Overpaid Rent Owed By Real Estate
Have you tried complaining to the Real Estate Institute in your state, and if that doesn't work try taking them to Fair Trading. I know from doing some work for real estates that getting money from them is like getting blood from a stone, but you just need to keep bugging them, talk to the manager or director, and tell them you have been waiting too long for your money, give them a deadline (not more than 3 business days) and tell them if you have not received the money by then you will make a complaint to the Real Estate Institute and take them to Fair Trading. Sometimes you have to go to the person who owns/ runs the business as the workers usually don't care, especially when it is extra work for them and they get no reward for doing it (plus the longer the Real Estate don't pay you the longer they earn interest on your money).
I wouldn't start a bidding war if I were you. Sometimes you may get potentially bad tenants who cannot find a property anywhere else offering more money just to get in a place. If you know nothing else about these people how can you guarantee they will keep paying the rent once they get in. The things you should be doing is checking the prospective tenant's employment and income status, making sure they are able to easily pay the rent. You should check their credit report to see if they have a history of bad debts. And you should be checking with their previous landlords or real estate agents to see if they caused any damages to their previous properties. You should create a form that prospective tenants can fill out providing you with all the essential information you are after. Get them so sign a statement that gives you authority to ask information about them with other people (their previous landlords/ real estate agents, and their employers). Have a system set out on how you will assess all applicants and for the information the applicants need to provide you with. Treat it as a business. You are not a landlord.  You have choices: The current situation is charity. And that's ok, so long as you acknowledge it. In the big picture, anything less than market rent is a gift that you are giving the person living in your house. A good tenant might keep the place in better shape, and deserve a lower rent, but that's a quid pro quo. In the end, landlording is a business. If you had 10-20 apartments, they would be proving an income to you and you would have a large chunk of your wealth tied up in it. You would keep the apartments in good shape both to be legal and not a slumlord, but you'd also collect market rent. $100/apt would be $1000-$2000/mo income to you and your family.  You wife is right. As always. You have a decision to make to stop the bleeding. There are probably specific laws that control landlord/tenant rent disputes. But your friend's argument assumes that there aren't. Let's assume that there aren't. So there are two possibilities. Either the contract directly addresses this issue or it doesn't. If the contract directly and specifically addresses this issue, then that controls. Your friend is not claiming that it is specifically addressed. So the general principle is this -- when something occurs within a contract that wasn't explicitly discussed by the parties, courts will try to figure out what the parties likely would have agreed to had they discussed the specific issue (without changing the agreed terms of the contract). This should produce the result that is fair to both parties. Your friend is arguing then that had he and the landlord discussed the issue, the landlord would have agreed that in the event he is no longer able to accept credit cards easily, your friend could live there rent free. That doesn't seem right to me. Does it seem right to you? Much more likely they would have agreed that he might have some leeway to work out a new payment scheme and maybe some late rent should be forgiven if he made an attempt to pay on time but couldn't make arrangements. But I don't see more than that being reasonable. There is no way that someone on this site can tell if they overpaid you. So for the purposes of my answer I am going to assume that the company is correct that you got overpaid somehow. I think the answer is pretty clear if they DIDN'T overpay you. If they overpaid you then Yes you owe the money. Why would you think otherwise. If they underpaid you, wouldn't you expect that they owed you money? Why should the opposite be any different? Finder's Keepers isn't a legal defense in this situation. "This is accepted law in Pennsylvania, however, I will defer to your expertise and state that the decades long precedents are incorrect and every judge that allows cases to continue is wrong and you are correct.    The Internet is great for things like that.    Hopefully the next person in court can simply state:  No your Honor, the landlord did not follow established law!   Court rulings be damned.    I was on reddit and /u/OriginalSimba stated unequivocally said that what is happening is ""legally impossible"" and that the decades of precedent that exist is simply because ""the court screwed up"".    Heck, they can take it further to state that ""every lease in Pennsylvania is illegal"".    I offer sarcasm as a response but if this was a single ruling I might agree with you.  It's well established here in the great Commonwealth of PA.  I say it's been around 30 years because I've been a landlord here for over 20 years, and a renter for about 10 or so before that.  The clause has always been there.  The basis for today's laws here in PA are from the Landlord Tenant Act of 1951.  I'm not a lawyer so I can't tell you when the first waiver of rights came about but it's very possible it could go back that far." "I don't have a crystal ball but chances are your tenant is definitely lying. Rent was late and now the money intended to cover the rent; miraculously is lost in the mailbox. Anyhow, you were already nice to tolerate the late ""payment"". Keshlam's option 1.5 in the comments above is the ideal way to settle in which both parties have learned a lesson and are at a loss. Demand the rent payment but settle for half as a one time courtesy. If this continues or this tenant has shown shady predicaments such as this, you should look for legal means to evict this tenant.  College students are very creative and who's to say this won't happen again? ""The neighbors dog took my wallet.""" "That ain't nothing.  It's really easy to get ""whipped up"" into a sense of entitlement, and forget to be grateful for what you do have.  If this house doesn't exist, what would his costs of housing be elsewhere?  Realistically.  Would landlords rent to him? Would other bankers lend him money to buy a house? Would those costs really be any better?  What about the intangible benefits like not having any landlord hassles or having a good relationship with the neighbors?  It's entirely possible he has a sweet deal here, and just doesn't make enough money.  If your credit rating is poor, your housing options really suck.  Banks won't lend you money for a house unless you have a huge ton of upfront cash.  Most landlords won't rent to you at all, because they are going to automated scoring systems to avoid accusations of racism.  In this day and age, there are lots of ways to make money with a property you own.  In fact, I believe very firmly in Robert Allen's doctrine: Never sell.  That way you avoid the tens of thousands of dollars of overhead costs you bear with every sale. That's pure profit gone up in smoke.  Keep the property forever, keep it working for you.  If he doesn't know how, learn.  To ""get bootstrapped"" he can put it up on AirBnB or other services. Or do ""housemate shares"".  When your house is not show-condition, just be very honest and relatable about the condition.  Don't oversell it, tell them exactly what they're going to get.  People like honesty in the social sharing economy.  And here's the important part: Don't booze away the new income, invest it back into the property to make it a better money-maker - better at AirBnB, better at housemate shares, better as a month-to-month renter. So it's too big - Is there a way to subdivide the unit to make it a better renter or AirBnB?  Can he carve out an ""in-law unit"" that would be a good size for him alone? If he can keep turning the money back into the property like that, he could do alright.  This is what the new sharing economy is all about.  Of course, sister might show up with her hand out, wanting half the revenue since it's half her house.  Tell her hell no, this pays the mortgage and you don't!  She deserves nothing, yet is getting half the equity from those mortgage payments, and that's enough, doggone it!  And if she wants to go to court, get a judge to tell her that.  Not that he's going to sell it, but it's a huge deal. He needs to know how much of his payments on the house are turning into real equity that belongs to him.   ""Owning it on paper"" doesn't mean you own it.  There's a mortgage on it, which means you don't own all of it.  The amount you own is the value of the house minus the mortgage owed.   This is called your equity.   Of course a sale also MINUS the costs of bringing the house up to mandatory code requirements,  MINUS the cost of cosmetically making the house presentable.   But when you actually sell, there's also the 6% Realtors' commission and other closing costs.  This is where the mortgage is more than the house is worth.  This is a dangerous situation.  If you keep the house and keep paying the mortgage all right, that is stable, and can be cheaper than the intense disruption and credit-rating shock of a foreclosure or short sale.  If sister is half owner, she'll get a credit burn also. That may be why she doesn't want to sell.  And that is leverage he has over her.  I imagine a ""Winter's bone"" (great movie) situation where the family is hanging on by a thread and hasn't told the bank the parents died.  That could get very complex especially if the brother/sister are not creditworthy, because that means the bank would simply call the loan and force a sale.   The upside is this won't result in a credit-rating burn or bankruptcy for the children, because they are not owners of the house and children do not inherit parents' debt." Personally, it is the tenant's stupidity to leave cash and not get a receipt. If it were me, I would demand payment. But then $750 to me is a lot more than it may be to others. This is entirely a personal decision, legally I don't think the tenant has a leg to stand on because they have no proof they actually paid you, regardless of how or where they 'left it'. "A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the ""renter"" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the ""landlord,"" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a ""lot"" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your ""rent"" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have ""portable equity"" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will ""get lucky"" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because ""sky rockets"" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house." As a landlord for 14 years with 10 properties, I can give a few pointers: be able and skilled enough to perform the majority of maintenance because this is your biggest expense otherwise.  it will shock you how much maintenance rental units require. don't invest in real estate where the locality/state favors the tenant (e.g., New York City) in disputes.  A great state is Florida where you can have someone evicted very quickly. require a minimum credit score of 620 for all tenants over 21.  This seems to be the magic number that keeps most of the nightmare tenants out makes sure they have a job nearby that pays at least three times their annual rent every renewal, adjust your tenant's rent to be approximately 5% less than going rates in your area.  Use Zillow as a guide.  Keeping just below market rates keeps tenants from moving to cheaper options. do not rent to anyone under 30 and single.  Trust me trust me trust me.  you can't legally do this officially, but do it while offering another acceptable reason for rejection; there's always something you could say that's legitimate (bad credit, or chose another tenant, etc.) charge a 5% late fee starting 10 days after the rent is due.  20 days late, file for eviction to let the tenant know you mean business. Don't sink yourself too much in debt, put enough money down so that you start profitable.  I made the mistake of burying myself and I haven't barely been able to breathe for the entire 14 years.  It's just now finally coming into profitability. Don't get adjustable rate or balloon loans under any circumstances.  Fixed 30 only.  You can pay it down in 20 years and get the same benefits as if you got a fixed 20, but you will want the option of paying less some months so get the 30 and treat it like a 20. don't even try to find your own tenants.  Use a realtor and take the 10% cost hit.  They actually save you money because they can show your place to a lot more prospective tenants and it will be rented much sooner.  Empty place = empty wallet.  Also, block out the part of the realtor's agreement-to-lease where it states they keep getting the 10% every year thereafter.  Most realtors will go along with this just to get the first year, but if they don't, find another realtor. buy all in the same community if you can, then you can use the same vendor list, the same lease agreement, the same realtor, the same documentation, spreadsheets, etc.  Much much easier to have everything a clone.  They say don't put all your eggs in one basket, but the reality is, running a bunch of properties is a lot of work, and the more similar they are, the more you can duplicate your work for free.  That's worth a lot more day-to-day than the remote chance your entire community goes up in flames You are being ripped off on several counts. 1) 40k is 26% not 25%. 2) Why should you pay them $500 rent? they bought a share of the property, they should fund it if they intend to keep 75% 3) Why do you need to pay them for the 75%? why dont they need to pay you for the 25%? You are better off getting a loan for the 75% and going solo so you get to buy equity. "This is fairly simple, actually.  You should insist on payment for the rent payment you never received and stop accepting cash payments. If you want to be nice, and believe the story, allow the tenant additional time or payment in installments for the missing $750, but this is a textbook example of why it's a bad idea to transact with cash.  Insist on cash equivalents that are traceable and verifiable - check, money order or cashier's check, made out to you or your company name. Also, for what it's worth, you are not out $750, unless you choose to be.  Your tenant is.  ""I put cash in your mailbox"" is not proof of payment, and doesn't fly as payment anywhere.  If it did, I'd never pay any of my bills." Since the tenant reportedly left money in your mailbox, and now the money is missing, a crime must have been committed.  As such, have her file a report with law enforcement and provide you with a copy of that report. Remind her that, for her safety, it is best to file the report during daylight hours with other people present. You didn't make it clear to your tenant the methods in which she could provide payment.  That was a mistake.  At the same time, her decision to leave cash in a mailbox was foolish. If she is willing to file a report with law enforcement and provide you with a copy, tell her that you will split the loss and only require half her rent as a one-time courtesy.  Make it clear that you are losing half the money too. If she is not willing to file a report, require the full rent. It's very possible that someone would lie to their landlord/landlady, but not be prepared to lie to the police.  So here's what I would do. Advise your tenant that since her money has been stolen from your letterbox, she should report the theft to the police. If she refuses to report the theft to the police, then her story is probably a lie.  In which case, treat the rent as deliquent and demand payment in full.  Invoke whatever kind of recourse is available in your jurisdiction. If she goes ahead and reports the theft, then it's very likely that her story is true.  It's probably in your interest to stay on good terms with such a tenant, so you could offer to split the loss with her.  But let her know that this is a one-time offer, and you won't be so generous again. "Is the mortgage debt too high? The rental property is in a hot RE market, so could be easily sold with significant equity. However, they would prefer to keep it. Given the current income, there is no stress. However in absence of any other liquid [cash/near cash] assets, having everything locked into Mortgage is quite high. Even if real estate builds assets, these are highly illiquid investments. Have debt on such investments is risky; if there are no other investments. Essentially everything looks fine now, but if there is an crisis, unwinding mortgage debt is time consuming and if it forces distress sale, it would wipe out any gains. Can they afford another mortgage, and in what amount? (e.g. they are considering $50K for a small cabin, which could be rented out). I guess they can. But should they? Or diversify into other assets like stocks etc. Other than setting cash aside, what would be some good uses of funds to make sure the money would appreciate and outpace inflation and add a nice bonus to retirement? Mutual Funds / Stocks / bullions / 401K or other such retirement plans. They are currently in mid-30's. If there is ONE key strategy or decision they could make today that would help them retire ""early"" (say, mid-50's), what should it be? This opinion based ... it depends on ""what their lifestyle is"" and what would they want their ""lifestyle"" to be when they retire. They should look at saving enough corpus that would give an year on year yield equivalent to the retirement expenses."