CARING FOR TENANTS WITH DISABILITIES

By Glenn Mananeng

All tenants have rights to housing and those with disabilities are no exception, additionally, those with disabilities have unique rights under state and federal law. We often hear about people being evicted from the rental property and many of these people are people with disabilities who cannot afford rent or fall behind due to medical bills or low pay from Social Security benefits.

Millions of Americans are affected by disabilities struggle to find a place to rent. In fact, 1 out of 5 people in the U.S. have a high chance of acquiring some type of disability according to the Census Bureau. It is of utmost importance to understand their rights in order to provide a proper place for them to live comfortably.

QUALIFYING DISABILITIES

The Federal Housing Act (FHA) has set a very broad description as to what qualifies as a disability. Under federal law, these disabilities have certain qualities such as:

Must limit one’s major life activities
This covers anything as simple as walking, talking, breathing, manually performing tasks, or caring for oneself. If it significantly affects at least one or more of these activities or something similar, the disability should be considered.

It doesn’t have to be obvious
The disability does not have to be noticeable to other people regardless of how much time they see or spend time with you. For example, a person suffering from asthma may seem normal to anyone unless there is an obvious breathing issue due to an emergent attack. A landlord is not legally permitted to ask a resident or prospective applicant about a disability.

Doesn’t require the use of an assistive device
People with mobility disabilities can still qualify under FHA rules even without the need of assistive devices such as wheelchairs, canes, or walkers. The same also applies for those with hearing impairments where there wouldn’t be a need for a hearing aid.

Physical disabilities aren’t the only ones included
Mental illness, chronic fatigue, and learning disabilities are included as part of the FHA’s definition.

Addictions are included as well
Individuals suffering from drug or alcohol addiction can qualify as long as they are currently part of a rehabilitation program.

EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS (ESA)

As the name implies, they provide support and comfort especially for those suffering from mental health issues. They help their owners cope with daily life and alleviates their condition a little bit better. There is a clear difference between a service animal and an emotional support animal.

The former is well-trained to perform specific tasks to support a physically disabled person. One of the most common service animals are guide dogs for the visually impaired. ESAs on the other hand provides support and companionship to people with mental health problems.

If you’re in need of such a companion, you need to request an ESA letter from a licensed mental health professional (therapist, psychologist, or psychiatrist). The letter should confirm your mental condition, explain how limiting the disability is when it comes to day-today activities, elaborate how an ESA helps improve your well-being, and should be signed by the medical professional.

As long as one has an ESA letter, the landlord can’t deny housing to that individual. This means that the landlord cannot charge a pet fee even if the rental property follows a NO PET POLICY.

WHAT IS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION?

This refers to modifications in the rental property which will enable the tenant with a disability to fully use amenities and features of the home as easy as possible. Some of these may include adding a ramp for wheelchair use, widening of doorways, adding grab bars in the bathroom, and even lowering kitchen countertops.

In the event that the landlord receives government funding to maintain housing, there is a chance that they have to cover the renovation costs. However, if a landlord accepts Section 8 tenants, they would not have to pay for the modification.

If a tenant needs the modification to the property but can’t afford the cost, there are a few resources to help fund it. Local fair housing centers are available in almost every community. In Michigan, most of them are divided into different areas throughout the state from Metropolitan Detroit, Southeast and Mid, Southwest, and West Michigan.

A landlord cannot deny or refuse reasonable accommodation to their rental property not unless it would somehow change the layout of the whole building, be unreasonably expensive or impossible to do so, or would pose a physical hazard to other tenants.

Regardless of one’s situation, no one shouldn’t be denied housing. Landlords should always treat tenants equally despite disabilities. There’s nothing more important than working with professionals who have a deep understanding of Fair Housing Laws, especially people with disabilities.

For additional information about Michigan Fair Housing Laws, you can check out our Tenant Section here. To learn more about property management services that we provide, you can call us at (734) 744-5080 or send us an email at [email protected].

Can You Micro Flip Mortgage Notes?

By Fuquan Bilal

There’s a lot of talk about micro-flipping real estate out there. But can you micro-flip mortgage notes?

The Micro-Flipping Craze

If you’ve Googled anything to do with real estate lately, you’ve probably been inundated with ads for micro-flipping. Almost every podcast, email and social post out there is talking about the same micro-flipping stories.

It’s a great twist of phrase on a very old strategy. Some people have been doing extremely well at it for years. So, what is it? What are the pros and cons? Can you apply it to notes instead? If so, why should you?

What Is Micro-Flipping?

Micro-flipping is the new term for wholesaling real estate. Wholesaling means buying or contracting to buy a property, and then assigning your contract or flipping it as-is, without doing any rehab work. If you have a good buyers list and connections, or can do this effectively online, you can be in, out and paid fast. It’s a high volume sport.

This has been made a lot easier thanks to all the access to data and software and online platforms we have today.

This form of real estate investing is made to sound super easy. That may be luring in a lot of people who think it is a lot easier than it really is. Not everyone is going to get the results they were sold on. Some will find it the easiest and fastest money they’ve ever made.

The real con of this strategy is that everyone is being sold on trying it. At least tens of thousands of people are sold on using the same software, data and marketing to do this. So, what you get is a lot of people bidding on the same deals, trying to sell them to the same buyers, and engaging in long broker chains. You don’t make money when you are running with the herd.

How To Flip Mortgage Notes

So, what if you could apply the same benefits of micro-flipping houses to the less crowded mortgage note space?

There are at least four ways to try this:

  1. Acquire individual mortgage notes and flip them as-is for a reasonable markup
  2. Buy pools of mortgage notes at deeper discounts than others can, and sell the individuals notes for more
  3. Acquire non-performing loan notes, work them out, resell them as more valuable reperforming notes
  4. Use non-performing notes as an avenue to acquire the collateral property and wholesale that to all of these new micro-flippers

Investment Opportunities

Find out more about investing in secured debt and real estate, go to NNG Capital Fund

Fuquan Bilal

Fuquan Bilal founded NNG in 2012 with the principal mission of capitalizing on the growing supply of mortgage notes in the interbank marketplace. Mr .Bilal utilizes his 17 years of residential and commercial real estate success to identify real estate opportunities and capitalize on them. To date, he has successfully managed three private mortgage note funds that primarily invest in singlefamily performing and non­performing mortgage notes. His financial acumen and proprietary set of investment criteria enable him to purchase underperforming real estate assets at a deep discount of face and market values, thereby increasing the value of the assets. This, coupled with his ability to maximize the use of leverage, enables him to build strong, secured portfolios with solid passive income flows.

Allowing a Lender to Cross Collateralize Against Additional Property

By Edward Brown

There are times when a lender is going to ask for additional [real estate] collateral in order to make a borrower a loan. The most likely scenario for this is when there is not enough equity in the target property. Other scenarios include a borrower with less than stellar credit, or the type or quality of the target property may not be enough to satisfy the lender to make the loan, as most lenders are more interested in making loans that will pay them back instead of facing foreclosures. For this reason, the lender may ask the borrower to put up additional collateral satisfactory to the lender so as to give the borrower an incentive to avoid defaulting on the loan.

In many cases, this cross collateralization may not be something the borrower worries about, as the borrower intends to pay the lender in full. The general plan is for the borrower to refinance the target property at a point where a new lender does not require cross collateralization, pay off the existing lender, and the existing lender releases both properties; however, what happens when the borrower sells the crossed property, or has the opportunity to refinance the target property, and there is not enough to pay off the current lender who crossed?

The danger here is that the lender may hold up the sale because it does not want to release their lien until they are paid in full. For example, let’s say the borrower owns a rental house that is worth $500,000 and there is a first mortgage in place for $200,000. The borrower wants to buy another rental for $800,000 and has $250,000 to put as a down payment. The borrower asks a lender to loan the remaining needed $550,000, but the lender is not comfortable with the LTV [68.75%], so the lender asks what other real estate the borrower owns, so it can cross collateralize its $550,000 loan. The borrower mentions the other rental, and the lender decides to ask for crossing on the first rental. Thus, the lender has lowered its risk because of the equity in the first rental.

Now, let’s say that the borrower receives an unsolicited offer for the first rental of $525,000, and he wishes to accept it. If there was no cross collateral against this property, the borrower could accept the offer, pay off the existing first of $200,000, and pocket the $325,000 remainder. However, because the rental has been crossed, the lender has $550,000 against the property in second position. That means that there is technically $750,000 of liens showing up against the property. The borrower cannot accept the $525,000 offer without having the second [the crossed loan] release its lien.

For this reason, it is imperative for there to be an agreed upon release price in which the lender agrees ahead of time to release its interest in either properties for a specific sum. It does not necessarily have to be just the remaining equity in the first sale [$325,000 in our example]. The release price could be a smaller amount. It could also be a larger amount [up to what the lender is owed]. If the lender desires more than the $325,000, the borrower would have to come up with additional cash in order to transact the sale. This may not be all bad, as the crossed lender’s loan has then been reduced.

For example, if the crossed rental was sold at a 5 CAP rate, and the crossed lender’s interest rate was 7%, the borrower may choose to sell the rental and come up with money to satisfy the lender should the lender want more than the $325,000 net proceeds from the sale. In other words, there are times when it makes economic sense to come up with money in order to sell property. Another similar scenario like this occurs when there is a blanket loan covering multiple properties, as is the case when an apartment building has been converted to condos and the owner of the building desires to sell off one condo at a time. A typical lender on the building will usually have release prices [agreed ahead of time] under which the lender will allow each unit to be sold and the lender takes a specific amount [or percentage of each sale] as a pay-down of its loan.

The release price can be negotiated between borrower and lender. Because the lender did not take the new property alone due to the high LTV, many times the lender will reduce its pay-down to where it feels comfortable with a specific amount of its loan on the remaining property. To make this point clear, let’s say that the lender usually makes loans for rental properties at an LTV of no more than 55%. Since the new rental was purchased for $800,000, the lender would be fine with a loan balance of $440,000. Thus, in order for the lender’s exposure to be reduced from its original loan of $550,000, it may be willing to accept $110,000 from the sale of the first rental in order for the lender to release its crossed lien. In this case, the borrower would sell the first rental for $525,000, pay off the first mortgage of $200,000, and pay the lender in second position $110,000 [to release its crossed lien of $550,000], and pocket the rest of the proceeds from the sale [$215,000]. The borrower would keep $215,000 from the sale, and the only debt on the second rental would be the lender [who crossed] of $440,000.

Borrowers who overlook release prices [a specific clause in the loan documents] risk having to ask the crossed lender after the fact under what circumstances the lender would be willing to release the first property. If there is no agreement ahead of time, the borrower runs the risk of being at the mercy of the lender, as the lender does not have an obligation to release its lien for less than what it is owed.

Many lenders may be willing to work out a reasonable amount for releasing either property, as it is in the lenders best interest to reduce the borrower’s default risk. Having more than one property as collateral sounds good in principle, but the added exposure of having a loan spread out amongst more than one property may not be worth the risk. Each situation will be different, but, as a general rule, it is more conservative from the lender’s viewpoint to have a low LTV on one property compared to having crossed on one or more additional properties that have a higher LTV. Additional costs of foreclosure, if needed on more than one property, as well as having to deal with an existing first mortgage [keeping them current, so that lender does not foreclose] may not be a desirable solution to protecting the lender’s interest.

This is the primary reason why typical banks do not usually cross collateralize their loans. Most banks do not like a lot of moving parts. They want to focus on one property and the risk associated with it.

Borrowers should make sure that the lender does not hold any of the borrower’s properties hostage and that release prices are set at a point where the borrower feel comfortable.

Edward Brown

Edward Brown currently hosts two radio shows, The Best of Investing and Sports Econ 101. He is also in the Investor Relations department for Pacific Private Money, a private real estate lending company. Edward has published many articles in various financial magazines as well as been an expert on CNN, in addition to appearing as an expert witness and consultant in cases involving investments and analysis of financial statements and tax returns.