Rent Checks in Another Name?
I have been receiving checks from a RS tenant who lives with her son. There are 2 names printed on the check- one I do not know. The checks have been signed by that unknown person (it’s not her son either). What’s the proper way to handle the situation? I suspect the other name is…
I have been receiving checks from a RS tenant who lives with her son. There are 2 names printed on the check- one I do not know. The checks have been signed by that unknown person (it’s not her son either).
What’s the proper way to handle the situation? I suspect the other name is a husband she is separated from- she’s older so perhaps didn’t get a divorce.
She’s lived here a long time and is a great tenant and just a real nice person, but I do feel the need to address it in a way that isn’t overly accusatory.
Suggestions? Or knowledge of the specifics related to receiving checks in RS situations? Thanks all- have a great 4th!
TRUST NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!
or just chill out.
Speak to your lawyer but you SHOULD NOT accept ANY rent payments from any name other than the person on a RS lease. I doesn’t matter if it’s a son daughter or whatever.
No op is not being nosy. and yes the tenant is entitled to a roommate, but no, but if there is no roommate on the lease, op is right to question who is writing the checks. would you want to inadvertently give a third party rights to YOUR rental unit because you were too politically correct to protect yourself? op is most likely entitled to require the tenant of record pay the rent directly.
It is also possible that the person is a relative who has power of attorney, and is nominally taking care of the tenant’s affairs. there is nothing wrong with finding out.
Ask her to sign her own checks. Don’t accept checks signed by strangers.
Bohuma: I don’t quite follow. Your argument is that RS reduces incentives to create new (non-RS) affordable housing, and “luxury” landlords keep their luxury apartments off the market in order to artificial reduce the vacancy rate so that RS remains in place because it keeps market rates high. Huh? Does RS reduce market rates or increase them? You seem to be arguing it does both. At once.
The vacancy rate is kept artificially low because there is no incentive to develop non-luxury rentals, and corporate landlords keep their luxury apartments off the market rather than let the reported vacancy rate rise above 5% when rent stabilization would cut out. The luxury landlords want rent stabilization because it keeps market rate rents high.
However given the low vacancy rates since WWII I don’t expect not do I advocate a change…and given so many LL either…
In New York as opposed to every where else(except San Fransisco), the remainder- when a lease is over- belongs to the tenant or someone else if allowed under the law. Everywhere else its returns to the owner of the property not the tenant.
While it may or may not mean they get a right to lease in this case, its best to find out the situation now and if you have any reservations see a NY L and T lawyer…
*rob* is right to be amused, but the sad thing is that the propensity of NY city and state politicians to interfere in the property market has taken away any incentive for private investment in anything other than the luxury market, unless said developer is bribed with a tax break. I’ve lived in cities with more balanced residential tenancy laws and there is plenty of investment in all sectors of the property market. These cities have a healthy vacancy rate, and plenty of decent housing at reasonable prices. We’ll never get that of course, Albany and City Hall buy votes by keeping rent stabilization in place.
Yes, accepting a check from someone not on the lease effectively puts them on the lease. If this is not her son or another relative living in the apartment, you should not accept the check. If it’s a roommate, the roommate has a right to live there, but you should not accept a check from the roommate unless you want them to inherit the apartment.