Latest news with #rentalproperty
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Making $25K A Month At 23 — But Still Wondering When The Money Enjoyment Starts
Many ambitious young adults save their money and put it to work in various investments. Financial discipline will give you more choices later in life, but some people feel like they can't enjoy any of their money in their 20s. A 23-year-old finds himself in this situation despite earning $25,000 per month after taxes. He has a girlfriend and is planning to propose to her before he turns 25. He's even debt-free, excluding a $1,000 monthly payment for his Hyundai Santa Fe. Those payments end in 2028. He has a $500,000 net worth, excluding his vehicle, and he even has a rental property. To top it all off, he's only paying $350 per month in rent and lives in a country with a low cost of living. Despite the strong financial advantage, he doesn't feel ready to enjoy any of his money. Don't Miss: Accredited Investors: Grab Pre-IPO Shares of the AI Company Powering Hasbro, Sephora & MGM— $100k+ in investable assets? – no cost, no obligation. "When is it safe for me to 'splurge' and stop overthinking about investments all the time?" he asked on Reddit. Several high earners jumped in the comments and shared their thoughts about enjoying some of their money while building long-term wealth. Find Your Balance Spending all of your money will prevent you from making any progress with long-term financial goals, but if you penny-pinch your entire life, you may not live a fulfilling life. The 23-year-old seems to have financial discipline, but it may be worth spending some money from time to time. The 23-year-old should consider all of the ways that he wants to spend money. He's mentioned a $73,000 Porsche and a $400,000 house as the two things he wants to splurge on in the future. The Porsche is a splurge since it's not essential. However, a $400,000 house will be valuable when the 23-year-old wants to start a family. He may want to consider buying the house after he has confirmed that his girlfriend is the one and married her. He can still spend money on some things, like one or two vacations per year, depending on his preferences. He has the money to afford many expenses, and with strong financial discipline, he can enjoy life while building his portfolio. Trending: 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. You can Keep Investing And Building Your Income Many Redditors encouraged the 23-year-old to continue investing and building his income. Continuing to build his finances shouldn't discourage him from spending money on things that he enjoys. It's tremendous to see a 23-year-old earning $25,000 per month after taxes, and if he got that far, chances are he can scale his income higher. We don't know any details about his e-commerce business, but it is good to capitalize on the opportunity while it's hot. Some e-commerce businesses get replaced by Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) knock-offs, while others see a sudden drop in traffic due to one of Google's SEO updates. The e-commerce business owner shouldn't kick back and relax, but he can spend some of his money on things that he enjoys. It's undeniable that he is ahead of his peers. He should keep doing what he's doing while purchasing some of the things that he wants to Happens After The Splurging? The 23-year-old only has two big splurge purchases in mind. The house makes sense when he's married. He may want to get the Porsche right before getting married, since those plans may change upon getting married. Some people dream of getting supercars but opt against them after they get married and have kids. It all depends on how much he wants the Porsche because money isn't an issue. However, he may not have much splurging left after a car and a house. He has mentioned vacations, but his annual vacation bills likely won't be anywhere close to the $73,000 Porsche he's looking at. You don't have to spend money to have a good life, and you don't have to spend more than what you make each month. The e-commerce business owner is in a good spot and may want to enjoy some of his money. However, it's important for him to invest more than he spends. Given his income and living costs, that is a realistic goal. Read Next: Many are using retirement income calculators to check if they're on pace — Image: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? (AMZN): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Making $25K A Month At 23 — But Still Wondering When The Money Enjoyment Starts originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
ABC News
4 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
Desperate mother struggles to find home in WA's Kimberley with zero properties to rent
For the past couple of years, Billie Mills has wanted a suitable house to rent in Western Australia's north for herself and her two children. But the 39-year-old feels lucky to have a single room in her share house in Kununurra, 3,000km north of Perth in the remote East Kimberley. "There were periods when I was sleeping in my car, out of my swag, and couch surfing," she said. Ms Mills works full-time in Kununurra, a town with more than 5,000 residents but no properties available for rent. Out of the East Kimberley Real Estate office, the window displaying Kununurra properties for rent is empty. "We don't have anything to advertise or to offer anyone who's looking for a rental," the agency's Jill Weller said. Ms Weller said the situation was "dire" and even harder for those who were not "preferred" tenants. At least half of her office's rental roll was made up by corporate clients, including government agencies and private companies looking to secure housing for employees, she said. The tenancies are seen as more "secure" by local landlords. The state's Government Regional Officer Housing (GROH) program manages 319 dwellings across Kununurra and the neighbouring town of Wyndham. Of those, more than half (167) are leased from the private market. Housing Minister John Carey said the GROH program was crucial in ensuring regional communities attracted and retained government workers, including teachers and police. Six GROH houses were built in Kununurra over the 2024-25 financial year as part of a $104 million funding injection across the state. The Department of Communities did not respond to the ABC's questions regarding the number of GROH houses currently vacant in the East Kimberley. In addition to vacant houses, there are GROH houses with multiple bedrooms allocated to a single tenant. A Kununurra GROH tenant, who requested anonymity to protect their employment, said they were allocated a house with extra rooms they did not need. "I was very happy to have just the one bedroom," they said. "We take what's available." Despite providing a valuable service, they said the guarantee of secure housing sparked resentment from local recruits not eligible for the scheme. The tenant said they moved to the East Kimberley to contribute to the community but would not have without secure housing. Real Estate Institute of Western Australia vice president Joe White said corporate leases made "a critical situation more drastic". "When a mining company or government agency needs to rent a house, they can afford to pay more because they're not limited," he said. "They will invariably bid higher and you see rents increase." Kununurra's median rental price is $730 per week, nearly double what it was in 2021. Mr White said the most vulnerable paid the highest price in the current rental crisis. "Every time a high-paid person comes into the community, the next most-vulnerable finds themselves on the street. "The true figures are hidden because invariably they end up in share houses, living in garages or they leave town." Ms Mills is one of those paying the price — working full-time but unable to secure a suitable home for herself and her children. She said she wanted to stay in the Kimberley.
Arabian Business
23-07-2025
- Business
- Arabian Business
Dubai real estate: What is illegal subletting? Experts warn against shared flats, lease breaches
Subletting or partitioning a rental property in Dubai without approval from the landlord and authorities is against the law. Yet, the practice continues to remain common in parts of the city, real estate experts told Arabian Business, driven by rising rents and demand for affordable housing. Authorities have ramped up inspections in recent months, targeting unlicensed shared housing and warning of safety risks, overcrowding, and violations of building codes. That said, knowing the rules is critical to avoid fines, eviction, and legal disputes – for tenants and landlords alike. So, what exactly is considered illegal subletting or partitioning in Dubai? PP Varghese, Head of Professional Services at Cushman & Wakefield Core, defines illegal subletting as the act of tenants renting out parts of their leased property without proper authorisation from the landlord or relevant authorities. 'Specifically, this includes converting living rooms, balconies, or storage areas into bedrooms, installing makeshift partitions that block emergency exits, or subdividing units beyond their approved capacity. Dubai Municipality's regulations are clear that any structural changes require proper permits and must comply with fire safety, ventilation, and occupancy standards,' he told Arabian Business. Echoing the sentiment, Svetlana Vasilieva, Head of Sales – Secondary, at Metropolitan Premium Properties explained that 'a tenant cannot sublet or share an apartment without written permission from the landlord.' She added that many tenants sublet properties temporarily to avoid breaching contracts during relocation or to share rent costs in high-rent areas. Why does illegal subletting continue? Varghese pointed to economic conditions that make unauthorised subletting attractive to both tenants and landlords. 'The fundamental issue is an economic arbitrage opportunity created by Dubai's rental market dynamics,' he said, adding that residents often prioritise access to soft infrastructure such as retail outlets, public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, and employment hubs. These amenities are typically found in central locations, which also come with high rental prices. 'For tenants, sharing the cost of a centrally located unit makes premium areas accessible at individually affordable rates. For landlords, subdividing units allows them to achieve rental yields significantly higher than standard lease rates – sometimes 150–200 per cent of normal rental income for the same space,' Varghese said. According to Varghese, the economic incentives are 'powerful enough' that some landlords and tenants are willing to accept regulatory risks. Vasilieva also agreed that affordability plays a role. 'There are multiple reasons such as lack of awareness about the regulations, rent affordability – especially in high rent areas by sharing the cost of rent. Often, tenants need to relocate temporarily and in order not to breach the rental contract, the apartment is being sublet for a short period of time,' she said. Which Dubai areas are most affected? Older parts of Dubai report high levels of unauthorised subletting and partitioning, both experts said. According to Vasilieva, areas such as Al Rigga, Deira, and Satwa are among the most affected. She also noted that villas in Jumeirah and larger apartments in Dubai Marina are commonly sublet, especially by younger bachelors and new arrivals. In addition, Varghese explained that the areas most affected are 'typically those that offer the best combination of central location, soft infrastructure access, and rental arbitrage opportunities.' Parts of Bur Dubai, Sheikh Zayed Road, and Jumeirah Lake Towers are also locations with 'see significant illegal subletting activity.' Aside from this, Varghese also listed mid-tier areas with affordable base rents but strong connectivity, including Al Qusais, International City, Discovery Gardens, and parts of Business Bay. 'Interestingly, we're seeing increasing violations in newer developments across various emirates where the economics work favourably – areas that combine reasonable base rental rates with strong connectivity to employment centres and urban amenities,' he said, adding that the pattern consistently follows 'locations where the gap between individual affordability and area desirability creates the most profitable arbitrage opportunities for landlords.' What are the legal consequences? There is a clear legal framework in Dubai on the matter. Article 25 (1)(b) of Law No. 26 of 2007 states that unauthorised subletting is a breach of contract. 'This entitles the landlord to seek eviction of both the tenant and subtenant,' Vasilieva said, adding that if the sublease generates higher revenue than the original tenancy agreement, landlords must file a case at the Rental Dispute Centre to recover the financial difference between the revenue earned from the sublease and the rent stipulated in the original tenancy agreement. 'The landlord may pursue a claim for compensation, these are in addition to any orders issued,' she said. Varghese added that penalties for violations can include fines of up to AED 50,000, with additional fines for overcrowding starting from AED 10,000 per incident. However, there are more repercussions than just a penalty, he added. 'Violations create a documented history with authorities that can complicate future property management and leasing activities,' he said. 'Properties with a history of illegal partitions or overcrowding may face higher scrutiny, lower valuations, and difficulty in sale. Insurance claims may be denied for properties with unauthorised modifications, and owners may face civil liability for safety incidents.' What are the other risks? Another risk is safety concerns – a major issue highlighted by the experts. Varghese explained that illegally partitioned units often result in overloaded electrical systems, blocked fire exits, and inadequate ventilation. 'In emergencies, these unregulated layouts can be life-threatening,' he said, adding that the Civil Defense has 'repeatedly flagged illegal partitions as a fire hazard.' Vasilieva further explained blocked ventilation and emergency exits are among the most common safety risks in such units. Are tenants aware of what is legal? 'It's a responsibility of the landlord to inform the tenants what is allowed in a shared house,' Vasilieva said, stressing that clear terms and conditions should be outlined in tenancy agreements. 'Many new expats don't realise that sharing a flat is only legal when the landlord consents and partitions are approved,' Varghese said, adding that lack of awareness often leaves tenants vulnerable to eviction, even if they have paid rent on time. However, regular inspections carried out by Dubai Municipality has reduced the opportunities for illegal subletting. 'Dubai Municipality conducts regular inspections and responds to public complaints. Enforcement has strengthened, but given the demand for low-cost housing, some illegal setups persist,' he explained, concluding that recent efforts to digitise building permits and track inspections are helping to close enforcement gaps.
CTV News
22-07-2025
- Business
- CTV News
Buyers of B.C. rental property not on the hook for $65K payment to evicted tenants: judge
A B.C. landlord who sold a rental property failed to convince a judge the buyers – who never moved into the home – should be on the hook for compensating wrongfully evicted tenants, according to a recent decision. Justice Anita Chan ruled on the dispute Friday, upholding a decision of B.C.'s Residential Tenancy Branch awarding $65,000 in compensation to the former renters. In 2022, Mohan Sull, the landlord, was renting the North Vancouver home to Thomas and Rozette Trevitt for $5,650 a month, the court heard. Sull entered into an agreement to sell the property and served the tenants with a two-month notice of eviction because 'the buyers intended to occupy the property,' according to the decision. But the buyers never moved in. 'The buyers undertook extensive renovations. The city in March 2023 issued a stop-work order. The buyers did not obtain the proper permits until May 2024. I understand the property is still fully gutted with no one residing there currently,' the judge wrote. The ousted renters successfully challenged their eviction on the grounds that the 'stated purpose of the notice to end tenancy was not accomplished,' the decision said. Buyers were not 'purchasers;' sale was conditional Sull was seeking a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision on a number of grounds, including that it was the buyers – not him – who should have to pay. 'The buyers had possession of the property and did not occupy it. The landlord argues he has no control over the property and he ought not to be held liable,' Chan wrote, summarizing the crux of Sull's submission on that point. The judge's decision explained that the arbitrator had already considered and dismissed this argument, finding that the buyers did not 'meet the definition of purchasers' in the Residential Tenancy Act. The legislation defines a purchaser as someone who has agreed to purchase 'at least half of the full reversionary interest in the property' and the arbitrator found that criteria was not met in this case, according to the judgment. That was because the deal was a five-year 'option to purchase' agreement. The buyers put down $100,000 and agreed to pay a monthly interest fee of $5,800 for the next five years or until they decided to complete the purchase of the property. 'If there was an agreement to terminate the contract, the down payment and any additional payments were to be returned to the buyers,' the decision explained. Even if the buyers were 'purchasers,' the arbitrator found the landlord was not legally entitled to evict the tenants. A landlord who has sold a property can end a tenancy but only if 'all the conditions on which the sale depends have been satisfied,' the decision explained. Because of the nature of the agreement, the sale of the property was 'at its core' a conditional sale unless and until the option to purchase was exercised. 'The arbitrator emphasized that the wrongful act was not that the buyers had not occupied the property, but rather that the tenants ought not to have had their tenancy terminated in the first place,' the decision said. The judge agreed on this point. 'The landlord was not entitled to provide the two-month notice to end tenancy, as there was no unconditional sale of the property,' Chan wrote. Unenforceable clause Sull also argued to the arbitrator and again to the judge that the eviction was legal and justified because of a clause written into the lease that read 'tenant and owner both agree to give two full calendar months written notice, when they plan to end the lease.' The problem with that argument, the judge noted, was that it was an 'impermissible opting out of the mandatory provisions of the (Residential Tenancy Act) because 'a landlord cannot end a tenancy by providing two months' written notice for any reason.' The legislation lays out specific circumstances in which a landlord can end a tenancy and leases which 'attempt to avoid or contract out' of those legal obligations are 'of no effect,' according to the decision. 'The arbitrator found that (the) clause was an attempt by the parties to increase the circumstances by which the landlord can end the tenancy,' the decision said. The judge agreed with this assessment and found the arbitrator's decision, as a whole, was reasonable in the circumstances. Wrongfully evicted tenants in circumstances like these are generally entitled to compensation equivalent to 12 months of rent. In this case, that worked out to $67,800 but the judge noted an award of $65,000 as the maximum allowable for a dispute settled by the Residential Tenancy Branch.
CTV News
22-07-2025
- Business
- CTV News
B.C. landlord must pay evicted tenants $65K, court rules
A B.C. landlord who sold a rental property failed to convince a judge the buyers – who never moved into the home – should be on the hook for compensating wrongfully evicted tenants, according to a recent decision. Justice Anita Chan ruled on the dispute Friday, upholding a decision of B.C.'s Residential Tenancy Branch awarding $65,000 in compensation to the former renters. In 2022, Mohan Sull, the landlord, was renting the North Vancouver home to Thomas and Rozette Trevitt for $5,650 a month, the court heard. Sull entered into an agreement to sell the property and served the tenants with a two-month notice of eviction because 'the buyers intended to occupy the property,' according to the decision. But the buyers never moved in. 'The buyers undertook extensive renovations. The city in March 2023 issued a stop-work order. The buyers did not obtain the proper permits until May 2024. I understand the property is still fully gutted with no one residing there currently,' the judge wrote. The ousted renters successfully challenged their eviction on the grounds that the 'stated purpose of the notice to end tenancy was not accomplished,' the decision said. Buyers were not 'purchasers;' sale was conditional Sull was seeking a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision on a number of grounds, including that it was the buyers – not him – who should have to pay. 'The buyers had possession of the property and did not occupy it. The landlord argues he has no control over the property and he ought not to be held liable,' Chan wrote, summarizing the crux of Sull's submission on that point. The judge's decision explained that the arbitrator had already considered and dismissed this argument, finding that the buyers did not 'meet the definition of purchasers' in the Residential Tenancy Act. The legislation defines a purchaser as someone who has agreed to purchase 'at least half of the full reversionary interest in the property' and the arbitrator found that criteria was not met in this case, according to the judgment. That was because the deal was a five-year 'option to purchase' agreement. The buyers put down $100,000 and agreed to pay a monthly interest fee of $5,800 for the next five years or until they decided to complete the purchase of the property. 'If there was an agreement to terminate the contract, the down payment and any additional payments were to be returned to the buyers,' the decision explained. Even if the buyers were 'purchasers,' the arbitrator found the landlord was not legally entitled to evict the tenants. A landlord who has sold a property can end a tenancy but only if 'all the conditions on which the sale depends have been satisfied,' the decision explained. Because of the nature of the agreement, the sale of the property was 'at its core' a conditional sale unless and until the option to purchase was exercised. 'The arbitrator emphasized that the wrongful act was not that the buyers had not occupied the property, but rather that the tenants ought not to have had their tenancy terminated in the first place,' the decision said. The judge agreed on this point. 'The landlord was not entitled to provide the two-month notice to end tenancy, as there was no unconditional sale of the property,' Chan wrote. Unenforceable clause Sull also argued to the arbitrator and again to the judge that the eviction was legal and justified because of a clause written into the lease that read 'tenant and owner both agree to give two full calendar months written notice, when they plan to end the lease.' The problem with that argument, the judge noted, was that it was an 'impermissible opting out of the mandatory provisions of the (Residential Tenancy Act) because 'a landlord cannot end a tenancy by providing two months' written notice for any reason.' The legislation lays out specific circumstances in which a landlord can end a tenancy and leases which 'attempt to avoid or contract out' of those legal obligations are 'of no effect,' according to the decision. 'The arbitrator found that (the) clause was an attempt by the parties to increase the circumstances by which the landlord can end the tenancy,' the decision said. The judge agreed with this assessment and found the arbitrator's decision, as a whole, was reasonable in the circumstances. Wrongfully evicted tenants in circumstances like these are generally entitled to compensation equivalent to 12 months of rent. In this case, that worked out to $67,800 but the judge noted an award of $65,000 as the maximum allowable for a dispute settled by the Residential Tenancy Branch.
