

Im sorry but if you sign a legally binding contract without reading every word, or having your lawyer read every word, then you deserve whatever happens.

There is no excuse for not reading a contract.

 

[NetWareHead]

As for the seeping basement, if a treadmill is the sort of "personal property" that "requires protection" to the point where you feel the need to put that in the lease to cover your own ass, and if the potential tenant specifically asks about putting one down there, then not telling them the basement is unsuitable for it may stop short of being downright "dishonest", but it certainly is shady. Especially since it appears that you'd object to them being told about it at all before they figure it out for themselves from whatever language you've inserted "somewhere" in a multipage lease, only after they've presumably looked at, and possibly passed on, more suitable rentals, have gone through the whole approval process, and are about to "sign on the dotted line".

What tenant would wait until the last minute to see the lease? The lease IS the contract between us and you are going to arrive prepared to sign something you never saw or read? What a ridiculously concocted scenario just to make a point about something you wrongly assumed. I offer a copy of the lease after I get a tenant application. If the application looks good, they get a lease copy. I tell them to read it and let me know if they want to continue. If they agree to the terms, I then run their credit, background etc... They can read about the seepage (and agree to it) before I hit their credit with an inquiry.

Tenants moved in a week ago and took it upon themselves to bring a bunch of pallets to store their stuff in the basement. I never said anything in person about the seepage, my only disclosure was what was printed in the lease. I find it so hard to understand why this thread became a shitshow. Glad none of you here are renting from me and happy to see I rented to some reasonable people who can read a contract beforehand, understand it and do whats necessary.