The Eviction Process

Obviously, evicting a tenant is not a thrilling part of real estate investing for the tenant or the landlord. What follows is a description of the eviction process itself (especially as it pertains to what can be expected in Ohio), peppered with some of my personal comments with regards to how I typically handle evictions.

Generally, if I’ve not received rent monies from a tenant by the 8th or 9th of the month, I call the tenant. My leases stipulate that the tenant has a grace period until the 5th of the month to mail rent monies without being charged any type of late fee. As long as the envelope is postmarked by the 5th – no late fee. Allowing 3 or 4 days (from the 5th) for a tenant’s payment to arrive is pretty liberal and plenty of time to allow for the monies to be received from cross-town mail.

If upon a call to the tenant I believe we’re going to have problems, I immediately deliver a 3-day notice to the property. A copy of the notice is made before delivering. The 3-day notice is posted (taped) on the front door of the property if the tenant or other occupant is not there when it’s delivered. Any tenant that reaches this point (the starting of the eviction process), is advised that the 3-day notice is simply being posted as a way to protect my interests in the event the tenant doesn’t make good on the outstanding monies due.

Attaching a 3-day notice to the tenant’s door does not negatively affect the tenant’s public record. It’s not until the 3-day is formally filed that it becomes public record. The landlord cannot file for eviction until 3 business days have passed from the point the 3 day-notice was placed on the property. Once the 3 business days are up, the landlord can begin the formal eviction process. How does this start? You will take your paperwork, including a copy of the 3-day notice, and file to have an eviction hearing. I use an attorney to process all of my evictions. Specifically, one specializing in handling evictions. I personally prefer using an attorney that will try to remedy the situation with the tenant before the case is even heard. You don’t have to use an attorney – you can do a lot of this yourself and save a few bucks, but I recommend you use one. If you’ve never been to your local court system to witness eviction hearings, I highly recommend it. You’ll quickly get a flavor of what takes place during these hearings and will know what to expect ahead of time should you ever get to the point of processing an eviction on one of your own properties.

You can expect it take approximately two weeks before your hearing is scheduled. It’s important to note that I always keep the communication line open with the tenant through this whole process. I think this is extremely important. I want the tenant to know that I don’t like going down this path just as much as the tenant doesn’t. It’s not my goal just to boot a tenant out of the property. In fact, I try very hard to work out payment arrangements or even payment assistance resources with the tenant in an effort to get him or her back up on their feet. Yes it may take a little hand-holding and some of your extra time, but I’d say eight out of ten tenants going through this extra hand-holding will appreciate your trying to help and will ultimately clear their overdue balances with you. You walk a very fine line here with the tenant in that he or she may also be taking advantage of you. It can be a tough call. At times it can simply come down to relying on your gut feeling with the situation.

If judgement is taken (in your favor) at the hearing, the judge will give you permission to “red tag” the door. A red tag is just that – it’s bright red and has marked on it the date that possessions will be moved out of the property if the tenant has not vacated. The tenant has five days from tagging to get out of the property. It will usually take 2-3 business days after the court hearing for this tag to get placed on the front door of your property. Again, I keep the tenant abreast of my intentions during this process. You as the landlord call the shots with regards to whether or not any possible set-out occurs. I mention to the tenant that I still do not desire to set property out at the curb, and if payment arrangements can be made, the set-out can be averted. You will again have to make the call here. Do you want to accept only partial payment for what is owed and try to arrange a plan for payment on the extra monies? Or do you feel the tenant is just not going to make it, and in this instance, follow through with the eviction process?

The final step is the dreaded set-out. It’s extremely rare that I ever have to get to this point. If it comes this far, frankly the tenant deserves it. I’ve given them every opportunity within reason to try and remedy the situation or move out on their own accord. If the tenant has not moved out by the date stipulated on the red tag, you as the landlord have the right to order a set-out with the bailiff. Again, an attorney that specializes in evictions really helps here. In Columbus, Ohio, you only have a two hour window Monday-Friday to request and schedule a set-out. Additionally, the set-out must be scheduled within ten days following the red tag, or you have to order a supplemental red tag (more money).

When the set-out is requested (it’s generally a day and time agreed upon by you and the bailiff), you will be expected to have at least four people dedicated to setting furniture and belongings out of the house. You will also be required to have trash bags and boxes to pack items before removing them from the house. Good maintenance workers will be handy to have when you get to this point.

As you can see, evictions can be a rather drawn-out process that generally take a good three to four weeks to run their route. This is why I believe it’s very crucial to always maintain good communication lines with your tenant and try and be as professional as possible in handling the situation. It will be frustrating!…but try and keep an open mind into ways you can help your tenant get through this. A good positive attitude can go a long way to making this process less stressful to both you and the tenant!

Posted in general | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Eviction Process

Mandatory Provident Fund

Ideally, retirement means a person retire from their regular career; Enter a new life span to review what they have contributed to their profession through their early and middle adulthood. When a person entering retirement, they must enjoy the rest of their life, the fruitful harvest gain from their previous efforts and pursuing a new goal with their spare leisure time.

The beautiful picture of retirement can only be achieved if you are being protected with a good retirement protection, such as provident funds or personal savings. Without these schemes, I am afraid the retirement will only be a start of a nightmare. In fact, before the implementation of the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme, only about one-third of the work of 3.4 million people have some form of retirement protection.

Contribution from the advancement of education level, numerous breakthrough in the medical treatment, modern technology to combat the natural disasters and so on, Hong Kong's population is living much larger than before, but also getting older in a fast tempo. Nowadays, already ten percent of our population is aged 65 and above. By 2016 the proportion will be 13 percent and one senior citizen in every 5 people by 2035.

Without some way is found of funding the welfare and health needs of the growing population of elderly, a massive burden will fall on the shoulders of the taxable working population. Their wages will be heavily taxed to meet the claims. Without sufficient financial resources, the scarce resources will jeopardize the well medical services and welfare we are enjoying now, something must be done to cope with the predicted situation.

The Pathway to Retirement Protection — Mandatory Provident Fund

The World Bank has outlined a framework of the protection for the elderly, so called 'three pillars of old age protection'. This recommended that old-age programs should protect the old and also promote economic growth. The three pillows recommended by the World Bank are
Mandatory, privately managed, fully funded contribution scheme.
Publicly managed, tax-funded social safety net for the old.

Voluntary personal savings and insurance.

The SAR government is operating a Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, which provides basic social security to the needy, and after much debt it was decided in 1995 that the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) Scheme should be introduced, there was a reasonable argument as to the Best system for Hong Kong. With the introduction of MPF, complemented by personal savings, Hong Kong will have in place all the three pillows for old age protection.

Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme Order requires all employees (irrespective of their status as a temporary staff or part time worker) and self-employed persons to join a MPF scheme under which contributions will be saved for retirement. The ideology is to ensure people are adequately provided for upon reaching retirement age.

Employer and employee each pay 5 percent of an employee's monthly salary into a privately run pension plan. The MPF law gives an employee a range of investment choices under an employer's MPF scheme. Generally speaking, without other circumstances, the member can only collect the lump sum of the MPF benefits when they attain the retirement age of 65.

Problematic MPF?

Mandatory Provident Fund scheme which begins in December 2000, this scheme represents a starting point for coercing individuals to plan for their retirement. Beside helping to provide for the retirement needs of millions of people, the MPF is likely to radically reshape savings habits and investment attributions and it will extend the pension umbrella to the remaining two million employed by about 250,000 small and medium sized companies.

Different retirement protection systems have their advantages and disadvantages. After careful consideration, it is generally accepted that MPF best suits Hong Kong 'needs, but as we know, no system is prefect, MPF is no exception, this controversial policy has drawn many criticisms.

Libertarians claim the system run contrary to the Hong Kong spirit, as individuals and firms are coerced into savings decisions that are better placed to make alone.

Other claim Many workers with high mobility are able to avoid taxation by constantly changing employment and a lack of information about them would make it difficult to capture them in the MPF network.

Many more violations and oppositions have also targeted the MPF, in the following paragraphs; I will divide it into different aspects and analyze these practices and oppositions, so that we can get more detailed picture about this far-reaching policy.

Protection for all?

MPF is adding a pillar for our retirement protection; If it is true, it will consolidate the foundation of an enjoyable retiring life and the retired people are no longer worried living under poverty. In fact, will it really protect all future retired people in Hong Kong? It seems to be the most challenging questions and controversial part of the MPF policy. Will the scheme really protect the elderly, unemployed, housewives and so on? I will divide the question into four parts — high income group, low income group, no income group and young, middle and old aged worker to look for the answer for the above questions.

High income people

Before we consider who will benefit the most from the scheme, we should know what you get out of the scheme depends on what you put in. As a result, low-income workers will enjoy less protection than the higher paid worker.

Many high-income people are working large companies and occupying the middle, high or senior position. Since they are specialized in their relevant profession and they possess some kind of expertise knowledge in their working field, their bargaining power in the labor market are relatively higher, so their companies and organization will provide them many welfare and special allowances in order to lure them Staying in the company. Nearly all of them will enjoy a pleasant retirement even without the implementation of the MPF, since many of them have significant amounts of personal saving, high value property or investment and existing pension fund.

Now the MPF has been implemented, both employers and employees will have to pay a minimum contribution of 5% of relevant income, this group of people seems to be much protected and secured from the policy.

Low-income people

As the points illustrated above, low income workers will enjoy less protection than the higher paid because what you get out of the MPF scheme depends on what you put in.

The greatest untruth of the MPF is that a gross 10 percent deduction from salaries, capped at a maximum income of $ 20,000 a month that can make a meaningful dent in funding old age. This mandatory contribution level of the scheme is a good basis to start with, but it is not enough. People will need to pay more to get a better life in retirement. A simple example will illustrate more about the concept, for example, a young man who starts to pay into an MPF ​​plan at 20 years old with an average income of HK $ 15000 per month. Assuming the investment grows with 5 percent inflation, after 45 years of contributions, he would receive just HK $ 771429, that would leave him just HK $ 4300 per month for the 15 years after retirement, if we assuming he die at age 80 (the average life Expectation in Hong Kong).

We should remember most low-income workers are approaching only around $ 10000 or below per month. After many years of contributions, they would receive just around $ 2000-3000 a month. Also due to their income would berely cover their monthly expenses, they are without personal savings, their retirement may not be funded in a pleasant way, the effectiveness of the MPF scheme may not create a beautiful picture for this group of people.

The MPF scheme not only can not provide an effective retirement protection for them, but also create some difficulties and hardships for them. Some unscrupulous employers are avoiding pay extra for the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme by slashing wages and making their staff become self-employed. Many of these problems came from the catering and construction industries.

Since Hong Kong are still recovering from the 1997 Asia financial turmoil, the most hard hit industries (transports, catering, restaurants, construction, manufacturing) are still struggling, most low income workers are working in these sectors (an estimated 500,000 people are working in The construction and catering industries, which account for about 17 percent of the total work in the SAR). Some employers were 'playing tricks' to avoid their financial responsibility because the MPF is an additional cost for these employers. They only cut staff salaries to save costs rather than taking risks to break the law.

Some restaurant owners treated part of their staff wages as special allowances instead of basic salaries in an attempt to lower the employers' contribution. Others effectively cut salaries by imposing an unpaid holiday arrangement on staff. Some construction firms had modified staff into self-employed contractors to avoid liability. The affected construction workers would have no longer enjoy the benefits of MPF or other staff welfare scheme.

Transport employees are also affected by the scheme. A survey conducted by the Container Transportation Employees General Union members found 86 percent had experienced some reduction in pay and benefits by employers using the MPF as the reason. The cutbacks include reducing pay and benefits such as bonuses, travel allowances and telephone payments, signing new contracts that waive past years of services without compensations. They were forced to register as a business so they have self employed status. Since it is very difficult to find a job in the current climate, so they have to accept the new arrangement reluctantly in order to survive.

All those unscrupulous employers are not only exploiting these low-income workers that are also under the effects of the SAR government to build a fund fund system for Hong Kong.

We can see clearly the long-term benefits are far from the low-income workers, but the immediate negative consequences that they should face now, so there is no doubt why the most opposite voice is coming from this sector.

Protection for Young, Middle and Old aged People

The benefits from MPF not only depend on the salary input, but also depends on the choice of funds. The choice of fund may be greatly influenced by the age of employee and what you can collect after retirement. For example, a young worker can afford to invest more in high risk, higher reward funds because if markets tank, they have a long time to recover. By contrast, an employee close to retirement can not afford to risk short-term volatility taking a chunk out of his capital. Young workers seem to be the most benefit from the MPF scheme, compare with the middle or near retiring aged people. The majority of low income earners in their 40s and 50s have no chance of achieving what pension planners call a minimum replacement rate sufficient to fund a pleasant retirement, for example, a man who works for the next 25 years on the median wage of $ 10000 a Month may get only $ 1700 a month upon retirement, based on commonly quoted return rate of two percent, less than social security assistance for a single person.

Finally, as workers can not take any money back before reaching 65, and there are investment risks involved. The private sector rather than the government will manage the funds. The MPF in no way safeguards every citizen's right to the security of basic provisions in life.

No income group

Many people have criticized the MPF scheme which starts in December 2000, neglects the elderly, unemployed and women particularly housewives, since the MPF requires 'employer' and 'employee' to contribute to the scheme, so the well being of the no income people will not Be guaranteed.

MPF scheme as a compromise package that does not serve the well-being of the most vulnerable. There are now 600,000 people over 65 and in 1996, one quarter of people over 60 were living below the poverty line, with a monthly income of under $ 2500.

Women will also remain stuck in a dependent role under the MPF scheme, less than half of the labor forces coerced by the scheme are women because many are either workers workers or housewives. When they get old, they can only expect to relish on their husband, if they have one or obtain comprehensive social security assistance.

At present, Hong Kong is operating a Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, which offers basic social security to the needy. With the introduction of MPF, complemented by personal savings and CSSA, Hong Kong will indeed have in place all the three pillars for old age protection. In fact, it is far from saying that the scheme provides an effective retirement protection for all and easily believes the problem of elderly poverty will be eradicated.
Burden for investors in Hong Kong?

Hong Kong acts as a financial center in the world and playing a significant role in the Asia. The implementation of MPF will certainly affect the investors, no matter the multi-national investors, big business entrepreneur, small and medium sized enterprises.

Investors of big business

Big companies in order to recruit the talents from the labor markets, many of them have been offering various welfares for their employees, these including a well-sound pension system. Before the implementation of the MPF systems, many big companies have start selecting their company's MPF provider. For example, Swire Pacific said the process of selecting the company's provider began two years old. As one of the Hong Kong's largest companies, Swire are operating companies, such as Cathay Pacific Airways, hotel, trading, marine and properly-development and employing 25000 employees, for this kind of big companies, it is important to have a provider with a Sound administration system to deliver pension services to all their employees, since employees are the largest assets for these big business operators.

Large companies appeared to be concerned about their employees' statements when choosing a provider, it can reflect large companies seem to support MPF scheme and it come along with their existing pension policy, it seems not to create financial burdens for this kind of companies compare with Small and medium sized companies.

Investors of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)

Coming at a time when small and medium firms are struggling back into the black after the financial crisis, it is not surprising that the MPF is off to a shaky start. There is no doubt that the MPF presents an extra financial burden for companies that work on narrow profit margins when these kinds of companies were badly hit by the Asia financial turmoil. Small and medium sized businesses (SMEs) have protested vociferously over the MPF's introduction, insisting they can not afford it with the economy still recovering from recession.

Although MPF will extend the pension umbrella to the two million, employed by about 250,000 small and medium sized companies, the financial burden seems to be unbearable for the investors.

For small business investors, they are reluctance to join the scheme is not just about the financial burden. They also resented the time consumed by MPF decision-making and paper work because many of them were far too busy with the day-to-day business of running the firm to take on extra paper work.

How MPF scheme affects the Hong Kong 'economy?

MPF not only will have far reaching effects on the fund-management industry, service providers, but also the general economy. Since MPF is an investment programs, it will increase the pool of institutional funds invested in the SAR, broadening and deepening the financial markets, promoting their efficiency and theby economic growth, it will bring positive charges for financial market.

On the other hand, some people criticize the MPF scheme will eventually upset the flexibility of Hong Kong because workers can not take any money back before reaching 65 and there are investment risks involved. This compulsory saving scheme, unable an employee who leaves a company can get cash in a lump sum or use it to buy property or whatever and invest in other areas.

Conclusion

Although it is far from saying that MPF provides an effective retirement protection for all and older poverty will be eradicated, it really encourages people to save for their old age. No schemes are perfect, the MPF is no exception, but it is the scheme most suitable for Hong Kong 'needs. Since Hong Kong has a well-established and sound financial services sector. A privately managed retirement system under prudential regulation and oversight is the most effective and secure way offer retirement protection to the work. Also under a free competition environment, it tends to increase efficiency and reduce costs of operating the MPF scheme, which will benefit scheme members extremely.

Nowadays, a large part of the social welfare expenses are spending on the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), in the long run, MPF scheme may reduce the financial burden of CSSA, spare welfare expenses can be spent on other social welfare areas, every Citizens will benefit at large.

The scheme may be viewed with some skepticism at the moment, but after people have a chance to see the plan in action, attitudes towards long term saving and retirement should change. Then retirement could be something to look forward to with pleasure, rather than worry. But one thing should be bear in mind, our government should also take care of the most vulnerable people in our society as the paragraphs mentioned above, provide them with appropriate assistance, especially the low income people. Only with that, Hong Kong will be a better, fairer society for everyone to live in.

Posted in general | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Mandatory Provident Fund

Avoid Surprises When Your Restaurant Equipment Is Appraised

Appraising restaurant equipment often begs the question of which equipment is personal property – and should be valued for the purposes of the appraisal – or real property — as in, part of the real estate. While most folks have never considered whether a walk-in cooler, for example, is equipment or real estate, that’s a question that any restaurant equipment appraisal could discuss at some length. In general, equipment considered personal property includes all the free-standing equipment, such as ranges, warmers, stainless steel workstations, and most dining room furniture.

When restaurant equipment is installed, however, an appraiser must determine if the installed equipment should be considered personal property – which would be valued for the purposes of the appraisal – or real property – which would be considered part of the building and so not be valued as equipment in the appraisal. Installed equipment of this sort generally includes ventilation & fire suppression systems, refrigeration systems, and other attached items, the removal of which may cause damage to the property or create health code violations.

Determining the value of installed equipment depends, as many equipment appraisal questions do, on the appraisal premise of value. When appraising under an in-continued use scenario, for instance, the assumption is that assets will remain in-use at their current location as part of a going concern. In this case, it may be appropriate for the restaurant equipment appraiser to include the installed items and their related installation costs. If, on the other hand, the restaurant appraisal is being done for what could be an in-exchange or liquidation scenario (such as an appraisal for a bank loan collateral), then the assumption would be a piecemeal sale and the installed items would be less likely to be included.

Whatever the reason for a restaurant equipment appraisal — buy/sell, family law, collateral loan — it’s important to have a plan regarding installed equipment. And if the restaurant equipment appraisal is being done in conjunction with a real estate appraisal, as frequently happens, the respective appraisers should talk with each other to ensure that all of the subject assets to be included in the appraisals are being appropriately handled.

Now let’s discuss those 3 areas of installed equipment. And since a picture is worth a thousand words, I’ve included a few photos to illustrate the different types of equipment for which installation costs might or might not be included.

Ventilation Equipment

Typically the cook’s line area of a restaurant will have a ventilation hood, make-up air system, fire suppression system and fire alarm system specially designed for that specific location.

These items are custom designed based upon the overall square feet of the facility and its particular kitchen. The separate items are installed as a complete unit, on-site, and can make up a significant portion of the restaurant’s entire and original cost of initial equipment installation. And, as you might imagine, the cost of these expensive and specific installations is usually impossible to re-capture, especially in a liquidation scenario.

There are two reasons that ventilation and fire suppression equipment lose value: First, once the units have been connected together and attached to the building, they are difficult and costly to remove; compounding that is the fact that since the system was designed as a custom installation for a particular space, these units are unlikely to have any practical use in any other location.

Refrigeration Equipment

Installation issues related to refrigeration equipment are not as clear cut as with ventilation and fire suppression equipment, especially when it comes to walk-in coolers and freezers. Although many restaurant owners have never considered the fact that the walk-in coolers and freezers in their establishments may be part of the real estate and not equipment at all for purposes of their collateral lending appraisal, a fair number of restaurant walk-ins were indeed constructed in place and are considered part of the building.

One important part of the inspection process for any restaurant equipment appraisal, then, is to determine how permanent or removable a particular walk-in is. One great clue as to how removable a walk-in might be is the floor. Is the cooler floor grouted-in tile or poured concrete? It’s probably real estate. Many walk-ins, on the other hand, have raised floors and are obviously designed for easily disassembly and removal.

Other Attached Equipment

The same determination of removability v permanence applies to a variety of restaurant equipment, from dining furniture to shelving. Many items that are attached to the walls or floor (such as banquette seating, counters, or stainless steel shelving) may be claimed by the landlord as being real property. If damage could result from attempts to remove the equipment, the landlord may have a reasonable basis for the claim, not only to protect the real estate, but also to avoid health code violations. Health department inspectors can be very sensitive about holes in any surface where food may get stuck: they want all surfaces to be able to be easily wiped clean. So removing shelving or other restaurant equipment and leaving holes in the surface that the equipment was attached to could create a health code violation for the landlord, who would be responsible for any needed repairs.

Leased Equipment

Leased equipment, of course, is neither personal property nor real estate. The equipment appraiser needs to verify what equipment is leased and therefore not owned by the business owner or landlord. Typically, but not always, this includes dishwashers, soda fountains, coffee & tea service and sometimes POS machines (also known as point-of-sale) and telephone or intercom systems.

Questions on Equipment Installation Values

As usual, making the right call in regards to installation values in restaurant equipment appraisals comes down to good communication between the client and the various appraisers working on the project. The equipment appraiser should know the correct questions to ask and the appraisal client should expect the appraiser to ask them! When you are shopping for a restaurant equipment appraiser — whatever your reason for an equipment appraisal may be — expect an appraiser to ask these basic questions about installation costs. If the appraiser isn’t curious about leased equipment, real property and personal property, it may be a sign to do a little more shopping before choosing an equipment appraiser to value your restaurant equipment.

Posted in general | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Avoid Surprises When Your Restaurant Equipment Is Appraised