Today online property management software company Buildium, LLC launched its new Property Management IQ website. The interactive site uses humor to measure people’s knowledge of property management terms, regulations, and best practices.

“Property management is a serious business, but a little sense of humor can go a long way,” says

Buildium Co-Founder Michael Monteiro. “With that in mind we created Property Management IQ – an interactive site that promises to make you laugh and maybe even raise your property management quotient along the way.”

After completing the test, property managers receive a score and a badge they can display on their website. They can also share their results on Facebook and Twitter and are automatically entered to win an Apple iPad 2.

To take the Property Management IQ test, go to www.propertymanagementiq.com.

By Phoebe Chongchua, SD Real Estate Help, San Diego, CA

It’s the kind of job that requires a lot of patience, and today being a property manager also requires keeping up with technology. Property managers work with many different personalities, which requires them to have some important skills that help make the job of managing properties a success. But they also need to keep up with where their future tenants are spending their time–online.

Get Social.

Interestingly, social media and technology play a critical new role in the job of property managers. Now, tenants and prospective tenants aren’t just stopping by to see a property; instead they’re on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media platforms learning about rentals in your area before they have even set foot in the neighborhood.

Through these and other social media sites, not only is information shared but also reviews and feedback about properties are posted. That’s why today many companies are hiring social media people to “actively” listen to the sites. It’s part of online reputation management and it’s good a way to see if and what people are sharing about your properties.

As a multi-media video journalist, I am often asked about how to respond when there is a negative remark about your company, product, or property. Should you roll up your sleeves and “fight back”? No. Often this will cause the person who is negatively commenting to start a full-blown war. The campaign can get very ugly and turn into an over-dramatized sensation.

My suggestion is to counter the attacks by addressing the issues in a positive manner and not necessarily right after the person leaves the comment. How do you do this? Article writing and posting on many sites is a great way to get the information you want out about your properties.

So, for instance, if there’s a negative comment about your property being poorly kept up, writing a post and showcasing with photos the well-manicured property and its unique attributes is a better way to convey your message.

Resist the urge to fire back a comment that sounds defensive. Instead, think of the negative comment as a question: “How well maintained is your property?” Then write your post. Of course, this is assuming that you are keeping your property in good shape!

Give it to them Quick.

Quick Response (QR) codes are showing up everywhere. How important are they to the property manager’s job? Very. These little codes can help carry vital information to prospective tenants, when used appropriately.

QR codes are used by people with smartphones. They download a free app and then scan the code which is linked to a website page. You can create a QR code very easily and for free using online resources; just search for free-sites to create your code.

The QR code is meant to provide information to the user in a quick fashion. In order to be useful, the information must be valuable. So, if you link the QR code to a video that gives good information about your property, that’s useful. If, on the other hand, you embed a faulty link or the link just opens to a generic website, the QR code can be seen as nothing more than advertising–useful to some, but others may feel it was a waste of their time to scan the code.

Placing a QR code on your brochures, business cards, and marketing materials with helpful links to very valuable information such as frequently asked questions, videos of your properties, etc. can be a big help for prospective tenants.

Pay rent online.

With so many people doing online banking, getting your residents to pay their rent online makes sense. There are many advantages such as the ability to schedule payments, automatic monthly debits, no hassling with paper, and being able to pay rent from anywhere instantly.

If you’re finding that your tenants aren’t as hip to signing up for the online rent-pay option, try using sign-up incentives such as a gift card to a local merchant’s shop or do a drawing from a pool of all the tenants who signed up that month.

Technology is nothing more than tools that can help streamline and better brand your business. However, it’s how you use them that determine how successful you’ll be as a property manager.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

Over the last few posts, we’ve discussed premises liability, landlord duties, and obvious dangers, among other things. Today we’ll discuss an issue in California that gets people excited - a landlord’s duty to prevent criminal acts.

Nothing gets people more excited than the idea that a landlord might have an affirmative duty to prevent or intervene in the actions of a third party to prevent a person on his or her property from becoming the victim of a crime. On the face of it, this duty feels like it falls outside the scope of a landlord’s duties. Isn’t that the job of the police? A property owner can’t be a substitute for the police and common sense, the argument goes.

That may be true, but if we rely on common negligence principles – and California courts do – then liability can attach in certain circumstances for failure to take steps to mitigate against such third party criminal conduct.

The owner/lessor/occupier/person who controls the property has a “general duty [which] includes not only the duty to inspect the premises in order to uncover dangerous conditions, but, as well, the duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third persons which threaten [persons on the property] where [he] has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of injury resulting therefrom.”*

The key to attaching liability is the part about having “reasonable cause to anticipate” the criminal activity and the likelihood of harm. In other words, if the landlord knows that his rented property is being used by violent drug dealers to conduct criminal activity, he may have a duty to act. If the landlord knows that the lack of lighting in the property’s parking garage has contributed to muggings, he may have a duty to act to prevent injury.

The scope of the duty to act is tied to the knowledge of potential injury which would occur by the third party criminal act. As we’ve previously seen in my post about replacing window glass, the scope of the requested action there was very small: replace a window pane for $17 dollars. The duty imposed there was not to hire security guards to prevent murder, but merely to replace a broken window pane that was close to the door handle and lock. It is not unreasonable to think that someone might have broken into the house if the pane was not replaced.

A different situation arises if the integrity of the property is not an issue but knowledge of criminal activity is. Fights happen. A landlord is not usually liable for a one-off fight. But he may be if he knows that fights are continually occurring on his property. The scope of the duty for a landlord or business owner to provide something akin to security guards exists “only when ‘heightened’ foreseeability of third party criminal activity on the premises exists—shown by prior similar incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults in that location.”** Does the California rule make sense?

* Taken from Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc.,  65 Cal. 2d 114, 121 (Cal.1966)
** Taken from Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal. 4th 224, 240 (Cal. 2005)

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information.  It does not constitute legal advice.  The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients.  No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto.  If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

Let’s continue with figuring out the basis for how a tenant can recover against someone for an injury due to an unsafe condition on the property.

I say “someone” because as we have seen previously, it does not need to be the landlord who gets sued.  It can be the lessor, the “occupier,” or anyone who “controls” the property.  The last one may seem a bit redundant, but it is not.  Certainly the person occupying the premises exerts control over it.  Same for the owner.  Even if he is renting out the property, he has control over repairs accomplished, signs to be placed on it, fences to be built, etc.

But there can be situations in which a person does not own or occupy land, but nonetheless controls it.  In California, “a person controls property that he or she does not own or lease when he or she uses the property as if it were his or her own.  A person is responsible for maintaining, in reasonably safe condition, all areas he or she controls.”

Where does this situation arise? It does not arise from “simple maintenance.”  If for example, you were mowing a strip of lawn that adjoins your property but is not on it, this alone will not constitute control.  But “maintenance” is a factor to consider in control over the property.  However by itself, being “neighborly” in this manner will not usually constitute control such as to attach liability for an injury that occurs there.

I had a case once where we represented a landowner being sued for an injury that occurred off the property.  The plaintiff was leaving the premises late at night.  It was rural but close to urban, if that makes any sense.  Two of the publicly maintained streetlights were out.  An individual driving a car – he was probably overloaded on Vicodin due to a skateboarding injury he had recently had – forgot to turn his lights on.  The plaintiff did not see him due to the absence of his car lights and, possibly, the streetlights.  She stepped in front of the car and was badly hurt when the car hit her.  The driver did not have any insurance, so she sued the adjoining landowner.

Her initial theory was that our client “controlled” the publicly maintained streetlights which were out.  When I sucessfully objected on the grounds that an adjoining landlowner does not “control” the public streetlights, the plaintiff changed her theory.  Next, she alleged that two parking lot lights which were on our property were also out, and that if these lights were on she would not have been hit.

I almost had her out on this theory as well, but I will tell you about that over a beer sometime.  She was able to proceed and there was an interesting discovery involving witnesses to the accident and lighting experts- were the lights on or off?  Did the plaintiff’s counsel visit you, Mr. Neutral witness, at your house and show you pictures of the injured plaintiff before you testifified in this case? Was I there when this happened?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I submit to you that the lights my client controlled were on, and well maintained.  There may have been some public street lights that were not on . . .

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information.  It does not constitute legal advice.  The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients.  No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto.  If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

Have you ever seen that warning sign about alligators? The one that says, “Warning: feeding, enticing or molesting alligators is prohibited.” You probably had the same thought as me. Really? Is that warning necessary? Don’t we all learn before kindergarten that provoking man-eating animals is hazardous to our health? That it creates “an unreasonable risk of harm?” What about the sign warning you that your hotel balcony on the 17th floor “is not on ground level” and you should not jump off of it? Seems pretty obvious, right? An owner/lessor/occupier/person who controls the land should not have to warn against that, right?

Right. Fortunately, California law allows for the exoneration of a property owner against warning against “obviously unsafe dangers.” Thus, there is no liability for failure to warn if the landlord can convince a jury that the following is true:

If an unsafe condition of the property is so obvious that a person could reasonably be expected to observe it, then the owner/lessor/occupier/one who controls the property does not have to warn others about the dangerous condition.

That’s good. So if there are alligators on your property you probably do not need to warn that taunting them is dangerous. However, if it is not obvious that there are alligators on your property, and you know people enter your property, you probably should warn about the presence of alligators (especially if you live in California because alligators are not indigenous and it would not be obvious).

But the obviousness of a danger does not necessarily end the inquiry. The owner/lessor/occupier/person who controls the land may still, nonetheless, have a duty to fix the condition or prevent access. The law looks at it from the perspective of the injured party. Is the condition so obvious that the injured person had to have known that injury could result if he proceeded? Even if there was some negligence on the part of the owner/lessor/occupier/person who controls the land, the obviousness of the danger will mitigate against liability. Most juries should agree that in proceeding into an obvious danger, even if there is no fence around it or no warning about it, you are putting yourself at risk and are primarily at fault if you get injured.

So even though you may not have to warn about a balcony on the 17th floor not being on ground level, you will need to have a code compliant railing at the level so that no one falls off of it. Hopefully the difference between warning about an obvious danger and mitigating against harm from it makes sense.

By Jo-Anne Oliveri, ireviloution intelligence, Brisbane, Australia

Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of working in all facets of the property management industry and, in doing so, have come to an understanding. An understanding reached after years of seeking answers to the following questions:

• Why do I do it this way?
• Why am I here?
• What is my purpose?

Much like the questions of life really.

I have a tendency to get pretty deep and meaningful, but all those years ago as I went to work every day and found myself confused on so many occasions, those were the questions I was asking myself and my teammates.

How did my teammates respond?

“Just because that’s the way we do it.”

“But why, why do we do it this way?”

“That’s just the way we have always done it.”

And then I would get that look – you know the one, the glare telling me to stop rocking the boat and just get on with my day.

Well that’s nigh on impossible for me. That’s like putting a penguin in amongst the seals and telling the little penguin that it’s really a seal and to think and act like one so the seals don’t get upset…and eat it. I can’t pretend to say or do things just because it’s the accepted way and not understand why it’s done that way!

Don’t ever give me that answer. It actually challenges me more. So, me being me, I ruffled feathers and even got up people’s noses. I simply can’t do things just because that’s the way it’s always been done. I must find out if it really is the best or right way to do something.

I upset a lot of people, but as time went on, I realized the people I upset were the ones who were stressed by change and perhaps came into the industry for the wrong reasons. The industry won’t grow if we simply keep doing things just because “that’s the way we have always done it.”

So, if you have those people on your team, gently take their hand and let them know that it’s okay, and in fact, easy, to go with change. Goodness knows, change is actually going to make their lives so much easier! Who would have thought! If you have these people on your team, what effect are they having on your business, team, clients, brand and reputation? Yes, a confronting question.

Let’s take it one step further. What effect are they having on the industry, our industry? The answer – a terrible effect. The industry on a global scale has a negative reputation and that frustrates me because that could so easily be changed!

But all is not lost. I’m throwing out a challenge. I want the industry to stop and think every time they complete a task, every time they interact with clients, every time they do anything within the scope of their day-to-day working life really. I want everyone to ask themselves, “Why do I do it this way?” I want teams to challenge themselves at team meetings and ask collectively, “Why do we do it this way?”

Let’s hear your answers. Let’s share ideas. Let’s debate and challenge those ideas. And let’s come up with the solutions that will change the way we do things and show our clients we are not stuck in complacency.

So tell me… “Why do I do it this way?”

By Salvatore Friscia, San Diego Premier Property Management, San Diego, CA

The city of San Diego has always had a strong military presence, and here at www.SDPManagement.com we are very thankful for the men and women of the armed forces who brave their lives each and every day to protect our country and freedoms. The military is a strong and considerable part of our local economy and we take pride in marketing our rental properties to active and retired military personnel. In doing so we also understand that “Service Members” of the military and their dependents are provided further protections under Federal law regarding tenancy rights.

Under Federal law, a “Service Member” is classified as:

· A member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard on active duty;
or
· A member of the National Guard under a call to active service authorized by the
President or the Secretary of Defense for a period of more than 30 consecutive days
under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, to respond to a national emergency
declared by the President and supported by Federal funds; or
· A member of the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service on active service; or
commissioned members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on
active service

The Federal Service Members Civil Relief Act is one of the protections afforded to service members. It applies to any service member who is on active duty or active service; or during any period when the service member is absent from duty because of sickness, wounds, leave, or other lawful cause. It allows service members to terminate lease agreements under certain situations without recourse from the landlord. There are a few situations that allow for this, most notable would be if the tenant is in the military when the lease is signed and then after the lease is signed the tenant receives “military orders” for a permanent change of station or, if he or she receives “military orders” to deploy for at least 90 days. In this case the tenant must provide written notice of termination, and the new termination date must be at least 30 days after the first date on which the next rental payment is due. (For example, if Resident served the notice on September 15th, Resident’s tenancy would terminate on October 30.) Resident must provide owner with proof to establish that Resident qualifies for this limited exception. Proof may consist of any official military orders, or any notification, certification, or verification from the service member’s commanding officer, regarding the service member’s current or future military duty status. Military permission for base housing does not constitute a permanent change-of-station order.

It has been our experience that military personnel make excellent tenants and it’s important to understand the federal and local laws protecting them and their dependants. Any landlord who interferes with the termination of the lease or uses the security deposit for rent owed after the lease termination date is in violation of the law and committing a misdemeanor. Here in California there are additional laws that coincide, make sure your check your local tenancy laws.

By Peter Lamandre, Better by Design Realty, Scranton, PA

Some of you may have seen the recent national coverage concerning the flooding of the Susquehanna River in the Wyoming Valley in Northeastern and Central Pennsylvania. Our office is located a mere 15 minutes from the largest impacted areas and we manage a large amount of scattered small rental properties in the valley. We have always prided ourselves on our ability to respond to emergencies and crises. Over the years, we have dealt with fires, flooding, extreme freezing, downed trees, gas leaks, a burst water main, and sewer back ups, just to name a few. Due to the nature of the portfolio we manage and the extreme weather we endure in Northeastern PA, we have developed several emergency preparedness plans in order to preserve life, property, and minimize financial impact.

Below are some tips for dealing with emergencies that have made a huge difference for us over the years.

Have a separate number for emergencies:

As property managers, we receive a varying number and type of calls daily; let’s face it, some are just a higher priority. I know some property managers that have a “one size fits all” phone number, meaning all the calls come through one number; in my opinion, this can be problematic and result in unnecessary inefficiencies. Having a separately monitored phone for emergencies ensures that emergency calls don’t get lost in the shuffle of apartment inquiries, general questions, etc. I recommend using a mobile phone that can be carried by the on-call person. You can also utilize phone service features allowing you to forward calls.

Use reliable vendors:

Having someone you can rely on that truly understands the importance of proper emergency response. We rarely have to make those 3:00 am phone calls to our vendors, however we have key vendors that we can call during those times of extreme need. The cost of emergency response can be very high, however delays can be even more costly, so a swift response can truly be a life saver.

Assess the situation:

We created a troubleshooting manual that describes to our newer staff members how to determine if a call is indeed an emergency, and if not how to handle the call. The manual includes a few common troubleshooting steps to attempt to solve the problem or determine the extent of the problem before calling a vendor. There is no need to get fancy with this- you could simply have a list of emergency vendors and utility companies. Either way it is important to ask questions to find out how long the problem has been going on, where it is located, if the tenant is safe, etc.

Work with municipal officials:

Municipal officials can be your best friends or your worst nightmare when dealing with an emergency. I have seem municipalities condemn a property because the property had the wrong sink trap (had an S trap instead of a P trap); I have also seen municipal officials work with property owners to devise a plan to make corrections, providing them with insight and suggestions. When an emergency warrants fire, police, or code enforcement to be on the scene, we always arrive on the scene to meet them. I’ve been told time and time again by officials that this is not the norm; I can’t conceive of a different way to handle it. I’ve found that discussing the situations with the municipality can provide valuable assistance to the emergency responders (after all, who knows the building better than the property manager?), saving them time and granting them access to locked areas so they don’t have to break down a door. Overall, when you show the officials that you are there to work with them and make their job easier, they will grow to appreciate and welcome your presence.

Understand what is normal:

Unfortunately, emergency situations also provide opportunities to be taken advantage of. You should know what is normal in terms of remediating an issue. This is especially important when working with a a new or specialized vendor that you don’t have much experience with. I have also seen a few overzealous municipal officials overreact and create a larger problem for the owner than needed. Understanding the problem and how to solve it will come with experience, and is an important benefit for your clients.

These are just some general tips. In upcoming posts, I will get a little more specific on how we handle particular emergencies.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

When she is not busy mowing your lawn, replacing the water heater, raising your children*, and doing other upkeep of the home/residence she leases to you, your landlord is busy fulfilling some basic “duties.”   She has to avoid being negligent so that you don’t sue her.  How do we know if she is negligent?  How do we know if she has a duty to us?

Well, a landlord, or indeed, any “owner/lessor/occupier/controller of property is “negligent”** when she is not careful in keeping the property in a condition which does not injure people or property.  Indeed, California goes further.  She “must use reasonable care to discover any unsafe conditions and to repair, replace, or give adequate warning of anything that could be reasonably expected to harm others.” ***

So California basically requires a landlord to make sure that property she owns/leases/controls is safe and that she should make efforts to determine if there are unsafe conditions.   You have to inspect.  When and how often to inspect, that depends on the circumstances.

Here are some “factors” which are considered in deciding whether a defendant in a premises liability case was careful enough:

1. The location of the property – where is it? Was it remote and not frequently trafficked or was it next to a school or a liquor store?
2. How likely it was someone would enter the property as did the plaintiff; Was plaintiff a burglar on the roof who fell through a skylight, or was this a house rented to college kids who are known to throw a lot of parties?
3. How likely it was that he’d be harmed in these circumstances; Was the crack in the faucet advanced? Was the hole in the back yard really deep?
4. Whether he’d be seriously harmed in these circumstances; Was the faucet made out of plastic?  Did the hole have wooden stakes in the bottom, as in Dracula 1972 A.D.?
5. Whether the defendant should have known about the aspect of the property that caused the harm; Did the tenant tell you that the faucet broke yesterday?  Did you know that Van Helsing was sleeping on your tenant’s couch?
6. How difficult it would have been for the defendant to protect against the risk of that harm; Would it have been easy to replace the faucet? Could you have reminded your tenant that no guests are permitted beyond overnight stays?
7. The extent of the defendant’s control over the condition that caused the harm.  Was there enough time for you to fix the faucet, given California’s 24 hour notice provisions?  Was the landlord required to or did he have the opportunity/right to fill up the dirt hole or remove the wooden stakes?

The Court instructs the jury to consider all of these under consideration and will also consider other factors.  Collectively, these factors probably amount to a common sense test.  If you know about a broken faucet, fix it.

*Most landlords do not do this. It was a joke.

**Lawyer word.  Try not to incorporate into your daily conversation.

***California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI 1001

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information.  It does not constitute legal advice.  The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients.  No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto.  If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Jo-Anne Oliveri, ireviloution intelligence, Brisbane, Australia

Following on from last week’s blog…

Let’s discover what happened to poor Buddy and what our industry must learn from this! Also, how our industry can protect our clients and promote compelling reasons why it is so important to engage the services of a licensed and professional rental agent.

Buddy’s possessions were packed in the moving truck and transported to the property. Buddy had arranged to meet the movers at the property, as he would be following close behind them. Poor Buddy was struck with sheer panic when he pulled into the street and saw over twenty moving trucks lined up. It was a scene of utter confusion.

Of course, the property owner was nowhere to be seen. He had already skipped the country.

The sad story began to unfold as each ‘tenant’ shared his or her story with each other. They all had a ‘legal’ lease on the property and paid around $8,000 or more upfront. The problem – the person they had leased the property from was the tenant, who was himself leasing the property. He had recently taken up residency in the property and still had a four-month lease to run. However, this person had pulled the scam on several occasions. He leases a property himself then rents it out to many unsuspecting tenants. What a scam and far too easy to perpetrate! He made over $200,000 on that one property alone.

Of course, the law will catch up with him eventually. But, again, I believe as an industry we need to wise up about scams!

How sad it is that our world has so many people who are willing to take advantage of others. Therefore, it’s prudent to remember that it doesn’t matter who we are or what we do, scam artists are very crafty and manipulative – they repeatedly drag into their net unsuspecting people who think they would never be caught up in such deceit.

Buddy, whose sad tale was revealed in the last blog, was actually a high-ranking executive working for a global organization. He was under pressure to find somewhere to rent. Scam artists are skilled at reading signs of vulnerability.

We, as property and rental agents, can learn from this example and last week’s…

We must raise awareness of the risk tenants take when leasing a property directly from the property owner. We need to ensure that prospective tenants heed warnings and understand that even if the property owner does provide a legal General Tenancy Agreement it means nothing. These agreements can easily be downloaded online. The tenant risks spending thousands of dollars on leasing a property that doesn’t exist or could in fact be rented by the current tenant who is now pretending to be the property owner.

The internet now makes it easy for scammers, tricksters and swindlers to advertise property simply by downloading photos and descriptions when the actual managing agent or rightful property owner originally advertises the property. The scammer then saves them until the property has been leased and removed from property advertising portals, thereby giving them the opportunity to advertise the property with full descriptions, photos and sometimes even floor plans. So very easy…and just far too easy for professional scammers!

Licensed rental agents should only advertise on property portals that allow only licensed rental agents to advertise. I believe that property portals allowing owner managed properties to advertise on should not be supported by the industry. We need to protect unsuspecting tenants from fraudulent activity and this is one way we can do it.

So, when promoting your services as an agent it’s important to use examples of why clients wishing to lease properties only deal with a licensed rental agent (two reasons have been revealed in my past two blogs). By making property owners aware of this it makes absolute sense that they too use the services of a licensed rental agent as more prospective tenants demand they only lease through a licensed rental agent (much like other professional industries really). We must understand and market the risks clients face by not using the services of a licensed and professional rental agent.

And, just something to think about – these scammers are not only stealing substantial amounts of money from unsuspecting ‘tenants’, the crime continues as, sadly, these people’s identities are stolen too!