I liked the idea mentioned at some recent meetings about putting in the lease that tenants must pay legal fees for their own eviction should eviction occur. However, I wonder if this does not stop many people from becoming problem tenants because they live in chronic bankruptcy anyway, and thus have no intention of ever paying for such legal fees.
You need to be a member of Real Estate Mixer to add comments!
Replies
In other words, it doesn't hurt to put the pay attorney fees clause, but don't expect it to prevent eviction scenarios?
Many (if not most) eviction proceedings are losing propositions and the main goal is to re-obtain possession. The past-due rentals, fees and costs are often lost, so you are correct in assuming that a clause providing for the tenant to pay attorney fees is often ineffective. But if the rentals are sufficient, a quality attorney can guide the matter to a monetary judgment and not merely a possessory judgment. With a monetary judgment the debtor can be pursued in collection through wage garnishment, bank levy, property liens, etc. I have even had tenants arrested for failing to comply with information subpoenas, until they provide all information related to their assets, bank accounts, etc. You mentioned chronic bankruptcy, which could potentially be used to avoid such collection actions. But again a competent attorney can guide you as to the legality of a debtor filing repeated bankruptcies and the time limits and requirements between filings. Also, be aware that in certain states (like NJ) a clause to add "attorney fees" must be worded in a specific manner, eg., "as additional rent" or otherwise worded to comply with prevailing law. Again, competent legal counsel is suggested so that your lease clause does not get tossed out of Court as unenforceable when you go to seek monetary judgment.