Getting Problem Tenants to Leave Without Trashing Your Rentals

by Jim Watkins


Consult your attorney to find out the legality of this technique in your state

Getting a tenant to move peacefully and without causing physical damage is hard to do.
Tenants being evicted tend to feel victimized and when they get upset they are a risk to do physical damage to the house and leave behind mountains of trash.

It will take a minimum of three weeks to legally evict a tenant and can cost in excess of $500 (Texas Law).
Owners tend to reason that they will keep the security deposit to offset losses but a tenant can cause thousands of dollars in damage in minutes.

Here is a plan that has yet to fail:

Let the tenant know that you have filed to evict them and give them a copy of the eviction papers. (Making sure to follow the courts procedures)
Tell the tenant you will only talk to them 30-minutes before the court hearing and there will be no contact until then. When they laugh at you, tell them you will refund their full security deposit, in cash, the date they move out.

(30 minutes before the hearing) Offer to issue their FULL deposit back to them the day they move out as long as all belongings and trash are removed.

Set a date for them to be out (date needs to be before a date the court will set), add the requirement that they agree to leave the property completely free of belongings and trash which includes small things such as a candy wrapper
Have them sign your prepared agreement and proceed to your court hearing.

Tell the judge that you have reached an agreement and you would like him/her to endorse it (This is the only time I remember telling the Judge how I want them to rule and they agree).

The judge should (and has) accept the agreement and inform the tenant that if they break this agreement, he/she will authorize an immediate eviction.

Finally, once the tenant is officially out, then withdraw the eviction.

It is hard to justify giving the tenant cash to leave after losing money with them already. I can only point out that in a situation such as eviction, there is NO winning! There are only degrees of LOSING!
Evicting a problem tenant only to face a damaged property is bad enough. Give the tenant the one thing that is of use to them…. cash. And offer it when it will be needed…. upon move out! This is also known as a “Cash for Keys” settlement.

Question 3 : Medical Use of Marijuana

Question 3 on the November Ballot is a proposed law that would eliminate the criminal and civil penalty for the medical use of Marijuana to qualifying patients. This question has me thinking on if passed how will it effect my rental properties. Currently most of my buildings are smoke free. Should tenants and or their guest choose to smoke then they need to do so outside. If not then they are in violation of the lease agreement and it is grounds for eviction. The dilemma I have with Question 3 if passed is: If my buildings have a smoke free policy then does than where does that leave me with the 71 tenant that has a prescription for medical marijuana for her glaucoma. Do I really want granny smoking a dubbie outside during the cold months of January where she can catch a death of a cold or does she have to resort to making batches of hash baked brownies to relieve her symptoms? Can I actually enforce the no smoking policy with a perscription for MJ or is the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination going to sue me for discrimination? I have no idea how I'm going to vote. Right now I'm exploring the pro's and con's. What's your take on it?

LETTER: Prevey Responds to 'Salem News' CPA Editorial

The following letter to the editor courtesy of Councillor Paul Prevey is in response to an editorial published by the Salem News on Aug. 29. This letter was published at SalemPatch.com on August 31, 2012. Myself and five of my other colleagues recently voted against putting the Community Preservation Act (CPA) on the ballot this November. As noted in the editorial, this initiative was affirmatively voted on by the City Council in 2007, however it was ultimately rejected by the voters at the ballot box. It’s now being put forward again by the Administration, however many of us on the Council that supported its placement on the 2007 ballot believe that this initiative had its opportunity in 2007 but the proponents are back for round two. What the editorial alleges is that somehow the Council denied the voters the right to vote on this. Quite the contrary. The proponents of this initiative did not like the answer the voters of Salem gave in 2007 so they decided that they will put it forward again in the hopes that their coordinated efforts to turn out a more sympathetic electorate will ultimately prevail. Interestingly, when the Council held its special meeting to take up this matter, several proponents who addressed the Council advised that they did not want this effort on the ballot via voter petition. Instead, the proponents urged the Council to "show leadership" on this issue, and so we did. The majority of the Council decided that it was not in the best interest of the taxpaying residents of Salem to have this on the ballot for a second time. Unlike 2007, we are in a much worse financial situation in Salem, the Commonwealth and throughout the U.S. People’s homes are being foreclosed on, they continue to lose their jobs or have been unable to find a new one, and in general, are desperately struggling to maintain their financial obligations and make ends meet. As city councilors, we constantly hear stories throughout the City of residents trying to stay afloat in a sea of financial turmoil. To suggest that the average increase in the surcharge tax would be "only $30" annually is to belittle those who are struggling to stay on top of all of the fees, taxes, fines, charges, surcharges, surfines and rate increases which have consistently ballooned over the years. Thirty dollars a year, in and of its self, is very minimal, but when you add it to every other increase, it becomes a crushing financial burden for so many people. The cumulative effect is truly a death by a thousand paper cuts; some people have the blood to withstand it, while other are quickly being bled dry. The editorial asserts that the Council’s stated objection to the tax increase is "not credible" given that it’s a small tax increase. If trying to stem the increase in taxes is not a credible argument to stand on its own, then I know of no other argument which is worthwhile to be made. Taxes do not appear overnight. They grow ever so slowly over time and sprout new roots which slowly entangle the taxpayer. The steady increase in taxes and the creation of new ones has far out paced people’s income levels to the point that they cannot keep up. And to what end? So that we in government can say we accomplished a large list of items which will serve only the people who can continue to afford to live here in Salem. It is true that there are many items and projects throughout the City that would benefit from the enactment of the CPA. On its face, the benefits offered through the adoption of the CPA seem attractive and are designed to target specific needs each individual community has with respect to historical preservation, open space/park & recreation and affordable housing. Unfortunately, enough is never enough when it comes to the insatiable thirst of government bent on extracting more tax payer money on the backs of the already tax-strapped homeowner. At some point, we have to look at the cold economic reality that we find ourselves in and exercise restraint in wanting more at a cost which will ultimately far exceed an additional $2.50 per month, because we know it will not stop there. Paul C Prevey Councillor Ward 6

Salem Puts CPA on the Ballot

Salem Puts CPA On The Ballot Salem CPA is on the ballot for this November, thanks to supporters who collected nearly 1,700 signatures in record time, just before the final certification deadline. A question to adopt CPA can be placed on the ballot either by a vote of the legislative body, or by obtaining the signatures of 5% of the registered voters on a petition. The petition effort in Salem was launched in hopes of reversing the Salem City Council's The morning after the decision, the group began their ambitious effort to gather the required 1,350 signatures, despite the fact that the deadline was just seven days away. Encouraged by Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll, dozens of volunteers solicited signatures at homes and downtown businesses. Despite the tight deadline, the group collected more than enough signatures certified by the city clerk. The CPA proposal in Salem is for a 1% property tax surcharge, with exemptions for low-income homeowners, the first $100,000 of residential property value, and the first $100,000 of commercial/industrial property value. Like Somerville, the city will be voting to adopt "Blended CPA," a provision of the recently passed CPA legislation which allows communities to add a limited amount of municipal revenues to their local CPA fund. With this ballot question petition success, Salem joins three cities and five towns considering adoption during the upcoming November elections.