IMHO, the reason for the failure was the system age. It was original Bryant equipment from when the condo was built 29+ years ago. Out of 200+ condos, mine was the last survivor of the bunch as far as I could tell, and most definitely in the immediate area. It was actually one of the last remaining in 1998 when I bought the place, so it owed me nothing. The tech said that there was several issues including a compressor isssue that was tripping the breaker, evaporator coil leaking, and blower wheel bearing. As for linesets, I poised the question and the dealer said that they did not need to be replaced, but they were going to flush them and reuse them. To replace them I would need substantial drywall removed for access (heat pump on lower level, air handler on upper level). He did not believe that we needed to go to that expense. Finally, from what I read, you do indeed still need to register the units within 90 days with Trane for the extended warranty.

I bought a condo before getting married. I bought my first condo (2bed/2bath) with the intention of getting a roommate to help with the mortgage. When we married, my husband already had a house, so I moved into the house, and we turned the condo into a rental. We had about $100 per month negative cash flow in the beginning. Many years prior to that, my then single husband bought a house in a suburb. Hated it, and bought another in the city and turned the suburban house into a rental. But, he remodeled the new house, ran out of money, rented out the house and he himself rented a small room to save money.... When he finally moved back into the newly remodeled home, he had many roommates to help with the finances. When we were first married, we built a mother in law apartment in the basement and rented that out. That helped with our expenses. We did not ask her to leave until my son was 2 years old. We then reclaimed the basement for ourselves. (You asked for stories and sacrifices...) We now have enough cash flow so not having rental income for a few months is not a big deal. This gives us the luxury of picking "good" tenants. We only pick tenants who are professionals with good jobs and stellar credit and rental record. The longest we have had vacant rental is about 3 months. We are also in an urban environment where many young professionals cannot afford to buy due to the housing price. Most houses in a suburban subdivision do not make a good rental, unless you can make the rent 1/3 or less than the monthly mortgage of buying the property. (now days, that may not be true because of the downpayment requirements have gone up for buying a home...) Like most everything else in real estate, it's location, location, location that determines the rentability, the amount of rent, the type of tenant etc. We have never needed to go to section 8 route. My condo is very close to the University and Medical school. We almost always have medical residents as tenants(currently dental student and the working spouse). We don't rent to undergrads. They have "no income" and do not qualify in our minds. Our suburban house is near many tech firms in the area, and we tend to get techies with well paying jobs living in the house. melle sacto, not only do you need to have enough money to get through prolonged vacancy, you need to be able to deal with unforseen emergencies quickly. These rentals are your investments. You don't want to do anything to devalue that investment. For example, we had a leak in a very old bathroom. We decided that it was a good time to update the bathroom rather than "patch" fix the bathroom when the tenants moved out. The tenants move out when they want to not when you have the money to fix the bathroom. Like any other business, you need to have available capital when you need it. In order to rent the property quickly, you need to make it look fresh with regular painting, yard maintenance, deep cleaning, etc etc. The most recent tenant turn over uncovered very old sliding glass doors that were not closing property due to age and settling etc. It was noticeable enough and would have detracted from the house from the potential tenants point of view. Again, we had to spend a few thousand $ to get them replaced. This is a regular part of being a landlord. We will probably get one more rental, either a duplex or a quadplex. (our next door neighbor probably has 10 houses/buildings or more) Anything larger than that, we are not willing to manage ourselves. We call trades people for just about everything that needs to be done. It is not worth doing it ourselves at this point. Initially, you will have to do everything yourselves, ie painting, yard work, cleaning, etc. If you and your husband are handy, you will spend less money versus calling someone in. Again, this is not on your schedule but the house's schedule. My brother has a dulplex that he rents out and also the house my parents willed to him. He too had to spend money when things happen. (both of our rentals needed new blower for the furnace this last winter.) We just laugh when these things happen.... Unlike calliope, I consider the risk I take with the rentals as a controlled risk. I actually think it is much less of risk than money I put in the stock market. However, a rental has little potential for huge growth as would in some stocks. To be a successful landlord, you also need to learn your market. In some markets, it is not a feasible business model. For example, I would not buy a rental in a rural area with high unemployment. But I would buy a rental in an urban environment with a large number of transient well paid professionals. Rental properties are a part of our entire portfolio along with other more and less risky things.

Again, Brickeye offers irrelevant straw man arguments to support his untenable positions. He said: "I put those examples forward to show exactly how hard it can be to enforce codes." The reality is that once a new construction or remodeling project has passed an existing code inspection, it does not need to be brought up to future code levels. Code compliance that was required at the time of the inspection is all that is required. No one is debating that. No one suggested otherwise. So your reasoning here is baseless. Brickeye further stated: "I do know of jurisdictions that revoke COs at sale of the property and require a new inspection to grant a new CO each time ownership changes." Then Brickeye does not understand the authority under construction and existing building codes that gives the code official just that power. In fact, it happens more often than you would think. It is VERY common for private home inspectors to spot code violations that were missed after the issuance of a CO on, for example, new construction homes, only to have the CO revoked when a code violation has been found that may have been missed in a previous inspection or when the CO was issued based on fradulent information provided by the owner.. In fact, the building codes require rescining a CO in such circumstances. The current owner is made aware of the problem and required to come into compliance. Happens more often that you think. But all this completely irrelevant to the issue. The issue is, that buildings with previously valid COs can fall into a state of disrepair to the point that they become a hazard to the public well being. When that happens, maintenance codes apply, which can a do allow the government to force owners to take actions to correct them. This can be done with or without the permission of the property owner or by getting an adminstrative "search" warrant to enter the property to make inspection when probable casue has been shown to a presiding judge. Properties can be permanently condemned, temporarily condemned until repairs are made, or civil judgements sought against the building's owner. Commercial Builidng and Fire Codes do not require a warrant to search a privately owned commercial building if they are open to use by the public and are inspected during normal business hours, and Codes mandate that commercial building owners must make their buildings accessible for annual maintenance inspections. So maintenance inspections on private structures are not without precedent nor basis in law. Brickeye further commented: "Last time I looked insurance comanies are private enterprises and seem to look out for themselves pretty well." Insurance companies DO look out for themselves when they insure a property or are made aware of existing maintenance problems....but insurers do not routinely make safety inspections of private homes nor are they made aware of hazardous conditions which violate the terms of the insurance agreement by fradulent homeowners, and that is where the problem lies. If the insurer knows that a property is in a state of disrepair, they will insist that repairs be made or one's insurance coverage revoked. If the homeowner doesn't tell the insurance he is violating the terms of the insurance agreement, how does the insurer know? He doesn't, which is why insurance companies FULLY SUPPORT the use of routine maintenance inspections by Code Departments for private rental and other units. It saves them and their majority policy and stockholders money and protects them from paying out on fradulent claims. Deliquent owners who have no mortgages also are likely not to carry insurance on their structures. This becomes a public problem when, for example, there is a fire or building collpase and it is up to the taxpayer to pay for the cleanup. The cry and clamor that government has no business protecting it's citizens from irresponsible property owners is without merit. Government inspections protect the public, protect insurers, and protect other private owners who properties can be devalued by delapidated and dangerous properties. The anarchy that Brickeye suggests is pie-in-the sky and actually the most irresponsible and absurd position, and why Codes were developed in the first place: to protect the public from those who simply just don't care about anyone else but themselves.

I'm installing laminate that looks like granite in my rental. I understand all the tradeoffs but there is one that I'm wondering about. I like the lighter granite look laminate even with white cabinets because it seems more cheerful and less likely to turn anyone off. But my handyman insists that dark is the way to go since I have white cabinets and stainless appliances and either color can work. He swears that the lighter color even multicolored granite looking laminates gets stained or discolored over time and are hard to make look right but that black or dark granite stays better looking and is easy to cover scratches and stuff. Does anyone have any experience with whether black is a more polarizing choice that certain renters won't like or any experience with upkeep of either of these colors in the granite looking laminates? These are the two colors I'm picking between (shown in white kitchens to get an idea): Any experience with which countertop would be best for a rental apartment for appealing (or not turning off) the widest range of tenants and if one is really easier to maintain over time or not given that they are both laminate? i need to decide fast.