Agree with what paramount said.

Also, since you have a good tenant, you might want to ask him/her if they have any friends or family members who might want to rent it after they move out. Keep the rent low, and rent to top-notch, long-term tenants.

Good luck!

I don’t really agree with the suggestions above, especially if you will be in another state.

I live about 130 miles from my rental property and I have used a property management company in San Diego since 2000. American Heritage properties
renthomes.com

The 10% fee for me well worth it.
Those you want to spend all the time and energy necessary to operate yourselves to save $100 a month or so, then you have more time and energy than me.

[quote=spdrun]It’s a farkin’ 1/1 condo. How much “management” is actually needed, other than finding tenants? As far as basic maintenance, either find a tenant who’s somewhat handy, or put a clause in the lease that all repairs < $300 are on the tenant. (i.e. the if-the-toilet-is-plugged-plunge-it-yourself rule). Added benefit is that a management company is required to withhold an excessive amount of taxes in CA, whereas a tenant could just mail checks directly to you out of state. (And yes, you're still expected to pay taxes, but better to PAY than give the pigs in Suckremental a free loan for 12 months.)[/quote] It's not a free loan for 12 months. And it is not excessive. If you object to paying CA income tax, don't buy in California. No withholding is required by property managers for Ca residents, only non-residents. And the withholding is based on the amount distributed to the property owner, not based on the gross rents collected. Waivers from the withholding requirement are easily obtained for non-resident owners who agree to pay CA tax.

[quote=spdrun]Since the seller is moving out of state, he’ll be a non-resident.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but the property manager’s distribution is the gross rent minus their fee. Owner still pays taxes, common charges, and mortgage directly, no? So the withholding would be closer to a percentage of the gross rent than that of the the net income. And unless an exception is granted, Jerry’s Pigs will owe the owner at year’s end, rather than vice-versa.

Personally, if either of my offers in CA go through, I have no intention of using a management crook.[/quote]

If you’re going to pay a management company, let them manage. Including paying the mortgage and property taxes, insurance and all other expenses. That’s what they’re getting paid for. Most people who use management companies for real estate do that. I never understood people who pay significant fees and then do the work themselves. They don’t get their money’s worth. Waivers from withholding are invariably granted except for failure to file CA returns when required.

[quote=spdrun]It’s a farkin’ 1/1 condo. How much “management” is actually needed, other than finding tenants? As far as basic maintenance, either find a tenant who’s somewhat handy, or put a clause in the lease that all repairs < $300 are on the tenant. (i.e. the if-the-toilet-is-plugged-plunge-it-yourself rule). Added benefit is that a management company is required to withhold an excessive amount of taxes in CA, whereas a tenant could just mail checks directly to you out of state. (And yes, you're still expected to pay taxes, but better to PAY than give the pigs in Suckremental a free loan for 12 months.)[/quote] Sure it's only a condo... But how do you screen for a tenant that is handy when you live out of state ?

[quote=recordsclerk]If you make your tenant do all the work and pay for repairs, they won’t do the repairs. Never, ever put that in a lease. It’s always in your best interest to have tenants call immediately with problems. Little problems can be costly if ignored. It can lead to law suits when the place becomes inhabitable.[/quote]

Could not agree more!

Seems that there was essentially no tenant screening done at all. No verification of the assets that the tenant had. No screening of the account statements. I am not saying a PM is or is not good to have, I believe that the use of a PM is dictated by each individual case including the experience of the landlord as well as the logistics of the property itself. However the person who posted on sdcia is more of a victim of his own inexperience then anything else. So yes he should have used a PM however he seems to have made little if any attempt at some rudimentary measures he could have easily done on his own to avoid the mess he is now in.