Correction: Plumbing Clogs are Landlord’s Problem
If you're new here (and you like what you read), you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting! Scott
Like most landlords, I have learned most of what I know about tenants and toilets through my own 
experience and mistakes. Occasionally, I do learn a new trick from another landlord. Sometimes that learning comes because I asked a specific question of them when I was stuck on what to do, other times it comes when I am helping new investors buy property and the learning simply presents itself.
Previously I published a post regarding “Power Lease Clauses for Your Investment Property“. I had accumulated many of these clauses over time reviewing leases at Minnesota Investment properties that my customers were buying. While I am not an attorney, most of these clauses seemed reasonable and if the tenant was given this requirement up front, I assumed it was all legal and within statutes.
I enjoy reading Kelly Klein’s posts on the Star Tribune website. She is a real estate attorney in Minneapolis and answers questions from the public in her weekly column. Her November 14, 2008 column made me rethink the #1 clause I had on the above article. It said:
“All drains, waste pipes, and plumbing are accepted as clear by the tenant at the time of occupancy and any material blocking them after occupancy shall be repaired by the tenant except blockages caused by roots or backups from the street.”
All drains, waste pipes, and plumbing are accepted as clear by the tenant at the time of occupancy and any material blocking them after occupancy shall be repaired by the tenant except blockages caused by roots or backups from the street.
Again, I felt like this was not an unfair clause to put in a lease. I have experienced tenants pouring pans full of grease down the drain, not because they are trying to be malicious, but simply because they didn’t think it was a problem. Unfortunately, Kelly makes an argument (albeit brief) that in Minnesota, the landlord has the responsibility to “maintain the premises, which includes keeping the pipes and toilet in good working order”.
I am always willing to accept when I am wrong, but I think the clause is still usable and reasonable. The clause could be reworked to read:
“All drains, waste pipes, and plumbing are accepted as clear by the tenant at the time of occupancy and any atypical material (such as toys, clothing, diapers, etc) blocking them after occupancy shall be repaired by the landlord with tenant paying all costs of repairs.”
Again, I am not an attorney, but I think a reasonable person (ie: housing judge), would see the intent of this clause and probably give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me what you think!
Good point Scott. One thing she doesn’t mention and I could be wrong buuuttt. Say you had that clause in your lease. Your tenant puts grease toys etc down the toilet you fix it and send them an invoice they never pay. When they move out you simply keep the money from the deposit and sent them the lease clause. I would think that 90% would never pursue the matter and the 10% would have to go through the trouble of sueing (sp?) to recover that small portion of the deposit. Most never will so even if the law may be grey on how effective the clause is you likley will be able to recover the repair costs out of the deposit etc. Just my 2cents.
Good thought Scott. I agree, most tenants are not malicious but since most have never owned their own home, tend to not think twice when pouring things (ie - large jugs of grease which we have found MANY times in our properties…) down the drains.
Another thing we always want tenants to think about is the reporting of issues like plugged drains, running toilets, etc to the landlord ASAP before they become bigger issues and bills pile up. Maybe if they know they will be required to pay they will think twice!
I think tree roots are the landlord’s issue and must be fixed by him or her. Stuffing diapers (tenant caused issues) are really the tenant’s responsibility. Great post Scott!
I like this new phrase. The cost of plumbers is very expensive and many times a tenant has no idea how much it costs to have them come out and repair a clogged toilet. This clause would both make them aware of the cost and take more responsiblity to maintain things for themselves.
I like the point made by John Gall regarding retaining their deposit to cover the repair if they decide not to pay your invoice. I frequently withhold deposit money for damages and believe that money owed should be paid. These small things add up and are the difference between rental property ruining you financially and making a successful living at it.
The same is true in MD. I think you would be OK with the original clause but I think the revised version is much better.
In MD we use the term “as additional rent” as in “tenant paying all costs of repairs due as additional rent” the reasoning is they may be legally responsible for the repairs but unless it is actually rent, it can’t be used in rent court. Rent court is ONLY for rent in MD. It might be helpful in your state.
Ned Carey