The Downside to Both Sides in Lease-Option
- Share via
I have been a private investor in residential real estate for the past 15 years and have been a reader of Robert J. Bruss’ column (“Real Estate Q&A;”) in The Times for several years. I feel compelled to voice my strong disagreement with his view on lease-option agreements.
I know Bruss is very much in favor of lease options. But what he doesn’t tell the readers is that before a tenant enters into a lease-option agreement, they must be able to identify the source of the money for the down payment once the lease/option agreement expires.
I have had two lease options. Both times the tenant was not able to exercise the option and lost a lot of money. Sure, I made a few dollars, but was very disappointed when the tenant could not buy the property and I lost out on an easy sale. Instead, I received the property back and was faced with the unpleasant task of going through the repair, advertising, showing and screening of deadbeats.
Now whenever a prospective tenant inquires about a lease-option, I inform them that if they are planning on winning the lottery to finance the purchase, that they had better forget about a lease-option. I explain to them that a lease-option can result in their losing a lot of money and wishful dreams. I suggest that Bruss do likewise.
NORMAN J. HAUSSMANN
Placentia
More to Read
Inside the business of entertainment
The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.