Apartment Complex Sold to Fannie Mae

[KcMizzou]

I live in a townhouse. Today, when I got home from work, there was a letter on my door from management that said as of today they no longer own the property, that it went to Fannie Mae on the courthouse steps.

It says, "There is no cause for alarm, as your leases protect you. It is my hope that Fannie Mae will have the office re-open as soon as possible."

I'm understandably a little concerned. Anyone know how things like this usually pan out? If the office stays closed for any more than a couple of weeks, who do I pay rent to?

[Chief Pote]

Maintenance problems will go unanswered. Landscape work will cease. They'll eventually sell to someone else. Hey....opportunity only knocks a couple of times in your life. Go for it.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Wow. Repo'd.

[Chief Pote]

Fannie May....yeah right. They damn near went bellyup themselves.

[KcMizzou]

I did find this...

December 15, 2008

Fannie Mae Lets Renters Stay Despite Foreclosures
By CHARLES DUHIGG

In a move that provides relief to thousands of renters who face eviction but draws the federal government even deeper into the housing market, the loan giant Fannie Mae said Sunday that it would sign new leases with renters living in foreclosed properties owned by the company.

It is the first nationwide effort to provide widespread relief to renters ensnared by the unfolding mortgage crisis, and it will effectively transform Fannie Mae — a government-controlled mortgage finance company — into a national landlord. It may also increase pressure on private lenders to establish similar programs and on lawmakers to pass renter relief.

“There are renters all around the country who have been holding up their end of the bargain and paying their rent faithfully, but the landlord got into trouble, and so the renter is now unfairly facing eviction,” said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a consumer advocacy group. “It’s really good news that Fannie Mae is doing this. Now the question is whether private sector will follow suit.”

In recent months, skyrocketing foreclosure rates have exposed as many as 70,000 renters to evictions, even though many never missed rent payments, according to analysts who track housing data. In many cities and states, renters can be evicted after their home goes into foreclosure, regardless of how long their lease stretches into the future.

Many financial institutions — including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America — have policies to evict renters after foreclosure, company representatives said.

Fannie Mae’s initiative is expected to initially benefit as many as 4,000 renters living in foreclosed homes owned by the company. Fannie Mae has traditionally only bought and sold mortgages. But when a loan held by the company goes into foreclosure, Fannie Mae gains ownership of the underlying property until it is resold to new investors.

Fannie Mae owned 67,500 properties in foreclosure at the end of September, according to the company’s most recent filings. Most of those were owner-occupied. Under the new policy, former owners will most likely not be eligible to rent homes they lost in foreclosure.

Last month, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the other government-controlled mortgage giant, temporarily suspended foreclosures and evictions until early January. Fannie Mae will now offer renters in foreclosed properties month-to-month leases until the property is resold. A company representative said program details were still being worked out.

“While it may be sometimes tougher for us to sell a property when people are in it, we understand that lots of people are in tough situations right now,” said Chuck Greener, a Fannie Mae spokesman. “If a renter wants to stay in their home, we’ll make that happen. And if they want to move out, in many cases we’ll help them pay for the move.”

A spokesman for Freddie Mac said that the company was looking at a number of options, including a program similar to Fannie Mae’s, but that no decisions had been made.

The companies’ regulator, James B. Lockhart of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, issued a statement on Sunday saying that he expected both companies to update their policies shortly regarding renters living in foreclosed properties. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by Mr. Lockhart’s agency this year and now operate in a conservatorship.

Representatives of some major banks said it was unclear if Fannie Mae’s new policy would prompt their institutions to change theirs.

“We’re not in the business of managing rental properties, and we’re not in the business of being a landlord,” said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which owns about two million loans. “Clearly the renter is caught in the middle in cases like this. When a property is in foreclosure, we follow the law.”

Some lawmakers and housing advocates say such policies are unjust.

“If your loan is owned by Fannie Mae, you get to stay in your home. If your loan is owned by someone else, you’re on the street,” said Mr. Taylor of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. “These banks need to realize they’re in the property management business now, whether they like it or not.”

Some lawmakers have complained that evicting renters is unfair. In November, the Los Angeles City Council voted to draft a law that would bar financial institutions from evicting renters living in foreclosed homes.

Last year, the House passed a measure that would require the new owner of a foreclosed property to inform renters at least 90 days before an eviction. That bill failed to pass the Senate. Law enforcement officers in some states have refused to evict residents of foreclosed properties.

But Yadilka Torres, who rents a home in New Haven, Conn., for $775 a month, had no such protection. Fannie Mae took possession of her house in September, when it went into foreclosure. Even though she was current on her rent, she received an eviction notice saying that she and her two young children would have to leave.

She looked for another apartment but could not find anything affordable. Under Fannie Mae’s new policy, she will now be allowed to stay.

“I was feeling so nervous,” Ms. Torres said. “I’ve tried very hard to pay the rent and to pay all my bills, and it seemed unfair this was happening. I’m very grateful we won’t have to move.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/15evict.html

[KcMizzou]

Kinda pisses me off that I've paid rent here like clockwork for three years, only to have this happen... but I guess this kinda shit is happening all over.

[Chief Pote]

Might be better that you move. You're not going like their level of maintenance throughout the complex. If you stay, do you have to pay the full amount due to the poor service?

[KcMizzou]

Might be better that you move. You're not going like their level of maintenance throughout the complex. If you stay, do you have to pay the full amount due to the poor service?As of this moment, I wouldn't even know who to pay. I guess I'll give it a while ad wait to hear something. If the office doesn't open soon, I'll stockpile what would have been rent to pay for the move and deposit on a new place.

[Frazod]

You should tell them that since, as a taxpayer, you now own a share of their company, and as such, the fucking rent's been paid in full.

[wild1]

maybe it means that taxpayers will cover your mortgage like the rest of fannie mae's clients? woohoo!

more money for beer I suppose.

[stlchiefs]

There's a good chance you can kiss your security deposit goodbye. If Fannie didn't receive the deposits from the previous owner (there's less than a 1% chance they did since it was sold at auction) then they have no responsibility to refund such a deposit they don't have. I know this is the case if it's a private owner/bidder at auction and I'm sure the fact it's quasi-government owned doesn't change anything for the better for you.

[cdcox]

Since you're living in government owned property, they have vested interest in you. You'll have your own personal agents from NSA, DEA, FBI, BATF, and the IRS crawling all over your life.

[Bugeater]

Maybe you should buy the complex, how good is your credit?

[Frazod]

Maybe you should buy the complex, how good is your credit?

I assume it's probably better than Fannie Mae's.

[KcMizzou]

Maybe you should buy the complex, how good is your credit?Not that good.

Glad you guys are enjoying it.

[luv]

I'm understandably a little concerned. Anyone know how things like this usually pan out? If the office stays closed for any more than a couple of weeks, who do I pay rent to?

Definitely understandable. I would think that either the old or new management should provide you with more information.

[Bugeater]

Not that good.

Glad you guys are enjoying it.
Eh, I'd wouldn't sweat it too much since it's a multi-family dwelling, I have to think whoever buys the complex is going to want renters in the units. It may be a different story if it was a single family home.

[Iowanian]

Maybe you can make rent by selling Mae's fanny out of your apartment complex?

[luv]

Eh, I'd wouldn't sweat it too much since it's a multi-family dwelling, I have to think whoever buys the complex is going to want renters in the units. It may be a different story if it was a single family home.

They could end up raising the rent through the roof.

No bad karma intended, Brandon. Just sayin'.

[Bugeater]

They could end up raising the rent through the roof.

No bad karma intended, Brandon. Just sayin'.
I can't see them charging more than market value unless they want the place sitting vacant.

[KcMizzou]

Maybe you can make rent by selling Mae's fanny out of your apartment complex?There's no Mae here, and I doubt my Fanny would bring much.

(Thanks, Bug, that's reassuring.)

[Dylan]

The world’s best-known and most accurate and influential newspaper.

Read it and Weep



The Wall Street Journal

The Real AIG Outrage

March 17, 2009. President Obama joined yesterday in the clamor of outrage at AIG for paying some $165 million in contractually obligated employee bonuses. He and the rest of the political class thus neatly deflected attention from the larger outrage, which is the five-month Beltway cover-up over who benefited most from the AIG bailout.

Taxpayers have already put up $173 billion, or more than a thousand times the amount of those bonuses, to fund the government's AIG "rescue." This federal takeover, never approved by AIG shareholders, uses the firm as a conduit to bail out other institutions. After months of government stonewalling, on Sunday night AIG officially acknowledged where most of the taxpayer funds have been going.

Since September 16, AIG has sent $120 billion in cash, collateral and other payouts to banks, municipal governments and other derivative counterparties around the world. This includes at least $20 billion to European banks. The list also includes American charity cases like Goldman Sachs, which received at least $13 billion. This comes after months of claims by Goldman that all of its AIG bets were adequately hedged and that it needed no "bailout." Why take $13 billion then? This needless cover-up is one reason Americans are getting angrier as they wonder if Washington is lying to them about these bailouts.

* * *
Given that the government has never defined "systemic risk," we're also starting to wonder exactly which system American taxpayers are paying to protect. It's not capitalism, in which risk-takers suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And in some cases it's not even American. The U.S. government is now in the business of distributing foreign aid to offshore financiers, laundered through a once-great American company.

The politicians also prefer to talk about AIG's latest bonus payments because they deflect attention from Washington's failure to supervise AIG. The Beltway crowd has been selling the story that AIG failed because it operated in a shadowy unregulated world and cleverly exploited gaps among Washington overseers. Said President Obama yesterday, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed." That's true, but Washington doesn't want you to know that various arms of government approved, enabled and encouraged AIG's disastrous bet on the U.S. housing market.

Scott Polakoff, acting director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, told the Senate Banking Committee this month that, contrary to media myth, AIG's infamous Financial Products unit did not slip through the regulatory cracks. Mr. Polakoff said that the whole of AIG, including this unit, was regulated by his agency and by a "college" of global bureaucrats.

But what about that supposedly rogue AIG operation in London? Wasn't that outside the reach of federal regulators? Mr. Polakoff called it "a false statement" to say that his agency couldn't regulate the London office.

And his agency wasn't the only federal regulator. AIG's Financial Products unit has been overseen for years by an SEC-approved monitor. And AIG didn't just make disastrous bets on housing using those infamous credit default swaps. AIG made the same stupid bets on housing using money in its securities lending program, which was heavily regulated at the state level. State, foreign and various U.S. federal regulators were all looking over AIG's shoulder and approving the bad housing bets. Americans always pay their mortgages, right? Mr. Polakoff said his agency "should have taken an entirely different approach" in regulating the contracts written by AIG's Financial Products unit.

That's for sure, especially after March of 2005. The housing trouble began -- as most of AIG's troubles did -- when the company's board buckled under pressure from then New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer when it fired longtime CEO Hank Greenberg. Almost immediately, Fitch took away the company's triple-A credit rating, which allowed it to borrow at cheaper rates. AIG subsequently announced an earnings restatement. The restatement addressed alleged accounting sins that Mr. Spitzer trumpeted initially but later dropped from his civil complaint.

Other elements of the restatement were later reversed by AIG itself. But the damage had been done. The restatement triggered more credit ratings downgrades. Mr. Greenberg's successors seemed to understand that the game had changed, warning in a 2005 SEC filing that a lower credit rating meant the firm would likely have to post more collateral to trading counterparties. But rather than managing risks even more carefully, they went in the opposite direction. Tragically, they did what Mr. Greenberg's AIG never did -- bet big on housing.

Current AIG CEO Ed Liddy was picked by the government in 2008 and didn't create the mess, and he shouldn't be blamed for honoring the firm's lawful bonus contracts. However, it is on Mr. Liddy's watch that AIG has lately been conducting a campaign to stoke fears of "systemic risk." To mute Congressional objections to taxpayer cash infusions, AIG's lobbying materials suggest that taxpayers need to continue subsidizing the insurance giant to avoid economic ruin.

Among the more dubious claims is that AIG policyholders won't be able to purchase the coverage they need. The sweeteners AIG has been offering to retain customers tell a different story. Moreover, getting back to those infamous bonuses, AIG can argue that it needs to pay top dollar to survive in an ultra-competitive business, or it can argue that it offers services not otherwise available in the market, but not both.

* * *
The Washington crowd wants to focus on bonuses because it aims public anger on private actors, not the political class. But our politicians and regulators should direct some of their anger back on themselves -- for kicking off AIG's demise by ousting Mr. Greenberg, for failing to supervise its bets, and then for blowing a mountain of taxpayer cash on their AIG nationalization.

Whether or not these funds ever come back to the Treasury, regulators should now focus on getting AIG back into private hands as soon as possible. And if Treasury and the Fed want to continue bailing out foreign banks, let them make that case, honestly and directly, to American taxpayers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123725551430050865.html

Wish I could post "Congress Is the Real Systemic Risk" by Peter J. Wallison, published in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal -- but I can't. WSJ is strict with their content. I don't want them to hunt me down. lol

[Dylan]

I live in a townhouse. Today, when I got home from work, there was a letter on my door from management that said as of today they no longer own the property, that it went to Fannie Mae on the courthouse steps.

It says, "There is no cause for alarm, as your leases protect you. It is my hope that Fannie Mae will have the office re-open as soon as possible."

I'm understandably a little concerned. Anyone know how things like this usually pan out? If the office stays closed for any more than a couple of weeks, who do I pay rent to?

The government is your new landlord.

[Dylan]

Here you go. Sad but true. The U.S. Government - The New Corporate Raiders


U.S. seizes Fannie and Freddie
Treasury chief Paulson unveils historic government takeover of twin mortgage buyers. Top executives are out.

By David Ellis, CNNMoney.com staff writer
September 7, 2008:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Federal officials on Sunday unveiled an extraordinary takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, putting the government in charge of the twin mortgage giants and the $5 trillion in home loans they back.

Read the entire story:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/07/news/companies/fannie_freddie/index.htm?postversion=2008090711

[bkkcoh]

I live in a townhouse. Today, when I got home from work, there was a letter on my door from management that said as of today they no longer own the property, that it went to Fannie Mae on the courthouse steps.

It says, "There is no cause for alarm, as your leases protect you. It is my hope that Fannie Mae will have the office re-open as soon as possible."

I'm understandably a little concerned. Anyone know how things like this usually pan out? If the office stays closed for any more than a couple of weeks, who do I pay rent to?

Unless congress steps in and nullifies the contracts, like they want to with the AIG bonus'. :banghead:

But yet they don't want to force the big 2 auto companies to renegotiate the UAW contracts.

[luv]

The government is your new landlord.

Shit. There's a scary thought.

[MahiMike]

Cool. FREE rent!!!

[SenselessChiefsFan]

I live in a townhouse. Today, when I got home from work, there was a letter on my door from management that said as of today they no longer own the property, that it went to Fannie Mae on the courthouse steps.

It says, "There is no cause for alarm, as your leases protect you. It is my hope that Fannie Mae will have the office re-open as soon as possible."

I'm understandably a little concerned. Anyone know how things like this usually pan out? If the office stays closed for any more than a couple of weeks, who do I pay rent to?

Okay, well technically, your lease does not protect you. The lease you have is with a management company or previous owner. It is not with the current owner. The current owner may elect to have you evicted.

Now, practically, that isn't likely to happen. If it does, you can fight the eviction by taking it to court and if nothing else, you can drag this out. In fact, if you become a big enough pain in their butt, you can get a cash settlement in some cases.

Now, if they were to throw you out on your keister, you could go back and sue the orginal parties of the lease, but that is not likely to do any good because they will likely claim bankruptcy, and you won't get anything.

On a side note, how many units are in this complex, and where is it located? I may look into it and see if I can make a play for it.

Right now, the opportunities in real estate are amazing. I have several investment properties, which I bought on the courthouse steps. But, I started buying in 2005, when the market was much better. I could get similar properties for a song right now.....

You do have tennant's rights guaranteed by the state, but those are different from state to state.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[luv]

Okay, well technically, your lease does not protect you. The lease you have is with a management company or previous owner. It is not with the current owner. The current owner may elect to have you evicted.

Now, practically, that isn't likely to happen. If it does, you can fight the eviction by taking it to court and if nothing else, you can drag this out. In fact, if you become a big enough pain in their butt, you can get a cash settlement in some cases.

Now, if they were to throw you out on your keister, you could go back and sue the orginal parties of the lease, but that is not likely to do any good because they will likely claim bankruptcy, and you won't get anything.

On a side note, how many units are in this complex, and where is it located? I may look into it and see if I can make a play for it.

Right now, the opportunities in real estate are amazing. I have several investment properties, which I bought on the courthouse steps. But, I started buying in 2005, when the market was much better. I could get similar properties for a song right now.....

You do have tennant's rights guaranteed by the state, but those are different from state to state.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

People take this kinda lightly. The man has primary custody of two boys. Not saying he should get all up in a tizzy over it, but it's definitely something he should investigate. It wouldn't be just him out on his keister.

[Skip Towne]

I wouldn't worry about who to pay the rent to. Don't call them, they will call you.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

People take this kinda lightly. The man has primary custody of two boys. Not saying he should get all up in a tizzy over it, but it's definitely something he should investigate. It wouldn't be just him out on his keister.

Worry is a misuse of imagination.

The point is that an eviction is a legal process. He has the right to fight it. He doesn't need a lawyer either. It is a relatively easy process. He can drag it out for a couple of months at the very least.

And, IF FNMA wants him out of the complex..... they may offer him a cash settlement if they see that he is ready to dig in and fight it all the way.

But, I don't think he will be put out on his keister anytime soon. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a few months free rent out of it.

[StcChief]

They want property occupied. Unlikely you'll be evicted. true you might get to skate a month or two. as Skip says they will let you know just bank the rent.

[Stewie]

Make checks payable to Ben Bernanke. He's trying really hard to balance his books since he's handing out trillion$ willy-nilly. I know it ain't much but anything helps poor old Benny.

[KcMizzou]

Update...

I got a letter today from a company who is handling the management of the property effective immediately. Says, "Please be assured that your residence will not be affected in any way. All of the terms of your current lease contract remain in full force and will not be affected by this transfer of management. We pride ourselves on our professinal approach to multi-family management, and I believe this will become evident as we work with each other over the coming months. I will be the property supervisor responsible for operations, and will be working closely with your management team. I am looking forward to working with every member off the staff in providing the quality environment and service you expect."

So, it took them less than 24 hours to get in touch. Heck, it might turn out to be an improvement.

I had visions of grass four feet tall, and mountains of trash like on "Idiocracy" Had me a little spooked.

Thanks all, for the input.

[SAUTO]

Update...

I got a letter today from a company who is handling the management of the property effective immediately. Says, "Please be assured that your residence will not be affected in any way. All of the terms of your current lease contract remain in full force and will not be affected by this transfer of management. We pride ourselves on our professinal approach to multi-family management, and I believe this will become evident as we work with each other over the coming months. I will be the property supervisor responsible for operations, and will be working closely with your management team. I am looking forward to working with every member off the staff in providing the quality environment and service you expect."

So, it took them less than 24 hours to get in touch. Heck, it might turn out to be an improvement.

I has visions of grass four feet tall, and mountains of trash like on "Idiocracy" Had me a little spooked.

Thanks all, for the input.

good to hear, had to be a nerve-racking night though:thumb:

[Pioli Zombie]

speaking of apartments. i just went to put an application on one and they want me to provide proof ive told my current landlord my intention to move. What if i do that and then this here place decides because in 2006 i was 12 days late on a Sears card i cant have the apartment? then im out of both places. ive never heard of this.
have you guys?

[KcMizzou]

speaking of apartments. i just went to put an application on one and they want me to provide proof ive told my current landlord my intention to move. What if i do that and then this here place decides because in 2006 i was 12 days late on a Sears card i cant have the apartment? then im out of both places. ive never heard of this.
have you guys?Nope, that's a new one on me.

[Pioli Zombie]

now im going to obess on this all effen night. do i go ahead and give notice and then the unemployment i had a few month ago or the credit card bill i had keeps them from approving me PLUS the bastards make me give up my current place in the meantime.

i just know im going to have a seizure, get taken to the hospital, and have some compassionate nurse like badgirl yelling at me because i cant feel my legs.

[KcMizzou]

now im going to obess on this all effen night. do i go ahead and give notice and then the unemployment i had a few month ago or the credit card bill i had keeps them from approving me PLUS the bastards make me give up my current place in the meantime.

i just know im going to have a seizure, get taken to the hospital, and have some compassionate nurse like badgirl yelling at me because i cant feel my legs.LMAO

[stlchiefs]

Update...

I got a letter today from a company who is handling the management of the property effective immediately. Says, "Please be assured that your residence will not be affected in any way. All of the terms of your current lease contract remain in full force and will not be affected by this transfer of management. We pride ourselves on our professinal approach to multi-family management, and I believe this will become evident as we work with each other over the coming months. I will be the property supervisor responsible for operations, and will be working closely with your management team. I am looking forward to working with every member off the staff in providing the quality environment and service you expect."

So, it took them less than 24 hours to get in touch. Heck, it might turn out to be an improvement.

I had visions of grass four feet tall, and mountains of trash like on "Idiocracy" Had me a little spooked.

Thanks all, for the input.

Did you check on that security deposit yet?

[KcMizzou]

Did you check on that security deposit yet?No, but to be honest, with two young boys I'd written that off a couple of years ago. The deposit wasn't much at all.

[luv]

Update...

I got a letter today from a company who is handling the management of the property effective immediately. Says, "Please be assured that your residence will not be affected in any way. All of the terms of your current lease contract remain in full force and will not be affected by this transfer of management. We pride ourselves on our professinal approach to multi-family management, and I believe this will become evident as we work with each other over the coming months. I will be the property supervisor responsible for operations, and will be working closely with your management team. I am looking forward to working with every member off the staff in providing the quality environment and service you expect."

So, it took them less than 24 hours to get in touch. Heck, it might turn out to be an improvement.

I had visions of grass four feet tall, and mountains of trash like on "Idiocracy" Had me a little spooked.

Thanks all, for the input.

That's very encouraging. Good to hear.

[luv]

speaking of apartments. i just went to put an application on one and they want me to provide proof ive told my current landlord my intention to move. What if i do that and then this here place decides because in 2006 i was 12 days late on a Sears card i cant have the apartment? then im out of both places. ive never heard of this.
have you guys?

I just moved last December. The new place ran a credit check, checked my employment, and contacted my old place to see how I was about paying rent. I hadn't given notice to my old place yet. Didn't really want to until I knew I had someplace else. Sounds like quite the conundrum you've got there.

[Bugeater]

now im going to obess on this all effen night. do i go ahead and give notice and then the unemployment i had a few month ago or the credit card bill i had keeps them from approving me PLUS the bastards make me give up my current place in the meantime.

i just know im going to have a seizure, get taken to the hospital, and have some compassionate nurse like badgirl yelling at me because i cant feel my legs.
Tell them you'll provide the proof once they accept your application or they can go pound sand.

[ChiefaRoo]

You should tell them that since, as a taxpayer, you now own a share of their company, and as such, the ****ing rent's been paid in full.

Yep. Everyone who pays taxes owns that apt. complex now.

[Pioli Zombie]

Tell them you'll provide the proof once they accept your application or they can go pound sand.

That's what I'm thinking. I don't understand why they can't approve me first and then require that before I move in like the proof of renters insurance.
Posted via Mobile Device

[SenselessChiefsFan]

That's what I'm thinking. I don't understand why they can't approve me first and then require that before I move in like the proof of renters insurance.
Posted via Mobile Device

They are looking to see how you have handled your leases in the past. Most will at least want to talk to your former landlords to get a reference. Either way, your current landlord will know that you are looking to move.

Plus, if you still had a while left on your old lease, you may elect to sublet it out, thus exposing yourself to more financial obligations if they don't pay you, etc.

They also want to know that you are considerate and that you won't just move out in the middle of the night and stop paying rent.

It gives them reassurance that your current landlord won't be coming after you for additional rent due to your failure to exit your lease by the terms of your contract.

Some people have the best 'intentions'... but never get around to given proper written notice and leave themselves exposed to lawsuits.

It is not a common practice, but from a landlord's perspective (I am a landlord), it is quite a good idea.

[luv]

They are looking to see how you have handled your leases in the past. Most will at least want to talk to your former landlords to get a reference. Either way, your current landlord will know that you are looking to move.

Plus, if you still had a while left on your old lease, you may elect to sublet it out, thus exposing yourself to more financial obligations if they don't pay you, etc.

They also want to know that you are considerate and that you won't just move out in the middle of the night and stop paying rent.

It gives them reassurance that your current landlord won't be coming after you for additional rent due to your failure to exit your lease by the terms of your contract.

Some people have the best 'intentions'... but never get around to given proper written notice and leave themselves exposed to lawsuits.

It is not a common practice, but from a landlord's perspective (I am a landlord), it is quite a good idea.

As a tenant, you don't want to give notice until you have another place lined up either.

[Pioli Zombie]

Its not like I'm NOT going to give notice. But its like giving up your job before you get an offer from the place you interviewed.
Posted via Mobile Device

[luv]

Its not like I'm NOT going to give notice. But its like giving up your job before you get an offer from the place you interviewed.
Posted via Mobile Device

Exactly.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Update...

I got a letter today from a company who is handling the management of the property effective immediately. Says, "Please be assured that your residence will not be affected in any way. All of the terms of your current lease contract remain in full force and will not be affected by this transfer of management. We pride ourselves on our professinal approach to multi-family management, and I believe this will become evident as we work with each other over the coming months. I will be the property supervisor responsible for operations, and will be working closely with your management team. I am looking forward to working with every member off the staff in providing the quality environment and service you expect."

So, it took them less than 24 hours to get in touch. Heck, it might turn out to be an improvement.

I had visions of grass four feet tall, and mountains of trash like on "Idiocracy" Had me a little spooked.

Thanks all, for the input.

Good news bro. Glad to hear it.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

That's what I'm thinking. I don't understand why they can't approve me first and then require that before I move in like the proof of renters insurance.
Posted via Mobile Device

Is renters insurance requirements normal? I just signed a lease at a place that required it and was shocked.

[Dylan]

Since you're living in government owned property, they have vested interest in you. You'll have your own personal agents from NSA, DEA, FBI, BATF, and the IRS crawling all over your life.

Will Vladimir Putin liberate us?


In June 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, James A. Johnson and Franklin Raines had received loans below market rate from Countrywide Financial. Fannie Mae was the biggest buyer of Countrywide's mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have strategically [neutrality disputed] given contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry: The House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president.

The top five recipients of campaign contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae during the 1989 - 2008 time period are Christopher Dodd, (D-CT) $133,900, John Kerry, (D-MA) $111,000, Barack Obama, (D-IL) $105,849, Hillary Clinton, (D-NY) $75,550, and Paul Kanjorski,(D-PA) $65,500.

[Dylan]

KcMizzou:

It should have never come to this -- My heart goes out to you.


The Wall Street Journal
The Price of Fannie Mae

July 10, 2008
As opposed to GM or Ford, most Americans have never heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yet the insolvency of either mortgage giant would have far more profound consequences for every American taxpayer than the bankruptcy of those car companies. It's time Americans understood the price they could soon pay for the Beltway's confidence game with these high-risk "government-sponsored enterprises."

The rest: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121565255349741343.html

[MahiMike]

I don't understand all the sweat. You're just RENTing.

With all the folks having trouble selling, they're renting. Renters are in the driver's seat right now. I'd hope the management Co. is slow to non-existent and save my money until I went to the next place. Then I'd look for an owner-financed rent-to-own deal. You could end up owning instead of renting.

[luv]

I don't understand all the sweat. You're just RENTing.

With all the folks having trouble selling, they're renting. Renters are in the driver's seat right now. I'd hope the management Co. is slow to non-existent and save my money until I went to the next place. Then I'd look for an owner-financed rent-to-own deal. You could end up owning instead of renting.

You want to make my car payment for me so I can save money for a down payment?

[MahiMike]

You want to make my car payment for me so I can save money for a down payment?

Who needs a down payment? Honestly, there are so many rentals, RTO's out there, this is the best time ever to get a great deal on buying a house and having the owners finance you. Just get a lease w/option to buy from a person trying to sell themselves. Tell them you'll pay more if they'll finance the down payment into the final price.

[luv]

Who needs a down payment? Honestly, there are so many rentals, RTO's out there, this is the best time ever to get a great deal on buying a house and having the owners finance you. Just get a lease w/option to buy from a person trying to sell themselves. Tell them you'll pay more if they'll finance the down payment into the final price.

Will you make my car payment so I can pay the extra for utilities, trash, maintenance, and taxes?

[Pioli Zombie]

All I want is to have them do my credit check first and that I'm approved pending my rent history and proof of notice from my current place. I KNOW that is no problem, I've always paid my rent on time

I just don't want to give notice, THEN have them run my application and decide my unemployment earlier is a problem. Then I'm screwed.
Posted via Mobile Device

[luv]

All I want is to have them do my credit check first and that I'm approved pending my rent history and proof of notice from my current place. I KNOW that is no problem, I've always paid my rent on time

I just don't want to give notice, THEN have them run my application and decide my unemployment earlier is a problem. Then I'm screwed.
Posted via Mobile Device

I guess you could let your current landlord know that you're looking. Let them know that you will not be giving notice unless you have another place secured. When your new landlord calls, they can at least say that you have notified them of your intent. Of course, your current landlord could lie through their teeth. Send it to them in a letter in registered mail (which they have to sign for). Then, if your new landlord tells you that they said you didn't give any sort of notice, you'll know they're lying. Not sure if you'd be able to do anything from there though, so maybe I'm just talking in circles.

[Pioli Zombie]

I guess you could let your current landlord know that you're looking. Let them know that you will not be giving notice unless you have another place secured. When your new landlord calls, they can at least say that you have notified them of your intent. Of course, your current landlord could lie through their teeth. Send it to them in a letter in registered mail (which they have to sign for). Then, if your new landlord tells you that they said you didn't give any sort of notice, you'll know they're lying. Not sure if you'd be able to do anything from there though, so maybe I'm just talking in circles.
No, the new place faxes a request for information to my current place asking for rent history and confirmation from them that I have given notice. So there is no doubt. I think its ballsy for them to expect me to terminate my contract here before they have given me any indication that I will be approved. Like I said, at least run my credit check first and tell me I have it pending the proof of termination.
Posted via Mobile Device