Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Lease

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Orkocean View Post
    IMO a listing of everything stored is a liability in the sense that customers are already worried about "inside jobs" for thefts of storage units as unfortunately that is something that takes place in this industry. By them having to disclose everything in the unit in my mind that creates more worry for the customer. Our insurance provider we offer requires a list if they choose the higher tiered insurance options which that I can understand as it's them covering themselves from insurance fraud. I have a list of things that can't be stored, rather they listen and abide by the rules or not is another story but if something ever comes up from it, they were told and they broke the rules.

    The money limit i've seen everywhere i've been on leases is $5k, i've even seen companies set up LLC's and run the sites through multiple entity's to shield themselves from larger lawsuits just in case the $5k limit somehow got ignored in a court.
    I hadn't thought of the liability part, that makes sense. And I believe the new lease does have the limit at $5k. For now anyway.
    Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

    Comment


    • #17
      I don't have leases, only Rental Agreements. Everything is month to month. I've been using virtually the same 1 page rental agreement for 35 years and not had one problem with it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Ok, so I got my hands on a copy of the new lease. Or rental agreement. I use both terms. At this point, it appears to be geared more toward the other facility. It has all of their information and gate hours (they are not a 24 hr facility). It also includes an area for a fee for electric use in the RV area. I don't have electric in mine and don't allow the use of it at/in any of my buildings. Yes, I realize it can modified to fit my facility. One thing that bugs me is the use of the word "landlord" throughout. The statutes use the word "owner". Maybe I'm being nit-picky, but I consider a 'landlord' to be strictly residential.
        Either the tenant or the landlord may give the other written or emailed notice intent to terminate/vacate 10 days prior to the end of the current rental period. That makes sense for the tenant and that's what I require now. BUT, that sounds, to me, like I only have to give 10 days notice to a tenant that their lease isn't being renewed and they now have 10 days to vacate.

        I do have a question, though, about the active military clause. This new copy says "Tenant, OR SPOUSE, is a member of the uniformed services of the United States (member of the armed forces; the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); or the commissiond corps of the Public Health Service". It's MY understanding that only the TENANT (person who signed the lease/agreement) is what we go by concerning the clause? If the tenant is a regular citizen, it doesn't matter if the spouse is a member because that person is not the legal tenant. Correct? It works that way for residential purposes in case he/she is transferred, but there is nothing specifically about that in the statute that mentions anything about storage facilities.

        Aslo, while this new copy is at 8 pages, only the first 2 are the actual agreement. The remaining pages are all Terms and Conditions. I'm finding little things here and there, but unless/until I hear that it involves my facility, I'm not going to get too worked up about it.
        Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by DairyGirl View Post
          I do have a question, though, about the active military clause. This new copy says "Tenant, OR SPOUSE, is a member of the uniformed services of the United States (member of the armed forces; the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); or the commissiond corps of the Public Health Service". It's MY understanding that only the TENANT (person who signed the lease/agreement) is what we go by concerning the clause? If the tenant is a regular citizen, it doesn't matter if the spouse is a member because that person is not the legal tenant. Correct? It works that way for residential purposes in case he/she is transferred, but there is nothing specifically about that in the statute that mentions anything about storage facilities.
          TheServicemembers Civil Relief Act, or SCRA, provides financial and legal protection for active-duty service members, including National Guard and reserve members, and their families.

          So it needs to be acknowledged, (and the waiver signed if you use that) if either of them is active-duty or reserve.
          MamaDuke

          Comment


          • #20
            "Either the tenant or the landlord may give the other written or emailed notice intent to terminate/vacate 10 days prior to the end of the current rental period. That makes sense for the tenant and that's what I require now. BUT, that sounds, to me, like I only have to give 10 days notice to a tenant that their lease isn't being renewed and they now have 10 days to vacate."

            It doesn't give an amount of time for the move out after notice so it can be interpreted with whatever time frame is the "legal" amount. Most states say 30 days and the new lease leaves the time frame open. If you want to give a 10 day notice and have them out asap after that then the police may have to be involved depending on the problems caused by tenant.
            "Never let the inmates run the asylum!"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MamaDuke View Post

              TheServicemembers Civil Relief Act, or SCRA, provides financial and legal protection for active-duty service members, including National Guard and reserve members, and their families.

              So it needs to be acknowledged, (and the waiver signed if you use that) if either of them is active-duty or reserve.
              Thanks. I only have one tenant right now and he is active-reserve.
              Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by pacnwstorage View Post
                "Either the tenant or the landlord may give the other written or emailed notice intent to terminate/vacate 10 days prior to the end of the current rental period. That makes sense for the tenant and that's what I require now. BUT, that sounds, to me, like I only have to give 10 days notice to a tenant that their lease isn't being renewed and they now have 10 days to vacate."

                It doesn't give an amount of time for the move out after notice so it can be interpreted with whatever time frame is the "legal" amount. Most states say 30 days and the new lease leaves the time frame open. If you want to give a 10 day notice and have them out asap after that then the police may have to be involved depending on the problems caused by tenant.
                I generally do a 30-day notice so I will stick with that. Most don't need to be terminated sooner. BUT, it does also state immediate eviction for any breach of the agreement is allowed. I only do that for those caught sleeping in their units.
                Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

                Comment


                • #23
                  First of all if I was interesting in renting at your place I would not due to:
                  - 9 pages of lawyer speak that no one understands
                  - listing MY PERSONAL items
                  - value of contents

                  Originally posted by PKStorage View Post

                  - Your insurance doesn't cover their "stuff".

                  - Warren Buffet, when asked whether he felt it was OK for the US Govt to force people to buy health insurance by law, stated he didn't, but...that in todays society if you let people make decisions for themselves that 80% of the time they will make the wrong decisions. Unfortunately I've found this to be true. Folks would rather spend money on Starbucks then insurance.
                  If I or someone else makes the wrong decision regarding ANYTHING, the fault is wholly owned by that individual, period!

                  The absolute last thing I want is anyone making decisions for me without my consent, especially lawyers or the govt

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Grizz View Post
                    First of all if I was interesting in renting at your place I would not due to:
                    - 9 pages of lawyer speak that no one understands
                    - listing MY PERSONAL items
                    - value of contents



                    If I or someone else makes the wrong decision regarding ANYTHING, the fault is wholly owned by that individual, period!

                    The absolute last thing I want is anyone making decisions for me without my consent, especially lawyers or the govt


                    Couple things:

                    - My lease doesn't require tenants to list their personal items, so not sure where you came up with that out of my posts.

                    - If you didn't want to follow the rules (yes, all 9 pages of it), then that's OK. Better for us, and better for you (the tenant) to store elsewhere.

                    - When someone else makes a wrong decision, the fault is not always wholly owned by them. Believe me, you and I may think so, but entitled folks, lawyers, judges, and jury's don't always believe that way. Thus, 9 pages to make sure all of the fine print is in black and white so that there is no question on to what the rules are and what the results of disobeying the rules are.

                    - Nobody is making decisions for you without your consent at my facility, so not sure what that applies to. Our facility has rules and consequences. If the tenant doesn't want to follow those, or doesn't want to agree to follow those (sign the lease) then they are welcome to store at a different facility.

                    Final point, the world is far to entitled to allow any grey area and it's because of this that "lawyer speak" is required.

                    Case in point, I just dealt with a property owner (seller) who didn't want to pay their proration of last years' taxes for the time they owned the land, as outlined in the VERY lengthy sales agreement that accompanies any land purchase/sale. And although that lengthy contract outlines all the terms in black and white, they want to negotiate what they owe as to settle for less because they know at this point it will hold up construction. Of course both attorneys agree if we litigate we would win, but they choose to want to negotiate back and forth and settle for an amount less than what they owe just because they know we don't want the time or cost to litigate to hold up construction (even though we win 100%).

                    Even with all the lawyer speak, people are going to want to "mess around". If we had the time to follow through on the lawyer speak (and litigate) we are protected by that lengthy contract. In this context you can see how people don't like to follow rules, and for this reason facility owners must protect themselves and their interest first. If a tenant is no OK with this, then as stated they are welcome to store elsewhere.
                    Last edited by PKStorage; 14th July 2019, 10:43 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      My point (one of them) was if you translate lawyer speak into English it would be very clear and easy to understand plus cut it down to maybe two pages.

                      People will sometimes mess around but if you decide to fight it you can file a counter suit for lost moneys due to the construction hold up.

                      As far as the entitled group wanting to get out of a contract because they didn't read it is totally ridiculous. It wouldn't hold up in any court or any jury

                      My comment about someone making decisions without my consent was based around your Warren Buffet quote, I thought that was pretty clear since your the one who quoted him, I guess not....

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Grizz View Post
                        My point (one of them) was if you translate lawyer speak into English it would be very clear and easy to understand plus cut it down to maybe two pages.

                        People will sometimes mess around but if you decide to fight it you can file a counter suit for lost moneys due to the construction hold up.

                        As far as the entitled group wanting to get out of a contract because they didn't read it is totally ridiculous. It wouldn't hold up in any court or any jury

                        My comment about someone making decisions without my consent was based around your Warren Buffet quote, I thought that was pretty clear since your the one who quoted him, I guess not....

                        Trust me, I would LOVE to have a 1 page bullet point lease. 2 pages if needed. I agree 9 pages is long/boring/etc, but unfortunately our lease attorney says it's necessary and as a business owner I would have to agree. Unfortunately in this case "protecting our interest" takes precedence to ease of use/readability.

                        Regarding the Warren Buffet quote...I'm with you on that. I'm of the same train of thought that I believe this to be a free country and we shouldn't be forced into things like a requirement to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty/tax. I'm against that. He's just saying that even though he doesn't believe in forcing it on people, when people are given the option to choose for themselves they'll choose wrong, so maybe it's good to force it on them. Can't say I agree with that point. I would prefer the freedom of choice myself.

                        If you have a contract with all of the fine print in black and white, then you are correct, it will hold up (as I said before in the example of my own case recently with the sellers). However, if you have a 1 page bullet point lease agreement then that leaves far to much grey area up for interpretation. And anything up for interpretation is dangerous in a lease/rental agreement. Let's remember, the OP started this thread because of a poorly written lease causing a major issue/shake up. Although they did not share what that was, we can surmise that a water leak at their facility is causing quite the headache for ownership/management, and because of that they are updating their lease. Might have been avoided with a better constructed lease from the beginning (or maybe not, as said, folks sometimes try to mess around even when it is clearly stipulated in black and white).

                        In the end I just prefer to have a longer rental agreement covering all of the bases. If my tenants don't like that / don't want to sign and move on to a different facility, then that's OK.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by PKStorage View Post


                          Trust me, I would LOVE to have a 1 page bullet point lease. 2 pages if needed. I agree 9 pages is long/boring/etc, but unfortunately our lease attorney says it's necessary and as a business owner I would have to agree. Unfortunately in this case "protecting our interest" takes precedence to ease of use/readability.

                          Regarding the Warren Buffet quote...I'm with you on that. I'm of the same train of thought that I believe this to be a free country and we shouldn't be forced into things like a requirement to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty/tax. I'm against that. He's just saying that even though he doesn't believe in forcing it on people, when people are given the option to choose for themselves they'll choose wrong, so maybe it's good to force it on them. Can't say I agree with that point. I would prefer the freedom of choice myself.

                          If you have a contract with all of the fine print in black and white, then you are correct, it will hold up (as I said before in the example of my own case recently with the sellers). However, if you have a 1 page bullet point lease agreement then that leaves far to much grey area up for interpretation. And anything up for interpretation is dangerous in a lease/rental agreement. Let's remember, the OP started this thread because of a poorly written lease causing a major issue/shake up. Although they did not share what that was, we can surmise that a water leak at their facility is causing quite the headache for ownership/management, and because of that they are updating their lease. Might have been avoided with a better constructed lease from the beginning (or maybe not, as said, folks sometimes try to mess around even when it is clearly stipulated in black and white).

                          In the end I just prefer to have a longer rental agreement covering all of the bases. If my tenants don't like that / don't want to sign and move on to a different facility, then that's OK.
                          You are correct about the reason for the new lease...major water leak stemming from water line run from bathroom INSIDE several units along the ceiling/wall then to outside. While the current one states we do not provide any insurance for the benefit of the tenant, and that we are not liable for any loss suffered from, among other things, water, it is not, in my opinion, poorly written. But, at least one of the tenants involved threatened to sue, and it sounds like ownership decided to just reimburse those affected rather than go to court. Right, wrong, or otherwise, it was their decision to make.
                          Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          • Storman
                            Reply to The dangers of those rental trucks in the wrong hands
                            by Storman
                            I'm sure it was bad, but I couldn't watch that video for more than 10 seconds. I need a dramamine.
                            Today, 12:16 AM
                          • Orkocean
                            Reply to new to storage
                            by Orkocean
                            My father didn't talk about his vietnam days, all I know is he was a gunner in heli's and per my mother telling me stories as a kid he had 2 guns when most had one.. *shrug*... As far as my brother i'm not sure what his role was on the ship, it was late 90's early 2000's timeframe and I recall he went...
                            Yesterday, 08:19 PM
                          • MamaDuke
                            Reply to new to storage
                            by MamaDuke
                            My father was on the flight deck of the Kitty Hawk during Vietnam. Squadron, vf-213 F4's.

                            Small world!...
                            Yesterday, 08:01 PM
                          Working...
                          X