Interest on security deposits paid to landlords, in Michigan?
NO.  The legislation requires the landlord to deposit it in a bank.  Check out pages 7-10 of the linked document.  There is no mention of interest. The second clause, I believe, is probably for large landlords who hold hundreds of thousands of dollars of security.   http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/tenantlandlord.pdf Q4 Once collected, what must the landlord do with the security deposit?   The landlord must either: a) Deposit the money with a regulated financial institution (e.g.,   bank), OR b) Deposit a cash bond or surety bond, to secure the entire deposit,   with the Secretary of State. ( Note: If the landlord does this, he or   she may use the money at any time, for any purpose.) The bond ensures   that there is money available to repay the tenant’s security deposit "No. The full text of the Landlord-Tenant Act (specifically, section 554.614 of Act 348 of the year 1972) makes no mention of this. Searching the law for ""interest"" doesn't yield anything of interest (pardon the pun).  Specifically, section 554.604 of the same law states that: (1) The security deposit shall be deposited in a regulated financial   institution. A landlord may use the moneys so deposited for any   purposes he desires if he deposits with the secretary of state a cash   bond or surety bond written by a surety company licensed to do   business in this state and acceptable to the attorney general to   secure the entire deposits up to $50,000.00 and 25% of any amount   exceeding $50,000.00. The attorney general may find a bond   unacceptable based only upon reasonable criteria relating to the   sufficiency of the bond, and shall notify the landlord in writing of   his reasons for the unacceptability of the bond. (2) The bond shall be for the benefit of persons making security   deposits with the landlord. A person for whose benefit the bond is   written or his legal representative may bring an action in the   district, common pleas or municipal court where the landlord resides   or does business for collection on the bond. While it does sound like the landlord is required to deposit the money in a bank or other secured form, e.g. the Secretary of State, he/she isn't required to place it in an account that will earn interest."
You don't pay any interest until a few weeks after you receive your statement, when the payment is due. Simply set up a direct debit with Halifax for the statement balance and they will take the correct amount (whatever you spent that month) from your bank account on the payment due date. Problem solved! This happens to my dad all the time. He requires a deposit up front, but sometimes he'll let people slide without a deposit, or they refuse to pay the balance or something.   After he has called and harrassed them about it, he boxes up the files of people that don't pay and hands it off to a lawyer. He has a deal worked out where he provides the lawyer with all the paperwork and the lawyer gets to keep 20% of whatever he can collect. The rest is just written off.  The key thing is determining how much time and money you want to sink trying to get that money back. You don't know the likelihood of actually collecting that money, and every hour you spend on it is an hour you could spend generating more business To be absolutely sure you should call the agent and check That said I have been renting accommodation through both agencies and directly through landlords for seven years (I live in London) and this is quite a common situation. It normally means that the deposit is being securely held by a third party so that it cannot be taken or depleted without the agreement of both parties. The deposit protection scheme ( https://www.depositprotection.com/ ) is one way that deposits are securely held in this manner. As a third party they will have different account details. It may be the case that the agency is protecting the deposit and you are paying rent to the landlord directly. This means that your deposit goes to the agency's account and the rent goes to the landlord's account. Obviously your landlord and agency have different accounts. A little colour to brighten your day: I am currently paying my rent to the agency who also took the deposit but, because of the way they handle deposits versus rent, the deposit was sent to a different account held by the same agent. In my previous flat I paid the deposit to an agency and the rent directly to the landlord. This resulted in an issue one time where I got the two accounts confused and paid rent to the agency who, after giving me a small slap on the wrist, transferred it to my landlord. In the flat before that I paid rent and the deposit to my landlords' holding company. That is one of the few times that I paid rent and the deposit into the same account. Again check with the agent that one of these situations is the case but this is absolutely normal when renting through an agency. I'm an Aussie and I purchased 5 of these properties from 2008 to 2010. I was looking for positive cash flow on properties for not too much upfront investment. The USA property market made sense because of the high Aussie $$ at the time, the depressed property market in the US and the expensive market here.  I used an investment web-site that allowed me to screen properties by yield and after eliminating outliers, went for the city with the highest consistent yield performance. I settled on Toledo, Ohio as it had the highest yields and was severely impacted by the housing crisis. I bought my first property for $18K US which was a little over $17K AUD.  The property was a duplex in great condition in a reasonable location.  Monthly rentals $US900 and rents guaranteed and direct deposited into my bank account every month by section 8.  Taxes $900 a year and $450 a year for water. Total return around $US8,000.   My second property was a short sale in a reasonable area. The asking was $US8K and was a single family in good condition already tenanted.  I went through the steps with the bank and after a few months, was the proud owner of another tenanted, positive cash flow property returning $600 a month gross. Taxes of $600 a year and water about the same.  $US6K NET a year on a property that cost $AUD8K Third and fourth were two single family dwellings in good areas.  These both cost $US14K each and returned $US700 a month each.  $US28K for two properties that gross around $US15K a year.   My fifth property was a tax foreclosure of a guy with 2 kids whose wife had left him and whose friend had stolen the money to repay the property taxes.  He was basically on the bones of his butt and was staring down the barrel of being homeless with two kids.  The property was in great condition in a reasonable part of town.  The property cost me $4K.  I signed up the previous owner in a land contract to buy his house back for $US30K. Payments over 10 years at 7% came out to around $US333 per month.  I made him an offer whereby if he acted as my property manager, i would forgo the land contract payments and pay him a percentage of the rents in exchange for his services. I would also pay for any work he did on the properties.  He jumped at it.  Seven years later, we're still working together and he keeps the properties humming.  Right now the AUD is around 80c US and looks like falling to around 65c by June 2015.  Rental income in Aussie $$ is around $2750 every month. This month (Jan 2015) I have transferred my property manager's house back to him with a quit claim deed and sold the remaining houses for $US100K  After taxes and commission I expect to receive in the vicinity of AUD$120K  Which is pretty good for a $AUD53K investment.  I've also received around $30K in rent a year. I'm of the belief I should be buying when everybody else is selling and selling when everybody else is buying.   I'm on the look-out for my next positive cash flow investment and I'm thinking maybe an emerging market smashed by the oil shock.   I wish you all happiness and success in your investment. Take care. VR "To the best of my knowledge, in California there's no such thing as registering a place as a business. There's zoning (residential/commercial/mixed/etc), and there's ""a business registered at a place"". But there's no ""place registered as a business"". So you better clarify what it is that you think your landlord did. It may be that the place is used for short term rentals, in which case the landlord may have to have registered a business of short term rentals there, depending on the local municipal or county rules. Specifically regarding the deposit, however, there's a very clear treatment in the California law. The landlord must provide itemized receipt for the amounts out of the deposit that were used, and the prices should be reasonable and based on the actual charges by the actual vendors. If you didn't get such a receipt, or the amounts are bogus and unsubstantiated - you have protection under the CA law." "Do you now own your new home, or are you renting?  This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote ""shoot up considerably."" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have.  There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out.  (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original ""interest only"" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)" Michigan's 529 plan offers a wide variety of investment options, ranging from a very conservative guaranteed investment option (currently earning 1.75% interest) to a variety of index-based funds, most of which are considered aggressive.   You said that you are unhappy with the 5% you have earned the past year, and that you thought you should be able to get 8% elsewhere.  But according to your comment, you have 30% of your money earning a fixed 1.75% rate, and another 40% of your money invested in one of the moderate balanced options (which includes both stocks and bonds).  You've only got 30% invested in the more aggressive investments that you seem to be looking for.  If you want to be invested more agressively (which is reasonable, since your daughter won't need this money for many years), you can select more aggressive investments inside the 529. Michigan's 529 offers you the ability to deduct up to $10,000 (if you are married filing jointly) of contributions off your Michigan state income tax each year.  In addition, the earnings inside the 529 are federally tax-free if the money is spent on college education. "I have never seen anything that suggest it's illegal to charge ""fair"" interests on loans, personally or commercially.  Even CRA has long allowed the use of properly written ""promissory notes"" as the proof for personal loans between individuals, as long as the rates are consistent with their current ""subscribed rate"" (think bank's prime rate, if you don't want to having to look it up on CRA site). Loan Shark is someone or some entity that charges significantly higher interests than the rates posted by FI's.  We are talking about 30+% versus the bank's 10%.   Yes, we can argue the FI's are acting like Loan Shark when it comes to credit card interest rates, but that's another discussion." "Loans do not carry an ""interest balance"". You can not pay off ""all the interest"". The only way to reduce the interest to zero is to pay off the loan. Otherwise, the interest due each month is some percentage of the outstanding principal. Think of it from the bank's perspective: they've invested some amount of money in you, and they expect a return on that investment in the form of interest. If you somehow paid in 16 years all the interest the bank expected to receive in 30 years, you've been scammed." You're asking all the right questions, and if I worked for my landlord's company I might have an answer! I imagine they're capitalizing on people's laziness. I live in the Bay Area where some people probably don't mind paying $35 to not have to walk 100 feet to the office and drop off a check. Good! The article says it was some kind of collateral protection insurance that customers were signed up for despite it being unrequired for the loan. The accusations is that WF racketeered about 800,000 loans by bundling in this bunk insurance cost as part of the loan structure. I'm glad you're not caught up in it. Yes it most cases it is legal. Plus depending on how you look at it, the last payment of 1000 can be principal paid and interest was paid in initial installments. What are you using the analysis for? If your analyzing your interest rate risk then you want to determine decay rates for your non-maturity deposits. Assuming your bank uses ALM software to produce your Earnings-at-Risk (EAR) and Economic Value of Equity (EVE) metrics, the decay rate assumptions make a big difference in those numbers. Most ALM models have default assumptions that may not be correct for your institution, and as a result are giving you EAR and EVE numbers that are not at all accurate.   Basically you want to have some analysis that proves how you are bucketing your NMDs (3,6,9, 12, 24 months?). Are your deposits sticky or are they affected by small changes in interest rates? You can look at historical numbers to determine how your deposits behave, but be sure to go back more than 3-4 years as deposit behavior has been pretty abnormal since 2008 with rates near zero. Similarly, you may want to try and identify 'surge' deposits that came into your bank due to the low rate environment and as soon as rates rise they will move into higher earning assets (stocks, bond, money markets). Sometimes invested capital is expected to earn interest, I've seen this be a stipulation in LLC operating agreements and Corporate bylaws. I thought this arrangement looks a little less than fair. BTW I'm a college freshman, though I do the finances for my parents' regulatory compliance and governance consulting company. Anyhow, that's just my two cents. "You get paid interest on deposits because banks only keep a fraction of the deposits on-hand. The rest is put to other uses, such as loaning money to others. If you deposit money and yield 1% interest, the bank is able to fund an auto loan, at 5%. By saving, you are actually making more capital available in the marketplace. ""Fixed"" or ""durable"" assets like gold, real property, or durable goods are different -- their value is based on attributes such as demand (gold, oil) or location (real property). If you bought an apartment in Manhattan in 1975, it appreciated greatly in value over the course of 30 years... but it did so because demand for apartments in New York City grew, while the supply of apartments grew more slowly. The government prints money for two core reasons: Think of it this way: Money is valuable because it is money."