What Clause Might Save Grief For The Real Estate Investor?

Posted @ 12:45 am - Filed under Real Estate Investing, Purposeful Planning, Buying Income Property, Investment Lessons, Real Estate Law, Definitions

Warning Warning Warning — Pictures found while reading this post have absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, to do with the subject at hand. I just like inserting them. I am open to requests though. Ok, that’s it — you may continue. :)

Estoppel is a silly sounding legal word sometimes used in purchase contracts when tenants are involved. Of course there are many time an attorney might use the concept of estoppel, but since it doesn’t say lawyer on my expansive forehead, I’ll stick to the purchase of real estate investment property.

I’ve taught the concept, been taught the concept, partnered with a real estate attorney for a decade and listened to him pontificate endlessly on the concept. It’s a giant pain in the patute. Yet, I’m still gonna give it a shot here. If you really insist on confusing yourself you can click the above link, but I recommend you take two aspirin first.

Mission Bay SF

Here Goes

You’re lookin’ to make an offer on some income property. You’ve gone over the offer to purchase three times, and are finally satisfied yer covered. Due diligence period — check. Subject to your inspection and approval of interiors/exteriors — check. Seller’s gotta turn over income/expenses last 2-3 years — check. 23 other things — check, check, and check. Eyes begin to blur, and the thought of watching a soccer game between East Toilet Seat, Wisconsin and Rubber Chicken, Kentucky is soundin’ pretty dang good about now.

Got it covered, right? Not so fast estoppel breath.

Estoppel is merely a legal concept (Dirt Lawyer welcome at any time.) (es)stopping someone from saying ‘blue’ when they clearly said ‘red’ before. It also helps if the other person in the contract believed them when the at first said ‘blue’ — and acted on it.

Let’s just cut to the chase here, OK?

Do not, I repeat, Do not, under any circumstances, buy income property without either an estoppel clause in the contract or its equivalent — whatever that might be. I’ll let the attorneys figure that one out.

Don’t believe the seller’s agent or the seller, or the lease agreements they turn over, or, and this one’s my all time favorite, their Schedule E form from their income tax return. What you want for your files is much more reliable, though not foolproof. You want copies of the rental/lease agreements for each unit. You then want estoppel agreement forms for them. You knock on each tenant’s door, and have them inspect the agreement their landlord is tellin’ you is the one the tenant signed and in force. If the tenant agrees it’s the correct lease and it’s their signature affixed to said lease, yer almost good to go.

You have them sign the estoppel agreement which generally takes a whole buncha words to say:

The lease attached to this form is the one I signed AND there are no special deals between me and the landlord not mentioned in the attached agreement. Now yer good to go. Caveat: Can the tenant be in league with the landlord to sell you down the river? You betcha. Only seen it once in all my years though. It’s fraud, and district attorneys kinda sorta frown on such shenanigans.

Surfing

It’s not just so you can substantiate the numbers. How ’bout special deals with tenants? Countless times over the years we’ve come across buildings housing tenants claiming all sorts of rent discounts ‘cuz of some service they render. It may or may not be true, but if it’s not in the rental/lease contract it doesn’t exist. You should ask each tenant if there’s a special deal not in their agreement. If so, now you know to bring it up with the seller. Oops. Those conversations are always uh, entertaining.

Just make sure you make the purchase subject to and contingent upon obtaining signed estoppel agreements from all tenants — no exceptions.

See? Another answer to a question you most probably didn’t know to ask. How many more answers won’t you get ’till it’s too late?

Something to ponder.

Here’s something else to ponder. Why haven’t we talked yet? Come on now, get with the program. :) Let’s figure out where you are and where you wanna go — then let’s lay out a Purposeful Plan just for you. OK — this is where you click Contact BawldGuy.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 am and is filed under Real Estate Investing, Purposeful Planning, Buying Income Property, Investment Lessons, Real Estate Law, Definitions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

18 comments to “What Clause Might Save Grief For The Real Estate Investor?”

Joshua on July 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 am said:

  • (in the voice of a surfer dude) - Dude, that’s like totally genius and stuff. Like I would have never thought to do such a thing! Coo Coo Ka Choo, back to the big ‘ol blue. L8r dude.

Robert Coté on July 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 am said:

  • Get ‘em on your own lease/rental agreements asap. Last thing you want is some obscure line messing up your ownership. Personally whenever possible I used to insert a unique clause. “There will be a $100 application processing fee for requests for pets. The answer will still be no and the fee is non-refundable.” Saved lots of trouble over the years.

Joshua on July 3rd, 2008 at 8:03 am said:

  • Robert, I’m new to being a landlord and I was reviewing some lease agreements on a building I’m interested in purchasing. The current owner charges a $250 deposit for the cat(s) that two of the tenents has. Are you saying no pets ever and still charging them $100 just to ask if they can have one?

    I was thinking a cat (no dogs) would be fine but I’d add $25-50 per month for the privilege in the hopes of covering carpeting costs if needed when they move (if ever).

    Text doesn’t always relay your true tone of voice so is that a joke or are you serious?

Mark McGlothlin on July 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 am said:

  • Jeff - great tip on the Dirt Lawyer - attorneys with an appropriate sense of humor are an endangered species it seems. David writes with an understandable hand (another somewhat unique gift for most legal eagles).

    I’ve been running this week giving a few talks and am off to Texas for family health issues - I’d still love to talk to you next week.

Robert Coté on July 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm said:

  • I am absolutely serious. I had one disaster with a secret pet in a SFR rental (real pine paneling ’nuff said) and started using the clause. First renters think getting forgiveness is easier than getting permission so now ahead of time they know that even asking for forgiveness will cost $100. I also don’t want to be the parent and tell little Johnny he can’t keep the puppy. So much more effective than “No Pets.”

BawldGuy on July 3rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm said:

  • Joshua — Thanks for that. Crackin’ me up. BTW, readers, it was Joshua’s idea I write this post. He comes up with pretty good stuff.

    Thanks again, Joshua. Much appreciated.

BawldGuy on July 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm said:

  • Hey Mark — No problem on this end. I understand. Look forward to talking with you.

BawldGuy on July 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm said:

  • Robert — I SO agree with you. Landlords so many times fail to understand the long term problems emerging from a building full of ‘lovable’ pets.

    The $100 app approach? Nice touch. Like it a lot.

    Today when much of the property sold today is new or near new, pet problems can become pet PROBLEMS — Know what I mean, Verne?

    Pay attention, Joshua, ‘cuz Robert knows whereof he speaks. Also, putting all tenants on the lease form you wish them to sign, is absolutely great advice. We do that as SOP.

Joshua on July 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm said:

  • My eyes, ears, and spidey sense are all wide open and that sponge between my ears is just a soak’n away. If I had had (don’t you hate when you have to use the same word twice!) a dad growing up this is probably would have side, “It’s time to just shut up and listen son. Nuff said.” ;)

BawldGuy on July 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm said:

  • I think you’ve figured stuff out pretty well. :) Have a stellar 4th.

Chris Lengquist on July 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm said:

  • Estoppel? I know I’m on vacation but this caught my eye. You mean to tell me that a seller is not always truthful?

BawldGuy on July 3rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm said:

  • They used to be, Chris, but since you left to vacation in the balmy South, they became iffy.

Robert Coté on July 3rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm said:

  • Catching up from the previous thread, I am feeling a little better every day. I’m dissatisfied with the pace of improvement but then I tell people I’m 7 weeks from surgery and they don’t believe it. No KC bbq for me, I’ve taken to standing downwind and breathing deeply but things like rubbed King Salmon and breaded wild sole are fine consolation. Only now its carbohydrates I need to additionally subtract. I swear my teeth are buck and ears growing long. Truthfully, I wish the RE investment market would improve as much and also lose as much weight as I have. Thanks for asking.

BawldGuy on July 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm said:

  • Thanks for the update. Before ya know it, it’ll be spring. You’ll feel 20 years younger, and the market might still suck, but not nearly as much. From God’s lips to my ears.

David Stejkowski on July 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm said:

  • Great post, Jeff. I’ll bite and chime in.

    Estoppel certificates are an absolute MUST in commercial transactions. One of the biggest negotiation items is usually the form, content and number of estoppels the seller has to give the buyer. It can be very complicated, and often the buyer’s lender gets involved because they condition the loan on the receipt of estoppels.

    But there’s a MUCH more practical reason to obtain estoppel certificates WHENEVER you can, no matter how large or small the deal. When you get one as a buyer, you are entitled to rely on it against the person giving it! In short, if the tenant says there are no defaults under the lease prior to closing, the tenant is bound by that representation to the buyer (or estopped from asserting something to the contrary), and if the tenant tries to claim otherwise it will lose.

    And yes, there’s plenty case law on this. If you want to read more, Jack Murray (a friend of a friend and someone I respect tremendously) has written a good article on the topic that you can read at http://www.firstam.com/content.cfm?id=2870.

    BTW, in many cases a subordination, nondisturbance and attornment agreement is just as important as an estoppel. But that’s a whole different topic. Suffice it to say for now that an SNDA is this: lender agrees not to kick the tenant out if it forecloses (non-disturb), and the tenant agrees to subordinate its lease to the lender and to pay rent to the lender in a foreclosure (attornment).

    Whew! I think that’s enough for one post. Have a great Fourth! I may even get to play the cannon tomorrow night.

BawldGuy on July 3rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm said:

  • Thanks David!

    Oh, and Readers? David’s the real estate attorney we refer our clients to, and will use ourself as necessary. He is WAY beyond the real deal.

    Have a great 4th, David.

Doug Quance on July 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am said:

  • Just another reason why a buyer should use a seasoned pro to assist and represent them. There’s simply too many snakes in the grass.

Jeff Brown on July 6th, 2008 at 11:46 am said:

  • Snakes in the grass — a well known real estate technical term. :)

    Dead on, Doug.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2006-2008 Brown and Brown Investment Properties - All Rights Reserved.
WordPress Theme designed by 1158pm.com