🚀 go-pugleaf

All too often I see good people w/ bad credit fall into traps similar to 
this because they are so excited about "owning" their own home. When in fact 
the don't own it, have no converage, no protection, but still responsible 
for the upkeep. Geez man you must love tenants like this eh?

I recall a friend of mine get ready to jump into one of these contracts. 
Prior to doing so, I strongly encourage him to seek legal advice. This is 
what he did , and for 100 dollars had a contract written up for the landlord 
to sign. Similar to an "held back mortgage", I'm sure you know what terms 
that is. Anyways the bottom line is, the landlord would not sign, and it was 
on his terms or nothing.

So I say to people reading your ad, don't jump the gun, and seek legal 
advice to have a contract drawn up and ask the landlord "deal or no deal." 
I'm sure you won't be shocked on the answer.
"JSC Rent To Own Homes" <bpappas@rmminc.net> wrote in message 
news:1148682358.515384.132840@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Not to get bogged down in semantics, the new contract can have the same
> terms as the old one. This is a matter of negotiation.
>
> House burns down, owner of the policy (landlord) gets the money. What
> does tenant get (is this in writing?) It all depends on what is in the
> contract. That is what is in writing. Did the tenant negotiate for it?
> Did the tenant have renter's insurance to cover personal property?
>
> If landlord goes bankrupt - the tenant still has legal rights and can
> exercise the option. Did the tenant and/or landlord record the contract
> to put a cloud on the title? That would help matters. However, if the
> tenant can't afford to exercise the option after 5 years, he/she should
> have never entered into the deal in the first place.
>
> Look, the RTO concept has risks. No one (tenant or landlord) should get
> invoved without a good understanding. Hire an attorney if you need
> help. You would probably hire one in a conventional house purchase.
>