Author Topic: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?  (Read 8413 times)

pigpen

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 139
Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« on: January 20, 2024, 09:15:24 AM »
My wife and I are 48 and 53, FIRE (not fat but not lean either), and live in a paid-off house that would sell for approx. $450k. My parents are currently in an assisted living facility and require lots of help from me and my siblings. Although we like our town and neighborhood, it's changed a lot since we moved here, and we're considering moving to another town (or country) after my parents are no longer with us.

We've thought of moving to another country and trying that out. We've thought of spending half the year in another country or different part of the U.S. and half with family in a familiar place. We've thought of doing slow travel for half the year.

Here's my question/dilemma. While it would make some sense to hold onto our current house and rent it out while we try out other locations/lifestyle options, I have almost zero interest in being a landlord. We're also not super-attached to our neighborhood anymore and are just ready to try out something different. However, we both feel a sense of security in owning a house outright, and we anticipate that the older we get, the nicer it will feel to not put ourselves at the whims of various landlords for our shelter.

Any thoughts on the importance of owning a house as an older person? (not saying we're old now -- imagining a future self) OR, any thoughts on creative ways to deal with our general dilemma of wanting to hold onto a house somehow while not becoming a landlord?

GilesMM

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2537
  • Location: PNW
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2024, 09:31:27 AM »
Try being a landlord. If you hire a decent agent it can be close to zero hassles for you.

Omy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2053
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2024, 09:43:28 AM »
Not owning for awhile to explore other areas sounds gloriously freeing. You can always buy again when you're ready.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2024, 11:03:09 AM »

Any thoughts on the importance of owning a house as an older person? (not saying we're old now -- imagining a future self) OR, any thoughts on creative ways to deal with our general dilemma of wanting to hold onto a house somehow while not becoming a landlord?

It’s pretty clear you are not deeply attached to your house or even your neighborhood, but merely the idea of someday owning a home again… somewhere. You don’t even really want to be a landlord.

So - give yourself permission to sell the home when your parents pass on and try living in other places for a while. Good news, homes will be available for purchase in the future!  For peace of mind, to windfall from selling your home will cover the cost of renting while still leaving you with enough to either buy a home outright (should the proper one come along) in some areas or be able to put down a sizeable down payment most anywhere.

It’s also immensely possible to improve your financial situation by realizing the equity in your home (selling), readjusting your stuff to fit your current lifestyle (downsizing) and reaping the benefits of renting a smaller /lower cost space for a while (more time, less responsibilities).

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23735
  • Age: 67
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2024, 11:35:00 AM »
I am a huge RE fan girl, but in your shoes, I'd strongly consider selling.

Missy B

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 663
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2024, 11:48:03 PM »
I live in a HCOL area that used to be reasonable about 4 decades ago, and with a lot of cheap rental. Now we have a lot of seniors losing their rentals who can't afford to rent new in the same area, even the same city. These are people who could have all afforded to buy something back in the day, they just didn't because rent was cheaper and they thought it always would be.
So I think owning as a senior is important. It's not a guarantee of stability but its the best option.

But I wouldn't recommend landlording to you, because it can backfire so very badly.
And I notice none of the people recommending you landlord asked you what kind of tenancy protection laws you have where you live, because a lot of states have laws that protect tenants instead of landlords, and make it very difficult, time-consuming and expensive to evict tenants who don't pay rent or otherwise violate the lease. This is now a massive issue for landlords in a lot of places in Canada and the US. Also in many places, malicious damage by tenants is not treated as a criminal act (where it would be if someone did the same thing and wasn't your tenant).
Also property managers are no guarantee of success and frankly they don't care about your property the way you do. Most aren't worth the money.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4192
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2024, 12:01:39 AM »
Sell it.    You're concerned with housing security, but the tenant has to leave before you can move in, and there are a whole bunch of moving parts involved with that.   You know what doesn't have a bunch of moving parts?  A big wad of cash you got from selling your house.   That'll fix your housing issues lickety-split. 

Freedomin5

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7261
    • FIRE Countdown
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2024, 12:56:48 AM »
I’m an expat who has lived abroad for the past 13 years. The best advice I received (from an older expat couple) was to buy a place before we went abroad. Keep a foot in the market.

It doesn’t have to be a very big foot, and it doesn’t have to be your current foot (house), just keep a foot to keep your options open and to have a landing place when you return and to avoid being priced out of the market.

If you’re not tied to this particular house in this particular location, is there some way to have a place without the hassles of landlording? There are other creative ownership structures available.

For example, one of our houses is a summer cottage in a resort. We own the cottage but can put the cottage in a rental pool managed by the resort if we are not using it. The rental basically covers the operating costs. Or we can keep the cottage for our own use if we want. Something like this might work in your case, especially if you buy a hotel condo in a year-round resort.

Also, keep in mind that, if you sell now with the plan to buy again in the future, will you have enough to pay cash? If not, will you have sufficient income to allow you to qualify for a mortgage?

pigpen

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 139
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2024, 07:34:33 AM »
Thanks, everybody. I appreciate your thoughts on this.

It doesn’t have to be a very big foot, and it doesn’t have to be your current foot (house), just keep a foot to keep your options open and to have a landing place when you return and to avoid being priced out of the market.

Being priced out of the market is part of our fear, although since we're a little tired of our current area, the "market" we'd be worried about would basically be the entire U.S. (or at least the areas in the U.S. where we'd want to live) and possibly abroad. Just thinking out loud, but I wonder if some sort of fairly liquid sinking fund would be a good idea? Depending on how much rent we ended up paying, I think we'd have enough to fit rent into our current SWR without touching the proceeds from the sale, so it'd be there (minus inflation) to buy a new house later.

But I wouldn't recommend landlording to you, because it can backfire so very badly...Also property managers are no guarantee of success and frankly they don't care about your property the way you do. Most aren't worth the money.

Yeah, I've had friends for whom it's been a really good experience and for whom it's been a bad experience. I've never tried it, but knowing myself and my tendency toward anxiety about such things, I'm just guessing that it wouldn't be a great fit for me, although who knows?

If you’re not tied to this particular house in this particular location, is there some way to have a place without the hassles of landlording? There are other creative ownership structures available.

Yes. This is the sort of thing we're trying to brainstorm.

Also, keep in mind that, if you sell now with the plan to buy again in the future, will you have enough to pay cash? If not, will you have sufficient income to allow you to qualify for a mortgage?

Good reminder. We'll have SOME income once both our pensions, and eventually SS, kick in, but not a ton.

reeshau

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3902
  • Location: Houston, TX Former locations: Detroit, Indianapolis, Dublin
  • FIRE'd Jan 2020
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2024, 08:16:33 AM »
We had the opportunity to move to Ireland for my job in 2018.  We lived in Michigan at the time, and had vague plans to move to Texas to be closer to my in-laws, who were isolated from all other family, and approaching the years where they may need more help.  We knew that Ireland would provide several challenges to living, including a much smaller house.  We took that as a healthy growth apportunity, and looked forward to the attitude adjustment and skills learned while adapting.

Since we knew our general destination, we did put a large part of our belongings in long-term storage in Texas.  But we also knew we wanted our final destination to be downsized, too, so we sold off and gave away a lot.  Our planned timeframe was 4 years or less, so I put our equity into a money market and CD's, wanting liquidity in case of an early return.

Long story short, we came back in 2020, hit the early part of the pandemic-fueled suburban boom, and are very happy where we landed.  While I'm aware of the role luck played in our outcome, I am happy we had the flexibility of an all-cash offer, rather than having to manage selling then buying on our return.  Just repatriating was chaos enough.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4208
  • Location: WDC
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2024, 07:29:59 PM »
For another crazy idea, when you need "a place to land", you can always jump into an RV and do some traveling until you find your ideal landing spot.  When you have zero obligations, so many options open up!

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2024, 10:48:22 AM »
I tried the "homeless vagabond" life when I first FIREd (30s) and really enjoyed the freedom it allowed me. I'm also not the landlord type either and would have really hated renting out a place and worrying about it.

I eventually moved back to my hometown for various reasons - in a relationship with someone who worked, parents getting older and needed more help, etc. So I bought a house with cash. I lived there many years as a newly single FIREee, did shorter trips (a couple of months at a time a couple of times a year instead of full time) and either left my house empty or got a house sitter or rented out a room to a well know roommate friend.  I found that to be an easier and more secure way to live and travel for me even if it wasn't the most financially advantageous way.  I found as I got older it gave me a higher level of security than full time travel or renting did (plus I had trouble renting as a FIREee due to lower income and no job) and a better control over my future housing expenses.  As a divorced childless woman with no extended family I didn't really have a place to go if say I was injured or sick for a long time. Having a home base that I didn't rent out gave me an affordable place to always return too if ever needed or wanted.

Then about 2.5 years ago I sold my house with plans to do vagabond thing again (this time with newly FIREd BF who also sold his house).  However, after some trials and tribulations with the travel/renting thing (pandemic, BF realising he actually hating full time travel, difficult and rapid price increases in rental market, landlords selling and having to move, etc)  I recently bought a place again this past July as I felt the need to have greater housing security.

So my 2 cents is to give yourself sometime to try the homeless travel or rental life before deciding if it's for you or not. If it is, and you are planning to sell anyways, then take that time to enjoy it and leave yourself the financial option to re-buy a new place if you find that lifestyle isn't for you and or your SO.

ETA: I will probably always have a paid off place to live from now on - especially as I get older. But taking the long break from home ownership to travel was awesome and something that's worth experiencing if you want and can easily go back into owning when you're ready.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2024, 11:21:10 AM by spartana »

pigpen

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 139
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2024, 08:49:17 AM »
Thanks for the responses, everyone. Good stuff to think about.

...and either left my house empty or got a house sitter or rented out a room to a well know roommate friend.  I found that to be an easier and more secure way to live and travel for me even if it wasn't the most financially advantageous way.  I found as I got older it gave me a higher level of security than full time travel or renting did (plus I had trouble renting as a FIREee due to lower income and no job)...

It's occurred to me that getting a mortgage for a significant amount might be hard without a lot of income, but for some reason I hadn't thought about having that problem if we needed to become renters. Although, of course, it makes total sense.

I like the idea of having someone serve as a housesitter for us for relatively short periods, although as you say, it isn't the most financially advantageous solution. And we have neighbors who I'm sure would be happy to regularly look in on our place for us.

I don't see us enjoying a true vagabond, perma-traveling sort of lifestyle, so I'm guessing we'll do some variation of 6 months in X, 3 months in Y, and 3 months in Z. In any case, once the time comes that we're actually ready to make a move and decide exactly what that move will be (i.e., we're not thinking entirely in hypotheticals), it should be a little easier to come up with solutions.

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2024, 10:37:00 AM »
I've never had problems with short term or temporary rentals which usually take a CC. But traditional longer term leases that require you have an income 3 times the rent amount is where I had problems. Especially if you don't have a job or have a lower FIRE income and/or high rental amount. Many won't count the stash as "income" especially if you it's in trad retirement accounts and you are years away from being old enough to tap that. Just my experience and others here have had no problems.

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3365
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2024, 11:06:26 AM »
Owning gives some inflation protection.  If I had to rent right now it would be $2,150 a month.  When I bought the place 10 years ago the rent was about $1,250 a month.  Taxes and fees have gone up some, but nothing like rents have gone up.  And the value has more than doubled.  Best part is being in control of where you live and not getting evicted in the middle of winter because the Landlord feels like it.

cannotWAIT

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2024, 04:01:29 PM »
I'm in a similar situation and have gone around and around on this. There is so much I dislike about home ownership. There were two years early in my marriage when we rented a shitty campus apartment and they were so carefree. I would love to live like that again. But ultimately I keep coming back to this: The whole reason I want to FIRE is because I don't want anyone else having any say over what I do and where I go, and renting is the ultimate in giving other people control over your life. I also think that being a residential landlord in your situation is really risky because such a large chunk of your net worth is in the hands of your tenant. I say either keep it or sell and buy something else, but neither a landlord nor a tenant be :)

evanc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2024, 12:37:00 PM »
Thanks, everybody. I appreciate your thoughts on this.

It doesn’t have to be a very big foot, and it doesn’t have to be your current foot (house), just keep a foot to keep your options open and to have a landing place when you return and to avoid being priced out of the market.

Being priced out of the market is part of our fear, although since we're a little tired of our current area, the "market" we'd be worried about would basically be the entire U.S. (or at least the areas in the U.S. where we'd want to live) and possibly abroad. Just thinking out loud, but I wonder if some sort of fairly liquid sinking fund would be a good idea? Depending on how much rent we ended up paying, I think we'd have enough to fit rent into our current SWR without touching the proceeds from the sale, so it'd be there (minus inflation) to buy a new house later.



Respectfully disagree on the "priced out of the market" argument. First, you said that you are talking about your [much] older self repurchasing, right? If you sell the home sooner than later, throw the proceeds in VTSAX (or some reasonable combination of VTSAX + stocks), you are much more likely to outpace the inflation rate of housing costs. Not to mention, if you keep the home as "backup" out of fear of rising home prices, you need to include in that calculation the holding costs, e.g. property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.

Assuming you will sell the house and not repurchase for 10+ years, I would say it is nearly a mathematical certainty based on historical data that you would come out ahead by renting in the short term, and if you later decided to buy "in old age," you will have plenty of powder to do so.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2024, 12:38:44 PM by evanc »

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2024, 09:52:33 PM »
^^^That probably depends on both the overall market as well as where it's at when you want to buy again.  Some HCOL areas have increased way more than 10% a year (my own area in SoCal increased 19% in 2023) and once you factor in costs to sell, costs to buy, taxes,  rent you are paying (possibly from your stash), etc it could be difficult to get back into an equal housing market. When I sold my paid off house with very low property taxes I knew that it would be unlikely to return to that same high cost housing marke and afford the same type of home. At least until a crash happened. In my case it didn't matter as I bought in a less expensive housing market. Otherwise I would most definitely be priced out now.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2024, 08:25:02 AM »
I'm in a similar situation and have gone around and around on this. There is so much I dislike about home ownership. There were two years early in my marriage when we rented a shitty campus apartment and they were so carefree. I would love to live like that again. But ultimately I keep coming back to this: The whole reason I want to FIRE is because I don't want anyone else having any say over what I do and where I go, and renting is the ultimate in giving other people control over your life.

This comment set my spider sense tingling in a way I didn’t expect, and I’m just circling back to it now. There is this dream that we’ve been sold about home ownership being the ultimate in security, personal freedom and success. It’s marketed by the real estate industry with the full support of local and federal government.

At best it is oversold, and in many circumstances it is deliberately misleading. To start, owning a home anchors you to one spot, in both good ways and bad. It can help you grow roots in the community but leaves you vulnerable should the community start to wither or receive an unexpected, disruptive shock (eg natural disaster). Homeownership does not free a person completely from  being told what they can do with and on their property. It’s highly location specific but most homes fall under zoning laws which tightly control how you can build, what activities can occur, and even how the exterior of the property looks. HOAs frequently take this much further. Despite a paid off mortgage one cannot escape taxes and fees which (over time) generally eclipse the original monthly mortgage payment. Failure to pay leaves you vulnerable to tax lien foreclosure, which is about as common as mortgage foreclosure.

Finally, renters are not without protection. Again, protections vary greatly, but in many regions the laws protect renters, arguably much more so than the landlord. It’s often difficult for a landlord to break a lease so long as the tenant is in good legal standing. This forum is filled with tales of landlords struggling to evict problem tenants because of renter protection laws.

Full disclosure: I am a current homeowner (three homes over the past 15 years), former landlord and as recently as 2021 a renter as well.

Log

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Location: San Francisco
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2024, 08:59:46 AM »
Yeah, I would add that since you’re not especially attached to returning to a specific region in the US, the concerns of getting priced out are significantly mitigated. I don’t know what your list of places you’d be interested in living is, but the chances that rents outpace stock appreciation in ALL of them is unlikely.

A lot of current perceptions of real estate are also based in the very specific NIMBY paradigm of the last few decades, but multi-family construction is being heavily deregulated in many states and municipalities, which will be bringing a lot more supply online in the coming years. Obviously local markets go every which way, but nationally, rents went down in 2023.

So really the question comes down to which regions you’d be open to living in when you come back, and how concerned you are that rents will go up beyond your SWR in ALL of them.

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23735
  • Age: 67
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2024, 10:18:05 AM »
We have rentals in a luxury Senior Community in SoCal. We choose tenants who are former homeowners and just don't want the hassle of home ownership any more. We tend to make minimal rent increases, "catching up" between tenants. Contrary to popular belief among some, we do not make a living on these properties.

Here's our dilemma: our insurer has exited the state and is not renewing policies. They're not unique, many insurers are pulling out of CA. We expect our insurance to double or triple. We will be forced to pass the increase on to our tenants, which we hate to do.

My point is that being a renter doesn't fully protect you from unexpected rent increases.

Sidebar: Rent Control is not the answer. Having lived adjacent to Santa Monica for a decade, I've seen the negative impacts first hand. Sure, the strict restrictions have been in place for decades, but good luck finding something to rent on the open market. It's actually minimized the amount of housing available and the condition of the inventory has deteriorated. If you want something fixed or improved with any degree of quality, you have to pay for it yourself. When the LL gets sick of the rigamarole, they sell off the fully depreciated, deteriorated property to luxury condo builders, leaving even less housing inventory available for renters.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20602
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2024, 10:34:47 AM »
I'm in a similar situation and have gone around and around on this. There is so much I dislike about home ownership. There were two years early in my marriage when we rented a shitty campus apartment and they were so carefree. I would love to live like that again. But ultimately I keep coming back to this: The whole reason I want to FIRE is because I don't want anyone else having any say over what I do and where I go, and renting is the ultimate in giving other people control over your life.

This comment set my spider sense tingling in a way I didn’t expect, and I’m just circling back to it now. There is this dream that we’ve been sold about home ownership being the ultimate in security, personal freedom and success. It’s marketed by the real estate industry with the full support of local and federal government.

At best it is oversold, and in many circumstances it is deliberately misleading. To start, owning a home anchors you to one spot, in both good ways and bad. It can help you grow roots in the community but leaves you vulnerable should the community start to wither or receive an unexpected, disruptive shock (eg natural disaster). Homeownership does not free a person completely from  being told what they can do with and on their property. It’s highly location specific but most homes fall under zoning laws which tightly control how you can build, what activities can occur, and even how the exterior of the property looks. HOAs frequently take this much further. Despite a paid off mortgage one cannot escape taxes and fees which (over time) generally eclipse the original monthly mortgage payment. Failure to pay leaves you vulnerable to tax lien foreclosure, which is about as common as mortgage foreclosure.

Finally, renters are not without protection. Again, protections vary greatly, but in many regions the laws protect renters, arguably much more so than the landlord. It’s often difficult for a landlord to break a lease so long as the tenant is in good legal standing. This forum is filled with tales of landlords struggling to evict problem tenants because of renter protection laws.

Full disclosure: I am a current homeowner (three homes over the past 15 years), former landlord and as recently as 2021 a renter as well.

1000% agree.

I have always been someone who preferd renting, in fact, I never wanted to own. I now own 4 homes, but that's because owning in those very specific contexts made economic and logistical sense.

I have ZERO pride of ownership, or love of ownership, or anything of the sort. I borderline resent that owning makes so much sense for me because it's a massive headache.

And owning is the opposite of freedom, you are beholden to your property, to it's needs, it's taxes, the will/mismanagement of local governments, etc, etc.

And renting is in no way shape or form the "ultimate" in giving other people control over your life. I have two rental units and I don't see myself as having any control over those people.

Yes, it's my property, I have certain rules, and I expect to be paid for use of my property. But they also chose my property, they agreed to those rules, and in return I work for them.

They are my clients, and I am far more beholden to them than they are to me. I can live with damaged flooring from recent flooding, but they're entitled to new flooring. It's my job to deliver to them the product and service they pay me for.

Saying that I have ultimate power over them is like saying any business you choose to purchase from has ultimate power over you.

Local governance has WAY MORE power over me because of my owned properties than I have over my tenants. My tenants can and do just leave if they don't like the conditions of the purchase anymore.

Renting gives that powerful freedom. Owning takes away a lot of freedom. DH and I downsized to a small apartment in 2019, we didn't expect to both start working from home in 2020 and even though there were plenty of 2 bedroom units in our building available, we couldn't just move down the hall to one because we owned.

Owning will almost always come out ahead when comparing apples to apples of settling down in one place that works for your needs in terms of location and house itself for a very, very long time.

Of course in most cases, owning will have a clear advantage there.

But owning vs renting isn't apples to apples. Renting will frequently come out ahead if your life circumstances change, opportunities come up, you're flexible about location, etc.

Each has its own distinct advantages and distinct disadvantages, and each have their own freedoms and limitations. Which one is more advantageous and confers the most freedom/autonomy depends ENTIRELY on the individual and their priorities/circumstances.

For me, owning multiple times over has inarguably been the best option for my particular needs, even though I can't upsize to a bigger apartment, it still comes out as a substantial advantage for me to own.

I don't like it, but it does.

However, the ONLY reason I tolerate owning so much is because each property is a good rental property. It's very possible that in the future we will own 4 homes, rent then all out, and primarily rent for ourselves, at least half of the year.

I wouldn't be able to stand owning if I didn't at least have the flexibility to move out and rent it out for a profit.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2024, 10:55:27 AM by Metalcat »

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2024, 10:36:09 AM »
Yeah, I would add that since you’re not especially attached to returning to a specific region in the US, the concerns of getting priced out are significantly mitigated. I don’t know what your list of places you’d be interested in living is, but the chances that rents outpace stock appreciation in ALL of them is unlikely.

A lot of current perceptions of real estate are also based in the very specific NIMBY paradigm of the last few decades, but multi-family construction is being heavily deregulated in many states and municipalities, which will be bringing a lot more supply online in the coming years. Obviously local markets go every which way, but nationally, rents went down in 2023.

So really the question comes down to which regions you’d be open to living in when you come back, and how concerned you are that rents will go up beyond your SWR in ALL of them
.
I think thats the key. If the OP is flexible and willing to live in a lower COL area or downsize to a smaller place then being priced out of the housing market (or the rental market) probably isn't going to happen - assuming affordable rentals/travel costs that don't eat too deeply into the stash or an investment market decline or crash.

Since the OP is talking about older age I assume he's looking at long term housing and it's hard to predict what rental or housing prices will be 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years down the road. Here in SoCal I would have long ago been priced out of both the housing market and the rental market without making a big dent in my investments. Can't imagine what that would be in 20 years. Personally I'd love to be a lifelong renter but I just don't see it as financially sustainable for me unless I moved to a lower COL area.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2024, 11:01:28 AM »
For the record, I’m neutral on HOAs. I’ve certainly seen some (eg my sisters) that are run like the nanny state in every aspect visible or audible from the street, but I also have known many that do a lot of collective good. Mine formed a couple decades ago to establish sidewalks, a cross walk (largely for kids to get to school) and synchronize trash collection. All great things in my mind that needed an HOA. Now it’s latest project is converting an unbuildable plot of land that used to be nothing more than a massive culvert and repository for old tires and shopping carts into a park space with a walking path and picnic tables. Again, great use for an HOA. It’s when they start measuring grass height or selecting which exterior paint colors (all variants of grey/beige) which you may use to paint your house that HOAs wander from useful to annoying (and occasionally harmful).

Log

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Location: San Francisco
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2024, 03:08:30 PM »
Amen @Metalcat

...Here's our dilemma: our insurer has exited the state and is not renewing policies. They're not unique, many insurers are pulling out of CA. We expect our insurance to double or triple. We will be forced to pass the increase on to our tenants, which we hate to do.

My point is that being a renter doesn't fully protect you from unexpected rent increases...

I guess the other point worth making here is that being an owner doesn't protect you from sudden cost increases either. Insurance, taxes, or maintenance costs can all go up at any time.

There is no true "control," there's just margins of safety and room for flexibility.

ca-rn

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 210
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2024, 11:06:03 PM »
Amen @Metalcat

...Here's our dilemma: our insurer has exited the state and is not renewing policies. They're not unique, many insurers are pulling out of CA. We expect our insurance to double or triple. We will be forced to pass the increase on to our tenants, which we hate to do.

My point is that being a renter doesn't fully protect you from unexpected rent increases...

I guess the other point worth making here is that being an owner doesn't protect you from sudden cost increases either. Insurance, taxes, or maintenance costs can all go up at any time.

There is no true "control," there's just margins of safety and room for flexibility.

Yup, no true "control" for homeowners or renters. 

I'm a landlord, occupying one of the units- home insurance increased a bunch but after hearing about others in California being dropped, I remind myself to be grateful to have it.

With rent control, I'm limited from passing on increased costs. After 4 years, we were finally allowed to increase rent but it was cut down from 7% to 4%.  Usually its 3%/year.

The monthly cost for tax, insurance, water, maintenance for the property is enough for me to live in SE Asia, add a bit more- Asia/good chunk of Europe.

No one knows what the future costs for owning a home or expat living will be over time. One may increase a lot more than the other due to inflation, natural disaster, government instability.

Some days I think, SELL and run! Other days, I think how lucky I am to be able to own a property that gives me rental income in a HCOL area.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20602
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2024, 08:05:57 AM »
Amen @Metalcat

...Here's our dilemma: our insurer has exited the state and is not renewing policies. They're not unique, many insurers are pulling out of CA. We expect our insurance to double or triple. We will be forced to pass the increase on to our tenants, which we hate to do.

My point is that being a renter doesn't fully protect you from unexpected rent increases...

I guess the other point worth making here is that being an owner doesn't protect you from sudden cost increases either. Insurance, taxes, or maintenance costs can all go up at any time.

There is no true "control," there's just margins of safety and room for flexibility.

Yup, no true "control" for homeowners or renters. 

I'm a landlord, occupying one of the units- home insurance increased a bunch but after hearing about others in California being dropped, I remind myself to be grateful to have it.

With rent control, I'm limited from passing on increased costs. After 4 years, we were finally allowed to increase rent but it was cut down from 7% to 4%.  Usually its 3%/year.

The monthly cost for tax, insurance, water, maintenance for the property is enough for me to live in SE Asia, add a bit more- Asia/good chunk of Europe.

No one knows what the future costs for owning a home or expat living will be over time. One may increase a lot more than the other due to inflation, natural disaster, government instability.

Some days I think, SELL and run! Other days, I think how lucky I am to be able to own a property that gives me rental income in a HCOL area.

Location is the big factor, and the main reason we own.

All 3 of our locations where we own are very, very specific locations where we want to be able to live. We're not folks who plunk down somewhere and live for decades, which as I said before, is usually the scenario where owning comes out ahead.

However, we are *extremely* picky about locations, and are very, very happy to have planted roots in markets where we could/will be priced out, or where renting is not a viable option.

That said, we don't really conceptualize any of our units as "homes" that we own. They're all investment properties where one of the benefits is that we can rent them from ourselves at a rent-controlled/discounted rate.

They each individually can produce roughly the same gross income per unit. So right now, the math works out essentially identical for whichever unit we occupy.

Obviously that will change over time and we'll have to factor in opportunity cost into our decision of which unit to occupy, if any, or if renting a different unit comes out ahead.

For example, our duplex units are large 3 bedrooms, if when we decide we want to live in that location we are cool with a 1 bedroom, then why would we rent a 3-bedroom from ourselves when we could rent a 1-bedroom from someone else??

pigpen

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 139
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2024, 08:17:18 AM »
I think thats the key. If the OP is flexible and willing to live in a lower COL area or downsize to a smaller place then being priced out of the housing market (or the rental market) probably isn't going to happen - assuming affordable rentals/travel costs that don't eat too deeply into the stash or an investment market decline or crash.

This is definitely the case for us. If we leave our current city, we probably won't come back, so we have no fear of being priced out of THIS housing market.



I have ZERO pride of ownership, or love of ownership, or anything of the sort. I borderline resent that owning makes so much sense for me because it's a massive headache.

And owning is the opposite of freedom, you are beholden to your property, to it's needs, it's taxes, the will/mismanagement of local governments, etc, etc.

This is pretty much the way I feel. In my day-to-day life, I don't feel the "assetness" of the house I own very strongly. I'm much more conscious of the fact that I have $400-500k tied up in a specific piece of property that has to be maintained and worried about. I'm anxious by nature, and our house tends to become a focus for that.

The renting scenario I'm imagining that worries me is being 80ish (or whatever age it is at which we're not as flexible or able to make sudden moves), and having our landlord decide that he/she is going to sell the house/condo and that we need to make other arrangements that we may not be equipped to make very well.  There are, of course, equally disruptive events beyond our control that could happen to us as homeowners.

I may just be trying to look too far ahead into an unknown future or looking for a security that doesn't exist.


Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20602
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2024, 09:22:51 AM »
I think thats the key. If the OP is flexible and willing to live in a lower COL area or downsize to a smaller place then being priced out of the housing market (or the rental market) probably isn't going to happen - assuming affordable rentals/travel costs that don't eat too deeply into the stash or an investment market decline or crash.

This is definitely the case for us. If we leave our current city, we probably won't come back, so we have no fear of being priced out of THIS housing market.



I have ZERO pride of ownership, or love of ownership, or anything of the sort. I borderline resent that owning makes so much sense for me because it's a massive headache.

And owning is the opposite of freedom, you are beholden to your property, to it's needs, it's taxes, the will/mismanagement of local governments, etc, etc.

This is pretty much the way I feel. In my day-to-day life, I don't feel the "assetness" of the house I own very strongly. I'm much more conscious of the fact that I have $400-500k tied up in a specific piece of property that has to be maintained and worried about. I'm anxious by nature, and our house tends to become a focus for that.

The renting scenario I'm imagining that worries me is being 80ish (or whatever age it is at which we're not as flexible or able to make sudden moves), and having our landlord decide that he/she is going to sell the house/condo and that we need to make other arrangements that we may not be equipped to make very well.  There are, of course, equally disruptive events beyond our control that could happen to us as homeowners.

I may just be trying to look too far ahead into an unknown future or looking for a security that doesn't exist.

Yep.

Also, there are areas where it's much harder to evict someone. Where I live, if you rent in a rental building from a rental company, there is no way to evict you unless you do something to warrant eviction.

In very rare cases, a company will sell a rental building and it will be renovated into a condo building. That's extremely rare though, and the payouts for rental residents are massive.

My aunt is in her 80s and has been living in the same highrise for 30 years, rent-controlled the entire time. They would LOVE to evict her, but they can't.

She'll go from her rental to a retirement home, never having had to worry about a broken toilet or a tax bill or anything. In her case, hunkering down and staying in one place indefinitely actually worked out more in favour of renting than owning.

My grandmother did the exact same thing in the building next to hers, my other grandmother did the same thing in Toronto.

Because I prefer highrises, if I were to plant roots in one location, I would absolutely rent thanks to the laws here. But I don't want to stay in one location, but I do want to be able to return, so renting actually makes less sense for me.

Also, once you're much older, your money doesn't need to last as long. Maybe at that point, spending a lot on a house will be an easier.

Also, you have no idea what areas will be like in many years. If you don't have a solid idea what area you want to lock in, you could end up screwing yourself in the future unless the property is a solid rental investment (and you want to be invested in rentals).

Locking into *a* market is not the same as locking into the correct market for your future needs.

My HCOL market is where all of our immediate family are, it's also where the federal government is, so it punches above its weight class in terms of amenities and likely always will. So it's my advanced healthcare location, and that's the reason I'm not willing to cut the tether, because I have complex health issues that generally don't need active care, but when they do, I need reliable access to world class specialists that lower COL places don't have. 

The duplex location is where all of our preferred extended family live. It's also a one-of-a-kind city where the downtown core is two peninsulas in the ocean, and it's a UNESCO site. There's nowhere else like it in the country. I knew I wanted to live there at some point the moment I arrived. I have a small obsession with the ocean.

Our third location is one of the most beautiful, unique locations on earth, and it would cost a year's worth of mortgage payments to rent there for a month, and there are no long term rentals available, and when there are, the owners always prioritize renting to medical staff.

That was supposed to be a vacation rental property that we might use a few weeks a year, but I spent a summer there fixing up the house and fell absolutely in love with the location and the people and we now live there half the year and have no active plans to ever rent it out as a vacation rental. It's just a luxury for us at the moment. We even built an extension to be able to live and work there full time.

That place is the closest we have to a "home" that we feel we own, and a sense of pride of ownership. I truly love that specific house on that specific lot and we have deep ties to a generational community. We had to decide between the extension and buying a different house and I couldn't find any house that I would prefer.

All 3 locations have very specific features that are uniquely beneficial to us, many of which will never change.

It's also worth noting that all 3 properties were very inexpensive, the combined purchase price of all 3 which we bought within the past 4ish years, is less than half of the average home price in the country. So we certainly haven't put ourselves out financially to buy them.

Also, we bought two when I had a lump sum of cash and the markets during the pandemic were nuts. So I was happy to diversify into real estate. Lastly, we got incredible deals on all 3 properties because of sellers who needed out and whose first accepted offers fell apart on financing. So we got each property at asking when the norm was offers at least 20% over asking.

So when I say that real estate truly came out ahead as the smart place to put my money, I'm not kidding. I truly never, ever wanted to own, but it was just so stupidly beneficial, so now I own a small collection.

I would never in a million years buy an expensive property that doesn't clearly work as a rental, in a market I don't have reason to absolutely love, for some unknown time in the future where I have no idea what my needs might be.

I have solid reason to think I'll want to live in one or more of the 3 locations where I own. Right now we live between the HCOL city and the little remote house. But if our needs change, renting out all of them would produce more than enough cash flow to cover the cost of renting in virtually any market we would want.

So owning has set up a system of multiple levels of security.

But I wouldn't do it otherwise. I wouldn't own unless it added to my flexibility, because you just never know what life will bring in terms of needs and wants.

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23735
  • Age: 67
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2024, 11:06:14 AM »
I love this post^^. My story of how I came to own three rentals is almost the opposite.

I visited a Senior resort community with my parents back in 2003. A brand-new home where I could choose the lot, model and finishes was selling for about $150/sf, which is Monopoly money where I live now. I knew this would be a lovely place to retire and was worried I'd be priced out by retirement time. Back then, I figured I'd be single forever, so having a lovely community to retire to was hugely important to me. I chose a home with a casita. I rented out the house and kept the casita for myself (and occasional friends). I knew in retirement I could rent out either for some nice side income. For years, I used the casita as a personal hideaway from my very stressful job and used it often. I LOVE that place! It's tiny, cute and perfect.

In 2012, when pigs flew and I got married, my husband had never even seen the house. I was worried he wouldn't like it, but luckily, he loved it, too. We ended up selling our highly appreciated primary homes and bought one together. When the dust settled, we had a chunk of cash left. RE in the Desert hadn't fully recovered, so there were still deals to be had. (I got lucky on house #1. It never lost value, due to when I bought it.) We bought two homes in quick succession. Our rule was that we only bought properties we'd be completely happy to live in. We've had a steady stream of good tenants, and we have no plans to kick anybody out so we can move there.

Now that DH has retired, we plan to become Snowbirds, but not before a tenant vacates. In the meantime, we have enjoyed using the casita immensely. Even though we have an eventual exit plan, we are excited to be able to live in any of them in the reasonably near future.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2024, 11:08:26 AM by Dicey »

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2024, 11:32:47 AM »
^^^Maybe if I can find landlords like you and @Metalcat  I'd rent again. You guys won't sell your your rental houses and boot your tenents out right? Right?

J/K can't blame my experience on the landlords (who sold the house I was renting) just the new owners (who gave me the boot). And being a FIREee with a non-job income that was too low to qualify for another rental in my HCOL area (or probably most areas)  just cemented the need for me to own long term rather then rent.

 I think, because most of us here and the OP have money, getting evicted when a property they rent sells or a lease isn't renewed or prices go too high, won't be a financial problem (or may be able to reduce increasing rental cost by moving to a LCOL area). It's more the ability to be able to physically move and find a new place is, as the OP pointed out, you are very elderly and/or infirm with no family to help.  But the possibility of being priced out of the rental market (and the housing market)  still exists if your investments don't keep pace with rising rental costs like here in SoCal. I have very affordable fixed costs now and, barring a major catastrophe, know I can afford to stay here forever. Although I'll sell and downsize eventually to my future old lady home. 

That said - if I were the OP and wanted to travel or live in other locations and didn't plan to return to current area - I'd sell, do the full tike travel and living in new places thing and just buy once you're ready to settle in an area.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2024, 11:38:00 AM by spartana »

mspym

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10406
  • Location: Aotearoa
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2024, 11:57:26 AM »
We rented in one of the most expensive cities in the world because buying was even more expensive. (Our rent - which was cheap for what we had and didn’t go up for six years - was $50K a year. This was not an uncommon rent.) We bought when we lived because renting in NZ is even harder, the rental stock significantly worse, and tenants have very few rights - and the new government is stripping some of those rights away. It is a significant issue that has been years in the making. All of this means we discuss what we will do with our house if and when we need to spend significant time in the States in the future. We might rent this place out or sell it. But if these conditions didn’t apply, I wouldn’t tie up the capital in a single property.

cannotWAIT

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2024, 12:10:56 PM »
Yes, there is no true control. Don't forget, your renter protections can be gone with the next political wind, too. As with all things, you have to decide which risks are acceptable to you. I think that my preference for owning has to do with a deep emotional need for stability and connection. I want to know that I can't be forced to leave (short of physical catastrophe, obviously). I don't know how I would be able to manage moving even ten years from now. I want to live where, even if things change to the point where I need to leave, *I* am the one making that decision. And I also want to live where my neighbors are not likely to leave any time soon. I've lived in this house for 30 years and most of my neighbors have been here just as long. We're not best friends, but we live in peace and stability. It's good.

Despite a paid off mortgage one cannot escape taxes and fees which (over time) generally eclipse the original monthly mortgage payment. Failure to pay leaves you vulnerable to tax lien foreclosure, which is about as common as mortgage foreclosure.


Depends where you live I guess. I have lived in my home since 1993. When I bought it, my mortgage payment was $522/month. My property taxes today, 30 years later, are $112/month. And at 65, at my expected income level, I will qualify for income tax reduction to $32/month. Could things change, sure, although in my idiotic red state it's more likely they would abolish property tax altogether.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20602
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2024, 12:59:11 PM »
^^^Maybe if I can find landlords like you and @Metalcat  I'd rent again. You guys won't sell your your rental houses and boot your tenents out right? Right?

J/K can't blame my experience on the landlords (who sold the house I was renting) just the new owners (who gave me the boot). And being a FIREee with a non-job income that was too low to qualify for another rental in my HCOL area (or probably most areas)  just cemented the need for me to own long term rather then rent.

 I think, because most of us here and the OP have money, getting evicted when a property they rent sells or a lease isn't renewed or prices go too high, won't be a financial problem (or may be able to reduce increasing rental cost by moving to a LCOL area). It's more the ability to be able to physically move and find a new place is, as the OP pointed out, you are very elderly and/or infirm with no family to help.  But the possibility of being priced out of the rental market (and the housing market)  still exists if your investments don't keep pace with rising rental costs like here in SoCal. I have very affordable fixed costs now and, barring a major catastrophe, know I can afford to stay here forever. Although I'll sell and downsize eventually to my future old lady home. 

That said - if I were the OP and wanted to travel or live in other locations and didn't plan to return to current area - I'd sell, do the full tike travel and living in new places thing and just buy once you're ready to settle in an area.

Yeah, as I said above, if you want to hunker down in one spot and avoid the risk of having to move, owning is usually your best bet.

Although as I also said, in my jurisdiction, you basically can't get evicted if you rent from a rental building.

I wouldn't rent a house or a condo from an individual owner unless I was willing to accept the risk of being evicted at any point on the grounds of the current or future owners wanting the unit for personal use.

If moving becomes a risk I can't take, I'll choose a place where that risk is lower.

But if I'm too frail to handle a move, I'm more likely to want to live in a rental building where I have zero responsibility for maintenance than own a house.

When I lived in the Hilton in Montreal (they had long term rental units), I could call the 24hr concierge to change my lightbulbs. All utilities including phone and cable TV were included. I couldn't be evicted, and there were strict rent controls.

I would much rather age in a place like that than a home that I have to take care of.

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2024, 03:55:33 PM »
^^^ That's why I plan to eventually buy a place that will be easy to care for (my old lady home - probably a condo or co-op). I'm constantly doing big chores here (shovelling snow, cutting huge tree branches off my roof, fixing everything, etc) that a condo sounds great!  My Mom bought into an "active 55-plus"  co-op/condo community when she was 70 and lived there until she died so something like that would be an ideal type of place for most healthy independent seniors to "age in place".   I definitely don't plan on living in my current house more than a couple of years but it's pretty ideal for my currently lifestyle and easy to lock up and go or get a house sitter or friend to stay there. Can easilynairbnb it too since its in a ski resort area but I like the freedom to be able to come and go whenever I like. Also having to consider what a partners wants too which makes it more a PITA to decide  ;-).
« Last Edit: January 28, 2024, 04:02:55 PM by spartana »

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2024, 05:24:44 PM »
Wanted to add that often times rentals will limit the number of overnight guests and length of stays to just a few days per month unless they are on the lease too. Probably wouldn't effect the OP but may effect others considering renting you want longer term visitors. Some also require you to be there when you have overnight guests so that limits the house or pet sitter option unavailable.

Not sure how common that is but every lease I've ever had had a clause for that.  Last place I leased (from a private homeowner) had a 2 night/week guest clause and that seemed pretty normal even generous compared to other places. Even the seniors place my Mom bought had a clause in the covenant rules that only allowed 60 days per year. So if, like me, you're in a relationship and they aren't on the lease then they can't stay too often or move in. The same for those with kids too - but that may be a blessing ;-).

Calif guest law: What is the guest law in California?

Any guest residing on the property for more than 14 days in a six-month period or spending more than 7 nights consecutively will be considered a tenant. Anyone living on the property must be listed and sign the lease agreement. The landlord may increase the rent at any time a new tenant is added to the lease.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2024, 05:34:44 PM by spartana »

FlytilFIRE

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 92
  • Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2024, 05:37:56 PM »
You mention your siblings, who apparently live in close proximity to you, since they, too, help with your parents.  Any chance they might manage a rental for you (for a fee, of course)? Then you'd know the managers, and have peace of mind that the property was being watched. And they get some extra income, too!

As an aside, I had a rental in Texas for 30 years, and didn't even lay eyes on the property for 25 years. Had a series of rental managers, some better than others, but they were all at least competent enough to ensure that the house was kept up, and even reroofed and redecorated when it needed it.

cannotWAIT

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2024, 06:20:08 PM »
Wanted to add that often times rentals will limit the number of overnight guests and length of stays to just a few days per month unless they are on the lease too. Probably wouldn't effect the OP but may effect others considering renting you want longer term visitors. Some also require you to be there when you have overnight guests so that limits the house or pet sitter option unavailable.

Not sure how common that is but every lease I've ever had had a clause for that.  Last place I leased (from a private homeowner) had a 2 night/week guest clause and that seemed pretty normal even generous compared to other places. Even the seniors place my Mom bought had a clause in the covenant rules that only allowed 60 days per year. So if, like me, you're in a relationship and they aren't on the lease then they can't stay too often or move in. The same for those with kids too - but that may be a blessing ;-).

Calif guest law: What is the guest law in California?

Any guest residing on the property for more than 14 days in a six-month period or spending more than 7 nights consecutively will be considered a tenant. Anyone living on the property must be listed and sign the lease agreement. The landlord may increase the rent at any time a new tenant is added to the lease.

Holy crap. Well, I have been absorbing all the comments in this thread and opening my mind to the possibility of renting, but the door just slammed closed again with that! I LOVE not living with my partner. It is glorious. I feel like I am finally living the dream. I suppose I might change my mind when I start becoming frail but that's just more motivation to stay fit I guess. Wow.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20602
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2024, 06:32:48 PM »
Wanted to add that often times rentals will limit the number of overnight guests and length of stays to just a few days per month unless they are on the lease too. Probably wouldn't effect the OP but may effect others considering renting you want longer term visitors. Some also require you to be there when you have overnight guests so that limits the house or pet sitter option unavailable.

Not sure how common that is but every lease I've ever had had a clause for that.  Last place I leased (from a private homeowner) had a 2 night/week guest clause and that seemed pretty normal even generous compared to other places. Even the seniors place my Mom bought had a clause in the covenant rules that only allowed 60 days per year. So if, like me, you're in a relationship and they aren't on the lease then they can't stay too often or move in. The same for those with kids too - but that may be a blessing ;-).

Calif guest law: What is the guest law in California?

Any guest residing on the property for more than 14 days in a six-month period or spending more than 7 nights consecutively will be considered a tenant. Anyone living on the property must be listed and sign the lease agreement. The landlord may increase the rent at any time a new tenant is added to the lease.

Holy crap. Well, I have been absorbing all the comments in this thread and opening my mind to the possibility of renting, but the door just slammed closed again with that! I LOVE not living with my partner. It is glorious. I feel like I am finally living the dream. I suppose I might change my mind when I start becoming frail but that's just more motivation to stay fit I guess. Wow.

Interesting.

I'm not in the US, but I've never seen clauses like this in a rental lease, and apparently according to a quick google, they're not even legal in any of the jurisdictions where I own.

I'm amazed Americans tolerate such infringements on freedoms.




Log

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Location: San Francisco
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2024, 06:52:45 PM »
Wanted to add that often times rentals will limit the number of overnight guests and length of stays to just a few days per month unless they are on the lease too. Probably wouldn't effect the OP but may effect others considering renting you want longer term visitors. Some also require you to be there when you have overnight guests so that limits the house or pet sitter option unavailable.

Not sure how common that is but every lease I've ever had had a clause for that.  Last place I leased (from a private homeowner) had a 2 night/week guest clause and that seemed pretty normal even generous compared to other places. Even the seniors place my Mom bought had a clause in the covenant rules that only allowed 60 days per year. So if, like me, you're in a relationship and they aren't on the lease then they can't stay too often or move in. The same for those with kids too - but that may be a blessing ;-).

Calif guest law: What is the guest law in California?

Any guest residing on the property for more than 14 days in a six-month period or spending more than 7 nights consecutively will be considered a tenant. Anyone living on the property must be listed and sign the lease agreement. The landlord may increase the rent at any time a new tenant is added to the lease.

Holy crap. Well, I have been absorbing all the comments in this thread and opening my mind to the possibility of renting, but the door just slammed closed again with that! I LOVE not living with my partner. It is glorious. I feel like I am finally living the dream. I suppose I might change my mind when I start becoming frail but that's just more motivation to stay fit I guess. Wow.

Interesting.

I'm not in the US, but I've never seen clauses like this in a rental lease, and apparently according to a quick google, they're not even legal in any of the jurisdictions where I own.

I'm amazed Americans tolerate such infringements on freedoms.

Neither of the long-term leases I signed in NYC had any of these kinds of clauses, and I’ve lived in a hell of a lot of short-term sub-leases of a range of different levels of formality. My current rental (in California) has someone moving in and out seemingly every few months, and we just have one master tenant on the formal lease. What Spartans is describing might be allowed, but it’s certainly not the norm.

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2024, 07:31:26 PM »
Wanted to add that often times rentals will limit the number of overnight guests and length of stays to just a few days per month unless they are on the lease too. Probably wouldn't effect the OP but may effect others considering renting you want longer term visitors. Some also require you to be there when you have overnight guests so that limits the house or pet sitter option unavailable.

Not sure how common that is but every lease I've ever had had a clause for that.  Last place I leased (from a private homeowner) had a 2 night/week guest clause and that seemed pretty normal even generous compared to other places. Even the seniors place my Mom bought had a clause in the covenant rules that only allowed 60 days per year. So if, like me, you're in a relationship and they aren't on the lease then they can't stay too often or move in. The same for those with kids too - but that may be a blessing ;-).

Calif guest law: What is the guest law in California?

Any guest residing on the property for more than 14 days in a six-month period or spending more than 7 nights consecutively will be considered a tenant. Anyone living on the property must be listed and sign the lease agreement. The landlord may increase the rent at any time a new tenant is added to the lease.

Holy crap. Well, I have been absorbing all the comments in this thread and opening my mind to the possibility of renting, but the door just slammed closed again with that! I LOVE not living with my partner. It is glorious. I feel like I am finally living the dream. I suppose I might change my mind when I start becoming frail but that's just more motivation to stay fit I guess. Wow.

Interesting.

I'm not in the US, but I've never seen clauses like this in a rental lease, and apparently according to a quick google, they're not even legal in any of the jurisdictions where I own.

I'm amazed Americans tolerate such infringements on freedoms.

Neither of the long-term leases I signed in NYC had any of these kinds of clauses, and I’ve lived in a hell of a lot of short-term sub-leases of a range of different levels of formality. My current rental (in California) has someone moving in and out seemingly every few months, and we just have one master tenant on the formal lease. What Spartans is describing might be allowed, but it’s certainly not the norm.
I don't know how often it's actually enforced but it appears to be legal onncalif as of Jan 01, 2024. There's a lot of legal ramifications to both the landlord and to the tenant who's name is on the lease so I imagine that landlords would want to enforce it. Calif rental law generally favor the tenant over the landlord so it would be hard to evict a person once they are considered a tenant. I definitely understand the need for the law so don't find it to be onerous.
But, yeah, if I want a friend, BF, family member, house sitter or my local crazy homeless dude staying with me longer term I realise buying would be my best option.

Also Calif landlords can total refuse you from having ANY overnight guests. Not even for one night...ever. I see this for room rentals and housevshares all the time but don't think standard apt or house rentals have it. Although I've seen some that do but you have to ask the landlord for permission to have a guest overnight before hand.

"Can my landlord tell me I can't have visitors California?
California Law Does Not Protect Tenants From Landlords From Saying No To Overnight Guests. As an initial matter, no California law currently protects California tenants from landlords that wish to prohibit overnight guests.Apr 13, 2022
https://astanehelaw.com › 2022/04/13
As A San Francisco Tenant, Can My Landlord Say No To Overnight ...
« Last Edit: January 28, 2024, 07:37:59 PM by spartana »

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2024, 08:02:01 PM »
Wanted to add that often times rentals will limit the number of overnight guests and length of stays to just a few days per month unless they are on the lease too. Probably wouldn't effect the OP but may effect others considering renting you want longer term visitors. Some also require you to be there when you have overnight guests so that limits the house or pet sitter option unavailable.

Not sure how common that is but every lease I've ever had had a clause for that.  Last place I leased (from a private homeowner) had a 2 night/week guest clause and that seemed pretty normal even generous compared to other places. Even the seniors place my Mom bought had a clause in the covenant rules that only allowed 60 days per year. So if, like me, you're in a relationship and they aren't on the lease then they can't stay too often or move in. The same for those with kids too - but that may be a blessing ;-).

Calif guest law: What is the guest law in California?

Any guest residing on the property for more than 14 days in a six-month period or spending more than 7 nights consecutively will be considered a tenant. Anyone living on the property must be listed and sign the lease agreement. The landlord may increase the rent at any time a new tenant is added to the lease.

Holy crap. Well, I have been absorbing all the comments in this thread and opening my mind to the possibility of renting, but the door just slammed closed again with that! I LOVE not living with my partner. It is glorious. I feel like I am finally living the dream. I suppose I might change my mind when I start becoming frail but that's just more motivation to stay fit I guess. Wow.
I think your partner could spend time with you at your place (and you at theirs) but living together or being there often (say they own a place far away and snowbird/Sunbird at your place half the year) without them on the lease could be a problem if your landlord didnt allow it. Same if you wanted a house or pet  sitter while you travel. Im in both these situations and find owning works better. I imagine people who want to have their adult kids or aging parents move in or stay longer than allowed would face the same problems.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2024, 08:04:32 PM by spartana »

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2024, 10:58:05 PM »
Wanted to add that often times rentals will limit the number of overnight guests and length of stays to just a few days per month unless they are on the lease too. Probably wouldn't effect the OP but may effect others considering renting you want longer term visitors. Some also require you to be there when you have overnight guests so that limits the house or pet sitter option unavailable.

Not sure how common that is but every lease I've ever had had a clause for that.  Last place I leased (from a private homeowner) had a 2 night/week guest clause and that seemed pretty normal even generous compared to other places. Even the seniors place my Mom bought had a clause in the covenant rules that only allowed 60 days per year. So if, like me, you're in a relationship and they aren't on the lease then they can't stay too often or move in. The same for those with kids too - but that may be a blessing ;-).

Calif guest law: What is the guest law in California?

Any guest residing on the property for more than 14 days in a six-month period or spending more than 7 nights consecutively will be considered a tenant. Anyone living on the property must be listed and sign the lease agreement. The landlord may increase the rent at any time a new tenant is added to the lease.

Holy crap. Well, I have been absorbing all the comments in this thread and opening my mind to the possibility of renting, but the door just slammed closed again with that! I LOVE not living with my partner. It is glorious. I feel like I am finally living the dream. I suppose I might change my mind when I start becoming frail but that's just more motivation to stay fit I guess. Wow.

Interesting.

I'm not in the US, but I've never seen clauses like this in a rental lease, and apparently according to a quick google, they're not even legal in any of the jurisdictions where I own.

I'm amazed Americans tolerate such infringements on freedoms.

Neither of the long-term leases I signed in NYC had any of these kinds of clauses, and I’ve lived in a hell of a lot of short-term sub-leases of a range of different levels of formality. My current rental (in California) has someone moving in and out seemingly every few months, and we just have one master tenant on the formal lease. What Spartans is describing might be allowed, but it’s certainly not the norm.
I've rented in about 8 or 9 different states (maybe more!) and I think all had some kind of clause that limited the length of time guests could stay - as well as not allowing subletting. I only got dinged once in Alaska when a friend was staying with me longer then the lease allowed and my landlord told me they had to leave. I just assumed it was to protect the landlord from unauthorised people (whom the landlord didnt vett) from being able to move in or stay long term. Your situation sounds more like a roommate thing with new people moving in all the time and maybe the landlord allowed it. If I were a landlord like the OP is considering,  I would want to be able to control how many people lived there or stayed longer term without having a lease or rental agreement from them.

Freedomin5

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7261
    • FIRE Countdown
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2024, 11:29:28 PM »
Wanted to add that often times rentals will limit the number of overnight guests and length of stays to just a few days per month unless they are on the lease too. Probably wouldn't effect the OP but may effect others considering renting you want longer term visitors. Some also require you to be there when you have overnight guests so that limits the house or pet sitter option unavailable.

Not sure how common that is but every lease I've ever had had a clause for that.  Last place I leased (from a private homeowner) had a 2 night/week guest clause and that seemed pretty normal even generous compared to other places. Even the seniors place my Mom bought had a clause in the covenant rules that only allowed 60 days per year. So if, like me, you're in a relationship and they aren't on the lease then they can't stay too often or move in. The same for those with kids too - but that may be a blessing ;-).

Calif guest law: What is the guest law in California?

Any guest residing on the property for more than 14 days in a six-month period or spending more than 7 nights consecutively will be considered a tenant. Anyone living on the property must be listed and sign the lease agreement. The landlord may increase the rent at any time a new tenant is added to the lease.

Holy crap. Well, I have been absorbing all the comments in this thread and opening my mind to the possibility of renting, but the door just slammed closed again with that! I LOVE not living with my partner. It is glorious. I feel like I am finally living the dream. I suppose I might change my mind when I start becoming frail but that's just more motivation to stay fit I guess. Wow.

Interesting.

I'm not in the US, but I've never seen clauses like this in a rental lease, and apparently according to a quick google, they're not even legal in any of the jurisdictions where I own.

I'm amazed Americans tolerate such infringements on freedoms.

Neither of the long-term leases I signed in NYC had any of these kinds of clauses, and I’ve lived in a hell of a lot of short-term sub-leases of a range of different levels of formality. My current rental (in California) has someone moving in and out seemingly every few months, and we just have one master tenant on the formal lease. What Spartans is describing might be allowed, but it’s certainly not the norm.
I've rented in about 8 or 9 different states (maybe more!) and I think all had some kind of clause that limited the length of time guests could stay - as well as not allowing subletting. I only got dinged once in Alaska when a friend was staying with me longer then the lease allowed and my landlord told me they had to leave. I just assumed it was to protect the landlord from unauthorised people (whom the landlord didnt vett) from being able to move in or stay long term. Your situation sounds more like a roommate thing with new people moving in all the time and maybe the landlord allowed it. If I were a landlord like the OP is considering,  I would want to be able to control how many people lived there or stayed longer term without having a lease or rental agreement from them.

In Canada (Ontario), if you take on a roommate or a subtenant without notifying the landlord, they are considered an unauthorized occupant. As a landlord, it’s a problem because they have not been subjected to screening, a credit check, or a background check. Landlords can evict the unauthorized occupant and can potentially evict the authorized tenant for violating the terms of the lease. Of course, this is for long-term stays. For overnight guests, I don’t think there are strict rules.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2024, 11:31:11 PM by Freedomin5 »

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15935
  • Age: 15
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2024, 12:43:27 AM »
My mother is 93 and lives in her own home. She can’t walk very far by herself because she has balance problems, so she uses a walker. A couple of years ago this wasn’t the case, but my father was still alive, and he had enormous problems walking.

Over the years she has been able to modify her house frequently to facilitate continuing to live independently (which is very important to her). Grab rails in the bathrooms, magnets to hold the screen doors open so she can get her walker through… We’re currently working on replacing the gas hot plates with induction, so that if she leaves them on (which she occasionally does), she won’t burn the house down. Most of the modifications have been free or highly subsidised because they enable her to continue to live there rather than go into a nursing home.

However, if she was renting, most of these enhancements would be knocked back by a landlord because they’re unsightly and probably lower the house value.

She also spends as much time as she can in her garden (she can’t garden for more than half an hour at a time), which is one of the few activities she can still do. I am dreading the time when she’ll need to leave the house for some other accommodation. You can’t take a garden with you.

I think that when you get older, owning your home can become increasingly important.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4192
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #45 on: January 29, 2024, 01:00:25 AM »
Interesting.

I'm not in the US, but I've never seen clauses like this in a rental lease, and apparently according to a quick google, they're not even legal in any of the jurisdictions where I own.

I'm amazed Americans tolerate such infringements on freedoms.

I dunno. It seems fair to me that if someone is living in the house (insert your definition of living here: ____) they should be on the lease agreement. 

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20602
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #46 on: January 29, 2024, 04:27:52 AM »
Interesting.

I'm not in the US, but I've never seen clauses like this in a rental lease, and apparently according to a quick google, they're not even legal in any of the jurisdictions where I own.

I'm amazed Americans tolerate such infringements on freedoms.

I dunno. It seems fair to me that if someone is living in the house (insert your definition of living here: ____) they should be on the lease agreement.

Never in my many, many years of renting did I ever see this. I moved in to many places as a roommate and never needed to be added to a lease. The person on the lease was the one responsible, they were liable for the rent and care of the place.

When I lived in Quebec, landlords couldn't even limit subletting.

Freedomin5

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7261
    • FIRE Countdown
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #47 on: January 29, 2024, 05:27:54 AM »
Interesting.

I'm not in the US, but I've never seen clauses like this in a rental lease, and apparently according to a quick google, they're not even legal in any of the jurisdictions where I own.

I'm amazed Americans tolerate such infringements on freedoms.

I dunno. It seems fair to me that if someone is living in the house (insert your definition of living here: ____) they should be on the lease agreement.

Never in my many, many years of renting did I ever see this. I moved in to many places as a roommate and never needed to be added to a lease. The person on the lease was the one responsible, they were liable for the rent and care of the place.

When I lived in Quebec, landlords couldn't even limit subletting.

I’m not familiar with Quebec’s rental agreements. Ontario uses a standard Residential Tenancy Agreement (Standard Form of Lease) provided by the Ontario government. We use this form with our tenants. Section 14 specifically relates to Assignment and Subletting.

Per the Government of Ontario website:
This section explains that the tenant needs the landlord’s permission to assign or sublet the unit to someone else, and that the landlord cannot arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold consent.

This section cannot be changed. If the landlord and tenant wish to agree to additional details, these can be written out as additional terms in section 15.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/guide-ontarios-standard-lease

As a landlord, I have the right to add the additional tenant’s name to the lease. This happened to one of our tenants whose girlfriend moved in with him. We added her to the lease to keep everything clear  and aboveboard.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2024, 06:23:59 AM »
My understanding is that these provisions about “guests” is rooted in Common Law inhabitants’ rights. Regardless of whether a person is listed on the lease or not, after a long enough period where they primarily reside at one domicile (can be a month or a year) they are afforded similar legal protections. For example, if you are renting to a single person and get a call that he’s under arrest for domestic assault, it shouldn’t be too hard to evict him (as he committed a crime on your property). But if you discover that the victim and her child have been living there exclusively for several years, they have de facto renters rights and you may be unable to evict them from what is legally recognized as their domicile.

In other words - the law protects renters, other at the expense of landlords. So prudent landlords do everything they can to limit their liability.

Note: I’m not a lawyer, though I did co-habitate with one for several years. I am a landlord

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4208
  • Location: WDC
Re: Importance of owning a home in retirement/older years?
« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2024, 09:38:13 AM »
Interesting.

I'm not in the US, but I've never seen clauses like this in a rental lease, and apparently according to a quick google, they're not even legal in any of the jurisdictions where I own.

I'm amazed Americans tolerate such infringements on freedoms.

I dunno. It seems fair to me that if someone is living in the house (insert your definition of living here: ____) they should be on the lease agreement.

Never in my many, many years of renting did I ever see this. I moved in to many places as a roommate and never needed to be added to a lease. The person on the lease was the one responsible, they were liable for the rent and care of the place.

When I lived in Quebec, landlords couldn't even limit subletting.

Restrictions on leasing/renting/owning are everywhere in the US.  Most of the limitations I've encountered have been enforceable at an HOA level of governance.  Things like not allowing short-term rentals, and requiring the HOA to be included as a holder of any leases issued.  (my current HOA doesn't allow for less than a 12-month lease). 

Apartment buildings can restrict the number of keys / security fobs per unit based on the number of people on a lease.  So you can't really be a roommate without a key to get in. 

 One town I lived in barred more than 3 people with different last names to reside in a single property. 

Don't even get me started on the things governments can do to restrict car parking in my city.  Some people have rights, and some other people get to sell those rights to the highest bidder.  It's crazy!