[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Those are some interesting theories posted above about renting out property as a landlord.

One thing that stood out to me is the statement that the landlord would raise the rent if something like a new roof or other expense were needed. That sounds good but really doesn't work in the real world. The rent can only be the fair market rent for the property, not what the landlord would like to get to make a profit. The tenant will not care what your expenses are and will move if they can get a better deal somewhere else.

The biggest source of negativity about being a landlord only comes from either tenant damage or non-payment. In those cases, the courts, especially Laconia District Court, will not help a landlord but will bend over backwards to help a tenant. That has been my experience.

As an investment, I have had several two families going back to 1978. In each case, after a down payment in the 20% range the rental income paid the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance. After about 5 to 10 years each one was making a significant profit every year, even after any necessary maintenance. Also, due to depreciation, my income taxes were reduced substantially. When I sold each one, after 25 to 30 years of ownership, the mortgage had been paid off and the selling price was approximately 15 times my original down payment.

Real estate as an investment, and even a personal residence, remains a good long term investment. That is especially true for waterfront properties because of a limited supply and a growing demand that will only drive prices up over the long term.

Use to have a cousin who owned multiple rental properties, he would go and physically throw out tenants for nonpayment. I use to tell him you’re going to get ya self arrested or in trouble and his rebuttle was always my court and lawyer fees for being arrested for this would be cheaper than spending 9 months fighting them in court to evict and then repair my destroyed house...