Add-on to Lease with a Felony background

My concern about the applicant, who just got out of prison a year ago, is driven by recent experience that ended very badly.

A resident became engaged and her fiance moved in. He had been living with her about 6 weeks. I met him and thought he was a great guy and they both seemed very happy.

They got into a big argument one night while he was drinking. He shot her in the back while she tried to get away from him.

It was on the news, in the newspaper and several residents, who work at the hospital down the street, found out about it and were scared to death.

He was arrested that same night. I testified at the trial about 3 months ago. He got 30 years for attempted murder.

If I had gotten the background check immediately, I would have found out he was on parole. What we would not have found out was he was also wanted in another state on a "murder-for-hire" charge. This would not have shown up on the background check.

The fiance was much like this resident. Educated, great job,stable, community volunteer and the ideal resident.

I deeply regret not enforcing our lease and asking for a background check immediately once I knew he had moved in. I would have evicted them according to the terms of the Lease Agreement and Resident Selection Criteria I had in place at that time.

The background check doesn't show everything. So, in my opinion, someone who has only been out of prison for a crime that involved a weapon for 1 year is a very, very high risk.

I don't think it is my place to call parole officers, or anyone else, to get a reference for new move-ins. I am considering several options, including asking the add-on for a letter of reference from the parole officer.

My instincts tell me to give them a notice to move. I have a waiting list and will get enough money with the rent increase over a 12-month period to more than pay for the cost to turn it.

We are still waiting for a call back from HUD and the owner's attorney to see if this would be a Fair Housing issue to accept the add-on after we have denied others with felony convictions, since convicted criminals are not a protected class.

This is a complicated situation and I appreciate everyone's input.

But Sandy, it's not complicated. Remaining consistent to following your already standard policy tells you exactly what you should do. It is when one deviates from standard protocol and starts interjecting personal, subjective opinion that problems occur. There are plenty of convicted, paroled individuals who are nice but that is my point. No one can predict with 100% accuracy human behavior. I would be shocked if your Owner's attorney will condone changing your policy to allow this person to move in, or worse, advises you allow it without even changing your written policies.

I would stick with policy for sure and not deviate from it. If there is a thinking that the rules need to change, then I would ask permission before hand. There are a couple of reasons here to consider:

1. The policy was put into place for a reason and normally policies are put in place to make sure things are fair and for safety reasons of property and residents.

2. In this society where people are always suing someone for this or that, you have a policy in place which covers protecting and to deviate means you are not only possibly putting the residents at risk, but the owners, management company, and yourself.

I read what Mindy wrote and she was spot on. It is different if there was no prior history and something happened. But if you have a prior history, then you have to go by what your operating proceedures direct you to do!

Sandy and I have discussed this issue; and, having her resident selection plan, I have suggested that it be modified going forward in regards to criminal and credit backgrounds in such a way as to make it perfectly clear what will be accepted and what cannot be. It should also leave no wiggle room for her to make 'judgment calls' like the one her owner wants her to make. Her current policy is too vague and is open to interpretations.

The issue with Fair Housing and Judgment Calls is that they do not mix well. When they do, it is a slippery slope with many potholes where fair housing complaints could have any traction.

She does have precedent for declining applicants for cause (verified criminal results match); and if you must decline one for cause (criminal match), you MUST decline ALL for same cause or risk a fair housing complaint.... 'You approved Joe Smith, and why not me? I know him and I spoke with him, we met in jail.' This simply opens her and her owner up to the potentential.

I am not saying anything will come of allowing or not allowing the additional applicant; just that there is too much potential liability to do anything BUT stick with the established policy.

Has there been an update to this situation, Sandy?

Update...

I sent them a letter stating:
1. I received his application and he failed the background check. I enclosed a copy of the background check and told her to contact me if it was not correct.
2. He does not qualify to live here and sent a copy of our Resident Selection Criteria (thanks for the help on it, Johnny).
3. She violated the lease and I quoted the lease paragraph about getting prior approval before moving someone in.
4. Since she's been a good tenant, I gave her an option to sign a 30 Day Notice to Vacate or face eviction proceedings. I also gave her 45 days to move, which she waived.
5. If she signed the notice to vacate, her record would not reflect the lease violation.
6. Waived the early termination fee and refunding the security deposit less anything owed, if she signed the Notice to Vacate. She also has to pay rent for the days occupied for us to waive the early termination fee.


She signed the Notice to Vacate and is moving August 31st. I am so happy she is going quietly. As long as I have the Notice to Vacate signed, I believe we will be protected from any future lawsuit she may try to file.

I believe she understands because he's probably had trouble finding jobs, too, with his background. She's probably done reseach on this, too, and found it is common practice.

She's a wonderful person and I wish them both the best, but this is how it had to be.



This way, I know what day she is vacating so I can schedule another move-in. I have a waiting list, so the apartment is already leased at $65 per month higher.

There will be a minimum turnover cost and loss to vacancy. We will actually make more money over a 12-month period by her moving out and leasing it at the current rates.

The owner is happy!!!

Now you have precedent with the owner established if this happens again; and a little more credibility. This is a good thing and it is keeping your owner out of potentially hot water; which should make him ectatic as opposed to merely satisfied (much like the court scene in Philadelphia with the client that was 'pleased' with the work of the Tom Hanks character).....