Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 14:43:31:
Hi Joe!
I’m flattered that you would entrust your e-mail to me! There’s asbsolutely no telling what I might say next!
Unfortunately, I must decline due to time considerations.
Thanks though . . . for the opportunity.
Take care,
Brad
Joe Kaiser’s L.O. Course need help!!! - Posted by Erich
Posted by Erich on April 29, 1999 at 20:54:06:
I just finished Joe Kaiser’s Lease Option Course and found it well thought out! However, I have two questions…
The letter to a prospective landlord on page 51 seems to mislead them (the landlord / potential sellers). Are they suposto think that I am really going to rent the place mys self? My wife came into my office and read my first letter to the potential landlord / seller and frowned. Whats up?
I spent four hours at my Courthouse (Monterey County California) and found lots of Unlawful Detainer cases. However, after I had sorted through all the curret cases, I found about half were actually out of the research library and held on Judges desks etc., many of the others were multi- family and when I actually got done, I had 5 cases, two without landlords adresses. What am I doing wrong? Joe mentioned I should have at least 20 or more leads per week to make a go of it?
Re: Joe Kaiser’s L.O. Course need help!!! - Posted by Brad Crouch
Posted by Brad Crouch on April 29, 1999 at 22:42:18:
Erich,
I don’t have the letter in front of me that you speak of on page 51, but I do have one here from page 43. I think the part that distresses you and your wife is where it says, “I am an excellent tenant with excellent referances, and I can promise you “on time” payments each and every month.”
He is saying he is an excellent tenant, not an excellent resident. If you had a “master lease” agreement, wouldn’t you be considered a “tenant” whether you lived there or not?
Take a look at the next letter . . . on page 64 of my book. It says (in the third paragraph), "If there are any problems with my tenant and I have to evict, I’ll pay those expenses right out of my own pocket (and I’ll pay his rent in the meantime).
Is there something misleading in the first letter? Not really. It kind of leaves it open, as I see it.
It’s like telling a guy to climb a telephone pole. The guy will surely balk at this. But if you put a box next to a telephone pole and ask the guy to step up on it, then put a bigger box next to the first one and ask the guy to step up on THAT one, you have a better chance of getting this guy to the top of the pole, eventually. A step-by-step process, apparently designed to get the seller nodding his head.
You NEVER hide from the seller, the fact that you intend to put a tenant in the property. In fact, if the seller doesn’t agree to this . . . you have a “deal breaker”.
If four hours yielded only 5 prospects then I would say you are spending too much time reading ALL of the files. You only need to look at the addresses in order to rule out the apartments and properties owned by the lending institutions (they have already gone through the foreclosure process and are now evicting the tenants). If the first thing you look at is the address and whether or not an apartment number is listed, then you can get through them pretty quickly.
Have a notepad (or laptop computer) with you and make a note of all the important facts . . . AFTER you have checked for an apartment number. The “facts” that you need are the ones listed on the input screens of Joes’ software (please don’t say you decided to “scrimp” and didn’t get the software. If you DID “scrimp”, order the software NOW!).
Now that you have the property addresses (the names are not important, they are only the names of the tenants), go to the tax assessors’ office and look up the properties by address and then you can see the names of the actual owners . . . and their addresses. THOSE are the addresses that you mail to.
In California, or maybe I should say in the Los Angeles area, the unlawful detainer files must “age” for about 60 days before they are released to the public for viewing. So by the time you see the file, it is already at least 60 days old. This is not the “ideal” conditions, but it is better than a sharp stick in the eye. After 60 days the property owner may not have quite the same motivation to sell that he had while in the middle of an eviction. However it is my view that this is still a “prospect”. And he may have enough motivation still to allow a deal to happen.
Good luck,
Brad
Brad, you’re hired . . . - Posted by Joe Kaiser
Posted by Joe Kaiser on April 30, 1999 at 01:21:11:
I’ve got a stack of email here to get to as well, let me know if you can answer some of that and I’ll send it right over.
Joe