Archive

Archive for October, 2017

Real Estate Investors and Property Managers – Update on the “Bed Bug Bill”

October 31, 2017 1 comment

Today is Halloween so I thought would write on a topic that gives me the creeps…. bed bugs.

 

Courtesy BedBugs.org

Infestations can be an issue that every property manager or owner of residential investment real estate may face.

 

One June 9th Michigan House Bill 4719 was introduced – by Representative Brandt Iden -himself a Developer and Property Manager in South West Michigan. check out the text here – the Bill would amend the Michigan statute governing landlord tenant relationships to include addressing the control of certain pests – including bed bugs.

Recent Update

There has been no noticeable progress, except that the House Fiscal Agency prepared its legislative analysis a few weeks back – you can check it out here

What the Bill seeks to do:

Impose certain duties on landlords regarding bed bugs:

1. Mandates specifically that the Landlord is to keep the rental space free from bed bugs and provide educational literature about bed bug infestations to new tenants.

2. Prohibits Landlords from renting out space that the landlord knows is infested with bedbugs

3. Provides specific requirements for a landlord to respond to a complaint of bed bugs:

  • within 7 days of receiving a complaint, Landlord shall order an inspection for bed bugs;
  • within 7 days of confirming infestation, Landlord shall begin control and schedule inspections of adjoining rental units.

4. Limits damages against Landlord for infestations unless caused by Landlord’s Negligence.

Impose certain duties on tenants regarding bed bugs:

1. Tenant shall inspect for bed bugs when first occupying the space;

2. Tenant shall not move “infested property” into a rental unit

3. Tenant shall notify Landlord within 2 days of notice of infestation.

4. Tenant responsible for damages due to bed bugs caused by Tenant, or guest.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Law and Justice.

Something that the legislative analysis highlights –

“Notwithstanding any other provision of the Landlord-Tenant Act, the landlord and tenant could agree in writing (by hard copy) or electronic mail how responsibility would be assigned for costs resulting from an infestation, including, but not limited to, costs of
control or treatment.”

This would provide some discretion among the parties to craft a resolution.

My thoughts:

Bedbug infestation is a problem. It can cause tenants problems, particularly in lower income housing. As reference, I would highly recommend reading Matthew Desmond’s book “Evicted” It is no secret that Michigan, particularly Kent County, is experiencing an Affordable Housing Crisis.  Further, unhappy tenants who withhold rent can cause landlord problems that end up in court.

This type of bill could provide clarity to landlords and tenants on their reciprocal duties and rights in such circumstances. It could also provide them flexibility to come up with a resolution to get rid of any infestations.

Questions? Comments?

email: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Advertisements

Real Estate Law Update: Real Estate Investors Be Careful When Interacting with Occupants of Foreclosed Property.

October 23, 2017 Leave a comment

It is a rainy Monday afternoon. It has beenIMG_1873 dark all day long.  I took this picture earlier today and the rain isn’t letting up.

As a way to distract from the gloomy weather I thought it might be a good opportunity to share some of my thoughts about a court case that came out a few days ago involving a real estate investor, property manager, and a hold over occupant of property.

This case illustrates ways that real estate investors and property managers can go wrong when dealing with occupants of foreclosed property.

 

The Case:

Anderson v Great Lakes Property and Investment, Inc.

Facts: 

“This case arises from defendants’ actions in removing plaintiff and his personal belongings from the rental property, on two occasions, without resort to summary  proceedings in the court.” Id. page 1.

  • In 2008 Plaintiff entered into a month-to-month lease with the property owner.
  • Owner lost the property to a tax foreclosure in 2015.
  • Real Estate Investor purchased the property at tax sale in the fall of 2015, and hired defendant Great Lakes to manage the property.
  • After the purchase, Investor and Property Manager, sent a letter of ownership to all occupants of the property, including plaintiff, which gave plaintiff 10 days to vacate the property.
  • Thereafter, defendant Great Lakes’s sole shareholder, defendant McMorris, came to plaintiff’s unit and demanded that he vacate within 3 days.
  • When plaintiff did not vacate the premises, defendants came to the property on January 15, 2016, and removed plaintiff’s personal belongings from his unit.
  • After defendants left, plaintiff returned to the property, purchased and installed a new lock on his door, repaired the door, and placed his personal belongings back into his unit.
  • The next day, defendants returned and once again, removed plaintiff’s possession from the property.
  • Plaintiff filed a six-count complaint against defendants for a violation of the anti-lockout statute. Id. Page 2.

 

Law:

Anti-Lockout Statute – MCL 600.2918 

Any landlord who has gone through the process of evicting a tenant knows that, in the residential leasing context, there are heightened duties of landlords, and heightened rights of tenants.  Tenants have the right not to have their possessory interest in the property interfered with, without the proper court procedure being complied with (Summary Proceeding Action in District Court)

The Anti-Lockout statute provides damages for forcible ejectment from property or unlawful interference with a possessory interest in property.

 

Subsection (1) (forcible ejection) applies to any person. 

Subsection (2) (unlawful interference) applies to any tenant in possession.

Violating the statute can cause a property owner/landlord to be liable for statutory damages (3 times the amount of actual damages or $200.00 whichever is greater.)

 

Here, the District Court sided with the new Owner – basically holding that the Plaintiff was simply “a squatter”, entitling him to no rights or protections.  Id. page 2.

The Court of Appeals REVERSED!

 

As the Court of Appeals noted, “[t]he Michigan anti-lockout statute, MCL 600.2918, “virtually eliminates the self-help remedy in Michigan in favor of judicial process to remove a tenant wrongfully in possession.” Id. Page 3 citing Deroshia v Union Terminal Piers, 151 Mich App 715, 719; 391 NW2d 458 (1986).

The Court also held that “There is no statutory or caselaw definition of squatter.” Id. Page 4.

The Court also questioned whether the Investor or its Manager gave proper notice to terminate. It was questionable whether the “Notice” mailed to each tenant satisfied the requirements to recover possession of property under Michigan law. MCL 554.134(1) – (holding that “[a] tenant is entitled to one month’s notice to quit in order to terminate a month-to month tenancy at will” Id. Page 4.

 

 

In short – if you purchase property that is occupied, you need to properly use the court systems to remove tenants.

 

Lesson:

 

To avoid any unfounded claims by holdovers, it always makes sense after purchasing property at foreclosure, when there are any occupants present, to go through the lawful channels for a court proceeding to extinguish any possessory rights and to make sure any personal belongings are handled appropriately.

You don’t want to expose yourself to undue liability.

 

Questions? Comments?

E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

OCC’s Remarks on Fintech Charter – “A Work in Progress”

October 19, 2017 Leave a comment

It is already, Thursday. It has been a hectic week so far, so I thought I would include a photo I took of more peaceful and serene moments – Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Beautiful…

Back to the issue at hand,

2017-09-01 18.01.03

Today, Keith A. Noreika, Acting Comptroller of the Currency gave remarks concerning Fintech Companies at Georgetown University’s Fintech Week.

You can read Mr. Noreika’s remarks here

Fintech recap…

The prior OCC, Thomas Curry announced earlier this year that OCC would move forward with considering applications from financial technology (fintech) companies to become special purpose national banks.

 

“The OCC published a paper discussing the issues and conditions that the agency will consider in granting special purpose national bank charters.” You can check that paper out here

 

Fintech Charter: Praise, Debate, Criticism and a Lawsuit.

The propriety of a Fintech charter has been supported by the Fintech community in general.

 

As reported by Crowdfund InsiderBrian Peters, Executive Director of Financial Innovation Now  “a public policy coalition comprised of Amazon, Apple, Google, Intuit and PayPal” stated;

“FIN believes that payments and lending regulation needs streamlining for the modern era. We commend the

OCC’s leadership and vision in driving this regulatory discussion. The OCC has rightly concluded that its approach must evolve to ensure that all American consumers and small businesses are empowered with better access to the benefits of financial technology.”

According to Crowdfund Insider  “Fintech Charter could benefit innovative financial firms that can provide superior services at a lower cost for both consumers and businesses.”

 

That being said, the propriety of such action by the OCC has been questioned by others, and officially sued by the Conference of State Bank Superviso

rs as an “unprecedented, unlawful expansion of the chartering authority”- check out the Press Release from the CSBS back in April.

 

The OCC’s present Stance on a Fintech Charter – a Work in Progress.

 

Mr. Noreika stated today that “If, and it is still an if, a fintech company 

 

has ambitions to engage in business on a national scale and meets the criteria for doing so, it should be free to seek a national bank charter.

 

It appears no action will be taken until at least the lawsuit is resolved.

“As for our initiative to use our authority to charter nondepository fintech companies, that remains a work in progress, and as you know that authority is also being challenged by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the New York Department of Financial Services. Although we will defend our authority vigorously, we have not decided whether we will exercise that specific authority.”

 

Mr. Noreika also addressed some of the criticism of Fintech Charters.  I won’t go through his entire remarks, but he concludes by reassuring that any fintech comp

 

any approved would – at its core  – be a bank:

“The chartered entity, regulated by the OCC, would be a bank, engaged in at least one of the core activities of banking—taking deposits, paying checks,or making loans. The folks who suggest that the OCC is considering granting charters to nonfinancial companies are wrong.

 

 

Why Fintech Intrigues me – Purpose Driven.

I’ve previously talked about why fintech is so intriguing.

a. taking a risk doing something different;

b. disrupting business as usual;

c. for the good of others.

 

That’s social entrepreneurship at its finest.

 

Questions? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Business Law Update for LLCs: The Words You Use In Your Operating Agreement Matter.

October 18, 2017 1 comment

Good morning, all! Yesterday was a beautiful day, see the photo I took overlooking downtown Grand Rapids. The leaves are already changing color.

Today I read a Court of Appeals Case that came out yesterday that provides a good example for business owners.

Background – Today LLCs are generally the entity of choice.

Most businesses that were formed in Michigan last year were Lim

IMG_1858

ited Liability Companies. This is for several reasons:

Limited liability (Once a limited liability company comes into existence, limited liability applies, and a member or manager is not liable for the acts, debts, or obligations of the company. “Duray Dev., LLC v. Perrin, 288 Mich. App. 143, 151 (2010))

Flexibility (centralized management – generally no distinction between owners/managers) 

No double taxation (like in traditional C-Corporations).

 

Your Operating Agreement is an Important Document

However, just forming the LLC by filing the articles of organization with the State of Michigan is not enough to fully protect your business.

One fundamental document is your operating agreement.  It is that document that spells out how the business affairs of the company are conducted.

It also spells out the “exit” – in what event and on what terms can a member leave the company?

I have often written about why your operating agreement matters.

Today I read an unpublished court of appeals decision that provides another illustration on why not only having the operating agreement matters, but also the exact language in your operating agreement matters.

 

Healthwise Medical Clinic, PLLC, and NP DREAMS,LLC

 

Facts:

The parties:

Plaintiff Rhonda Keller, LNP and Defendant Kasandra Lechel, licensed nurse practitioners.

They were the sole members of two LLCs – HealthWise was the “operating company” and NP Dreams owned the real estate used by HealthWise.

Keller and Lechel had entered into operating agreements governing
HealthWise and NP Dreams.

The HealthWise Agreement had a “personal and professional standard of conduct” section that required a member to withdraw from the company if they violated the provision.

Keller found out that Defendant Lechel had taken actions that she deemed should require Lechel to resign. Lechel did not resign and therefore Keller sued to compel withdrawal from the company.

There were other claims and counter-claims made between the parties; however, the issue relevant for purposes of my article is regarding the buy-out provision in the Operating Agreement.

The Operating Agreement required the Company to buy out a withdrawing member under certain terms.

Plaintiff sued to expel Lechel, claiming she committed bad acts that required her removal. As such, Plaintiff should not be required to compensate her buy out.

 

Trial Court’s Decision

The Trial Court agreed.

With regard to the HealthWise and NP Dreams Agreements and compensation due to Lechel, the trial court held that “neither the buyout nor the liquidation option provides a logical and just resolution.” The court pointed to uncontroverted proofs that the corporate debts exceeded assets. Further, the trial court explained, because Lechel had breached the contract first, she was not entitled to recover on it. The trial court issued an order stating that Lechel “is not entitled to any compensation for her interests in the two Limited Liability companies.” Id. Page 4.

 

 

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Court of Appeals reversed on this issue.

Law: Your Operating Agreement is a Contract. Courts will interpret a Contract in accordance with its plain meaning.

The Court of Appeals analyzed this issue as follows:

“Our primary goal in interpreting a contract is to honor the intent of the parties by enforcing the plain and unambiguous language of the agreement. See Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 473; 663 NW2d 447 (2003); Defrain, 491 Mich at 367. Clear and unambiguous language will be enforced as written. Farmers Ins Exch v Kurzmann, 257 Mich App 412, 418; 668 NW2d 199 (2003).

 

The Court reviewed the Operating Agreement and held that the language was clear and unambiguous:

“[i]f such Member shall fail to voluntarily withdraw, the Company shall take such
action as may be required to compel resignation under the same terms.” Section 5.2 lists the terms for voluntary withdrawal, including 2 options for compensating the withdrawing member: either (1) payment of 80% of the member’s share of the agreed-upon value of the company, which amounts to $40,000 to defendant.” Id. at Page 7.

 

The Court’s language in its opinion is very telling. It was not going to apply “equity” since the parties were free to contract how they saw fit.

Despite testimony that HealthWise’s liabilities exceeded its assets, we see no reason to apply an equitable remedy when a contractual remedy is available. See Tkachik v Mandeville, 487 Mich 38, 45; 790 NW2d 260 (2010).

The parties were free to bargain for protection in the event of a court-ordered withdrawal, and they did so.

 

 

Lesson:

Take care in drafting your operating agreement. If you desire a penalty in the event of termination of a membership interest – then make sure that language is included in your operating agreement. The courts will enforce clear language in an operating agreement.

 

 

Questions? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

 

 

Thursday Thoughts: A Call to Living a More Fearless Life.

October 12, 2017 Leave a comment

This morning, as I do most every morning, I was reading a devotional by author and Pastor Tim Keller – I would recommend this devotional to anyone.

This topic hit me today.

Fear.

If we are honest with ourselves, we all have moments where we are fearful.

I can safely say that during the last week I have experienced some of the following fears:

  • fear of failure (do I have what it takes?);
  • fear of disappointing others;
  • fear of ruining my kids’ lives – am I parenting well?;
  • fear of what other people think of me;
  • fear of the failing health of loved ones.

I am sure I am missing several that could be added to this list.

This morning’s devotional ended with the prayer below.

 

IMG_1856

“The Songs of Jesus” Devotional by Timothy Keller

 

 

Roller coasters.

 

I love roller coasters (this ties in, I promise).

It has been too long since I visited Cedar point, Michigan’s Adventure, Six Flags Theme Park, etc…

What I love about roller coasters –  I know that I am fastened in tight –  I am not worried about falling out.

Because I believe I am secure, I am left simply to enjoy the ride (and feel like I’m a superhero).

 

If I thought that I was really going to fall out – I am sure the ride would not be fun at all – but from start to finish – terrifying.

Life is hard.

There are many hardships that could cause me to panic.

The real question though is:

What am I fixing my eyes on?

Where is my security?

 

My Answer:

I am not my own. 1 Corinthians 6:20.

 

 

Because of that, I will pray Tim Keller’s prayer and strive to live more fearlessly today.

 

Questions? Comments?

E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

 

Real Estate Investors: In Your Efforts to Make a Profit Be Wary of Cutting Corners.

October 10, 2017 Leave a comment

Let me illustrate a picture for you: Let’s say you are a real estate investor. You show up for a foreclosure sale. There are several people present to bid on a specific piece of property.  One of those guys winks at you, motions you to come over (in a clandestine sort of way).

The guy whispers to you “I will pay you $500 to walk away not bid on this property.

Red Flags should be going off to you by now. Unfortunately, the same red flags either did not go off or where intentionally ignored for the 63 or so individuals who were targeted for bid rigging at foreclosure sales by the Department of Justice.

“The Antitrust Division has prosecuted scores of real estate investors who, for their own benefit and profit, conspired to corrupt the bidding process at foreclosure auctions.” – Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division

In today’s market, good deals for real estate investors are getting harder to come by. With distressed property becoming a scarce resource and competition ever increasing, some real estate investors have resorted to less than  legal  acts to boost their profit.

2017-09-23 19.30.53Investors should know that the  Department of Justice as well as State Agencies are cracking down on unfair real estate practices.

 

Spartan Stadium. This photo has nothing to do with the post, and is only motivated by Spartan Nation’s victory on Saturday (I took this photo at a different game a few weeks ago)

On Friday, the DOJ announced that Jim

Appenrodt pleaded guilty to two counts of bid rigging in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.

 

Investigations Have Yielded 63 Plea Agreements to Date.

 

 

 

 

In Michigan the record numbers of foreclosed properties since 2008 has provided a market (albeit one that is slowing down) for flipping residential real estate. With this opportunity to profit has also created an opportunity for abuse and fraud.  The real estate legal landscape is complex enough, do yourselves a favor – follow the rules.

 

Questions? Comments?

E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka