rent-to-own tenants and pet policy

Started by MichelleG2 • 11 replies • 1518 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

MichelleG2 (Utah)
Posts: 2

Posted:

Hi,
Our HOA has a "no tenants with dogs" policy. Only owners are allowed dogs. Recently an owner asked if a "rent-to-own" tenant is allowed to have dogs. The board said no since no other ownership rights are transferred, but I am curious for feed back. Anyone have experience with this?

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

It would depend on the exact wording of the rent-to-own contract in question, but most of the ones I have seen only provide that a certain amount of the rent paid will be applied to a future sale. If that is the case then the board is correct that no ownership rights have been transferred.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

I personally don't like the policy.
However, if this is your Associations policy, the Board is correct in following it.

KevinK7 (Florida)
Posts: 1,343

Posted:

How exactly does rent to own work for a home/condo/etc.? How would this be any different than a mortgage?

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563

Posted:

I think that Larry answers your question, Kevin. In a rent-to-own plan, the prospective buyer is not on the deed. So, s/he does not won the property. I may be off base here, but I think that it may be similar to a "lease option."

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

Rent to own are still technically rental property. The renter has an arrangement with the owner to get the title in certain terms. Some terms I have heard is they rent for a year (Less than 3) then purchase the home. Others have been they make the payments on a second mortgage of the owner and then once paid off the title is transferred. Don't know if the second one is legal but know someone who did this.

I would consider Rent to own situations as rental property until the property actually changes hands. I don't believe the HOA can put conditions on a renter as the HOA can NOT interfere with the contract of an owner. The pet rule to me isn't enforceable if push comes to shove in my opinion. Although a legal one may be better to get.

Former HOA President

MikeS1
Posts: 521

Posted:

People tend to confuse "first right of refusal" with a true rent to own agreement where the renter usually pays a slightly inflated rent. They extra monies are non-refundable if the renter does not exercise the option to purchase. Usually the sale price is agreed upon in advance. Most of the time it's just a 'first right of refusal" and those agreements are seldom in writing and they rarely work out.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 08/06/2012 3:23 PM
I personally don't like the policy.

At first glance my thought, too, was that it is unfair to treat renters differently from owners on this issue of pets.

Then I remembered my own menagerie. My wife and I house-sat my brother-in-law's condo for a few years. It was located in an area surrounded by small apartment complexes. We soon discovered that when renters' backs are against the wall, they move out and leave behind their animals -- especially cats.

We moved in with three cats. We moved out with eight. All the cats we took in were house-broken and love-starved. They were not feral cats; they were cats that had been raised indoors with affection until the day their owners left them behind.

I do not mean to paint all renters with the same brush, but the fact is that renters move more often than owners and when renters move at least some leave their animals for everyone deal with. So while agree that it may be unfair to treat renters differently in regards to their pets, there is at least some rational basis for the policy.

KellyM3 (North Carolina)
Posts: 2,239

Posted:

Until the deed names the renter as the owner, the renter doesn't qualify to have pets according to your HOA rule. Interesting rule, I must say. I can understand it, though.

JeffR7 (California)
Posts: 251

Posted:

MikeS1 has correctly described the distingtion between a rent and rent-to-own. Rent-to-own is also called an options purchase contract. It is a valid sales contract and the new owner should be recognized as one. The new owner becomes the member of HOA etc. Just because a title is not recorded it doesn't mean the contract is not valid

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JeffR7 on 08/09/2012 2:30 AM
MikeS1 has correctly described the distingtion between a rent and rent-to-own. Rent-to-own is also called an options purchase contract. It is a valid sales contract and the new owner should be recognized as one. The new owner becomes the member of HOA etc. Just because a title is not recorded it doesn't mean the contract is not valid

I do belive a very persuasive arguement could be made that until ones name is on the title, they are not an owner.

MikeS1
Posts: 521

Posted:

Jeff - I thought that "Land Contracts" or "Contracts for Deed" in most states were illegal. I know that you don't see them in Virginia any more.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here