Ethan TimorParticipant@ethantimorJoin Date: 2016Post Count: 282
Here’s a hopefully interesting story with a riddle in the end.
Found a nice property to buy. One house, two units, long term tenants.
After some back and forth, we agreed on the price. Great.
Made it clear my offer was based on existing tenants being able to stay at below market rates. Vendor was happy, tenants were happy and agreed to new rents. Excellent.
Got the contract, added pest, building and finance. All good.
Vendor wanted the contract subject to existing tenancies but the attachments revealed (and discussions later confirmed):
1. Both tenants are paying WAY below market rates.
2. Bond amounts are super low (close to 2 weeks of existing rents)
3. One of the tenants has no contract whatsoever.
OK… how can we solve this one, I thought?
So I offered the following:
1. We exchange conditional on pest, building, finance.
2. Once it goes unconditional, vendor gives tenants 30 days notice to vacant.
3. I meet the tenants before settlement and sign new leases with them so they don’t have to leave. Was even ready to commit doing so (with specifying the rentals etc in the contract) to assure the vendor that his long time tenants will not be kicked out.
4. We settle.
I thought it’s a good offer, isn’t it?
The vendor didn’t. He refused to change to ‘vacant possession’ and that’s it. Sale is not proceeding. House is back on the market.
Left me wondering: why on earth would he insist on this point?!?
Strange, isn’t it?JerryParticipant@jerry_oJoin Date: 2013Post Count: 46
Why is the vendor so attached or too concerned with the tenants? Related party perhaps?
How many percent did you increase the rent from existing amount?BennyModerator@bennyJoin Date: 2002Post Count: 1,325
I wonder if Jerry picked it? Related parties or similar.
Funny thing is that it shouldn’t matter that much even if you DID accept the tenants as they stand. One has no lease, so they could be out in 30 days or so – the other, well, how long is on their lease before renewal – and, at renewal time, the vendor is out of the picture, and you are the landlord.
So, depending on how good the property is, maybe a small adjustment to your offer price to compensate for extra rent foregone, and accept his terms. Why not?
(Takes off devil’s advocate hat again)
BennyTerrywParticipant@terrywJoin Date: 2001Post Count: 16,110DeanCollinsParticipant@deancollinsJoin Date: 2015Post Count: 372
How long were the leases?
Should have just sucked up the short term loss and then given the tenants notice to quit once they came up for renewal.
Make sure you include the leases in the sales contract eg so they cant be extended.Ethan TimorParticipant@ethantimorJoin Date: 2016Post Count: 282
Thanks for all the great replies.
The vendor previously offered a small discount to compensate for the ‘subject to tenancies’ (just like Benny suggested) but I was concerned about his reasoning for refusing to do “vacant possession”.
A bit more gentle research this week suggested that the issue the vendor had was indeed regarding the tenants. They have been his tenants for 5 and 20 years, no Property Manager so strong personal connections. It seems that he felt/knew that they will be able to handle the rent increase (+15% which is still 10% below market rate) but they will have issues coming up with 2 weeks advance + top up the bond to proper levels.
All this means that if he would have signed “vacant possession”, he would have in effect kicked out at least on of the tenants.
That makes sense to me so after some number crunching, we decided to take him up on his offer and contracts were exchanged yesterday.
Next stop: pest & building inspections :-)
Thanks again to all!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.