Property rentals Forum

ArmyRN · Post by **ArmyRN** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:40 am

I am 28 years old, since graduating college I have purchased and currently rent out/manage two properties. Is this something I should include on my resume, include in employment history on the application, or it comes across as gloating and I should just keep this information to myself?

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 7:42 am

I am 21 years old, since birth I have purchased and managed/transferred four parrots, one dog, and three goldfish. Is this something I should include on my resume, include in employment history on the application, or it comes across as gloating and I should just keep this information to myself?

illiniguy1551 · Post by **illiniguy1551** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:44 am

^ Kinda douchey.

I have a similar number of rental properties. I put "real estate investments" as the first interest on my resume, since making a separate position might be a bit much. It usually comes up in interviews and being able to talk about something not common to most law students is nice. It has been particularly effective when spinning into a "I generate my own income this way, I'd do the same thing in law" with secondary markets/small law firms. In my experience, it has only been a good thing and shows maturity, especially when you can talk about how fixing up a property can "turn a blighted neighborhood around" (if applicable). Just don't use the word landlord and stress a very pro-tenant philosophy in how you conduct business.

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:00 am

If I'd been given room to plug in more creative details it could be funnier. I just don't get it why renting properties can remotely count as employment history. Were you salaried and did you pay income tax for it?

viz-luv · Post by **viz-luv** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:07 am

ihenry wrote:If I'd been given room to plug in more creative details it could be funnier. I just don't get it why renting properties can remotely count as employment history. Were you salaried and did you pay income tax for it?

Actually managing rentals can be a lot of work.

Op - sure put it on resume if you do manage them. This is more important when job searching than getting into law school though. I have my experience managing on mine and it was a definite plus to explain why real estate and show some experience (I had to do things like evictions and amending contracts though so I had something to talk about that was very law related).

Maplesyrup · Post by **Maplesyrup** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:08 am

lol was he salaried? he owns the house and they pay him rent...

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:14 am

Maplesyrup wrote:lol was he salaried? he owns the house and they pay him rent...

But that's not employment is it? I always get asked about company, position, contact, etc. when talking about employment. My family have properties on rental too and frankly I think if that counts as employment, so do trading stock and raising (expensive) home pets and transferring them.

ArmyRN · Post by **ArmyRN** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:46 am

Thanks for the advice. I'll just put real estate under interests. Luckily, no evictions yet.

There is a difference between your family(parents) owning them and you buying/managing them yourself.

Employer: Nurse Properties
Position: CEO
Income: Similar to a T4 grad salary (granted there is a difference between income and profit). Of course I have to pay taxes.

Hope that helps you understand

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:51 am

ArmyRN wrote:Thanks for the advice. I'll just leave it off, but if I'm asked about my interests in an interview I'll bring it up. There is a difference between your family(parents) owning them and you buying/managing them yourself.

Employer: Nurse Properties
Position: CEO
Income: Similar to a T4 grad salary (granted there is a difference between income and profit). Of course I have to pay taxes.

Hope that helps you understand

Alright then, as long as you truthfully disclose/explain when asked I don't see why not.

RaceJudicata · Post by **RaceJudicata** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 10:08 am

Absolutely put it on your resume. Do you own the homes under an LLC? If so, list that as your "employer."

Also, don't be afraid to gloat on a resume, that is the point. Of course, don't be a jerk and put your high school if you went to Dalton or other ridiculous/meaningless accomplishments. But owning property, renting it out, while concurrently working at another job is certainly resume worthy and says a lot about your work ethic.

Lawdork · Post by **Lawdork** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:13 pm

Not to hijack, but what if you own stocks and while you didn't pick out the individual stocks, you picked out the investment firm to handle it. Should i put stock investor under interests?

It wouldn't be a lie, i follow cnbc, yahoo finance, etc., so i would be able to talk about the market if asked during an interview. But I'm worried that it would sound douchey.

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:18 pm

RaceJudicata wrote:Absolutely put it on your resume. Do you own the homes under an LLC? If so, list that as your "employer."

Also, don't be afraid to gloat on a resume, that is the point. Of course, don't be a jerk and put your high school if you went to Dalton or other ridiculous/meaningless accomplishments. But owning property, renting it out, while concurrently working at another job is certainly resume worthy and says a lot about your work ethic.

Well, just because something shows "work ethics" does not mean it justifiably counts as employment. If I'm not mistaken there is legally a fine line between employed and not employed. Like, when you apply for housing loans with the bank, sign a contract as guarantor or apply for immigrant permit, you have to prove you are legally employed, and to say "I have two properties and I collect rents" is probably not enough. In all countries I lived in this is best indicated by the contribution to some "fund" which covers your retirement.

Surely, if OP can convince all relevant parties that this indeed is employment using truthful information then there's no need to persuade us. Otherwise, it is misleading at best.

ArmyRN · Post by **ArmyRN** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:12 am

Well, just because something shows "work ethics" does not mean it justifiably counts as employment. If I'm not mistaken there is legally a fine line between employed and not employed. Like, when you apply for housing loans with the bank, sign a contract as guarantor or apply for immigrant permit, you have to prove you are legally employed, and to say "I have two properties and I collect rents" is probably not enough. In all countries I lived in this is best indicated by the contribution to some "fund" which covers your retirement.

^ Such a grump. You are stuck on this "employer" issue. Just because someone is ambitious and does not work for the man does not mean that he is unemployed. Are you trying to say a man who owns eight properties and collects 8k/month from the rent each month is going to be denied a loan over an attorney making 80/k year while 100k in debt? In addition to the first guy making more, he also has tangible assets that make him a better candidate for a loan. I believe the term one would use on a home loan or immigrant application would be: self-employed, entrepreneur, or the man.

Surely, if OP can convince all relevant parties that this indeed is employment using truthful information then there's no need to persuade us. Otherwise, it is misleading at best.

It may come as a shock, but I do have to claim my income from my properties each year when doing my taxes.

@Lawdork - you could list investing-stocks under an interests/hobbies section on your resume.

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:43 am

ArmyRN wrote:
Well, just because something shows "work ethics" does not mean it justifiably counts as employment. If I'm not mistaken there is legally a fine line between employed and not employed. Like, when you apply for housing loans with the bank, sign a contract as guarantor or apply for immigrant permit, you have to prove you are legally employed, and to say "I have two properties and I collect rents" is probably not enough. In all countries I lived in this is best indicated by the contribution to some "fund" which covers your retirement.
^ Such a grump. You are stuck on this "employer" issue. Just because someone is ambitious and does not work for the man does not mean that he is unemployed. Are you trying to say a man who owns eight properties and collects 8k/month from the rent each month is going to be denied a loan over an attorney making 80/k year while 100k in debt? In addition to the first guy making more, he also has tangible assets that make him a better candidate for a loan. I believe the term one would use on a home loan or immigrant application would be: self-employed, entrepreneur, or the man.

Surely, if OP can convince all relevant parties that this indeed is employment using truthful information then there's no need to persuade us. Otherwise, it is misleading at best.
It may come as a shock, but I do have to claim my income from my properties each year when doing my taxes.

Why get so defensive? I'm not denying your financial capability or credit worthiness. But in terms of "employment", which by definition is a relationship based on work rather than earning arising from possession, you may need to be prepared for certain justification when asked, and you need to disclose truthfully. Even self employment requires certain documents and licenses, and not all "taxes" are the same. If, of course, you can nail the proceedings then there's no problem. That's what I mean. Are all veterans belligerent?

And I hate to say this but, if you are so sure and determined why do you come and ask? I don't need you to piss on me when I am giving honest suggestions.

Clearly · Post by **Clearly** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:08 am

ihenry wrote:
ArmyRN wrote:
Well, just because something shows "work ethics" does not mean it justifiably counts as employment. If I'm not mistaken there is legally a fine line between employed and not employed. Like, when you apply for housing loans with the bank, sign a contract as guarantor or apply for immigrant permit, you have to prove you are legally employed, and to say "I have two properties and I collect rents" is probably not enough. In all countries I lived in this is best indicated by the contribution to some "fund" which covers your retirement.
^ Such a grump. You are stuck on this "employer" issue. Just because someone is ambitious and does not work for the man does not mean that he is unemployed. Are you trying to say a man who owns eight properties and collects 8k/month from the rent each month is going to be denied a loan over an attorney making 80/k year while 100k in debt? In addition to the first guy making more, he also has tangible assets that make him a better candidate for a loan. I believe the term one would use on a home loan or immigrant application would be: self-employed, entrepreneur, or the man.

Surely, if OP can convince all relevant parties that this indeed is employment using truthful information then there's no need to persuade us. Otherwise, it is misleading at best.
It may come as a shock, but I do have to claim my income from my properties each year when doing my taxes.
Why get so defensive? I'm not denying your financial capability or credit worthiness. But in terms of "employment", which by definition is a relationship based on work rather than earning arising from possession, you may need to be prepared for certain justification when asked, and you need to disclose truthfully. Even self employment requires certain documents and licenses, and not all "taxes" are the same. If, of course, you can nail the proceedings then there's no problem. That's what I mean. Are all veterans belligerent?

And I hate to say this but, if you are so sure and determined why do you come and ask? I don't need you to piss on me when I am giving honest suggestions.

(it's because your first reply was really unnecessary and rude.) I'm with them btw, I would absolutely play it up.

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:18 am

Clearly wrote:
ihenry wrote:
ArmyRN wrote:
Well, just because something shows "work ethics" does not mean it justifiably counts as employment. If I'm not mistaken there is legally a fine line between employed and not employed. Like, when you apply for housing loans with the bank, sign a contract as guarantor or apply for immigrant permit, you have to prove you are legally employed, and to say "I have two properties and I collect rents" is probably not enough. In all countries I lived in this is best indicated by the contribution to some "fund" which covers your retirement.
^ Such a grump. You are stuck on this "employer" issue. Just because someone is ambitious and does not work for the man does not mean that he is unemployed. Are you trying to say a man who owns eight properties and collects 8k/month from the rent each month is going to be denied a loan over an attorney making 80/k year while 100k in debt? In addition to the first guy making more, he also has tangible assets that make him a better candidate for a loan. I believe the term one would use on a home loan or immigrant application would be: self-employed, entrepreneur, or the man.

Surely, if OP can convince all relevant parties that this indeed is employment using truthful information then there's no need to persuade us. Otherwise, it is misleading at best.
It may come as a shock, but I do have to claim my income from my properties each year when doing my taxes.
Why get so defensive? I'm not denying your financial capability or credit worthiness. But in terms of "employment", which by definition is a relationship based on work rather than earning arising from possession, you may need to be prepared for certain justification when asked, and you need to disclose truthfully. Even self employment requires certain documents and licenses, and not all "taxes" are the same. If, of course, you can nail the proceedings then there's no problem. That's what I mean. Are all veterans belligerent?

And I hate to say this but, if you are so sure and determined why do you come and ask? I don't need you to piss on me when I am giving honest suggestions.
(it's because your first reply was really unnecessary and rude.) I'm with them btw, I would absolutely play it up.

LOL I hate it when people take it personally (and you are being judgmental btw. I can make the same to you: are you rudely looking down on people who raise and trade home pets?). And I do think there is a strong parallel in between. I don't know if now renting own properties count as self-employment, but if it does, one day they may do the same to pet owners. Some people indeed make a living in this way.

Clearly · Post by **Clearly** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:06 am

ihenry wrote:
Clearly wrote:
ihenry wrote:
ArmyRN wrote:
Well, just because something shows "work ethics" does not mean it justifiably counts as employment. If I'm not mistaken there is legally a fine line between employed and not employed. Like, when you apply for housing loans with the bank, sign a contract as guarantor or apply for immigrant permit, you have to prove you are legally employed, and to say "I have two properties and I collect rents" is probably not enough. In all countries I lived in this is best indicated by the contribution to some "fund" which covers your retirement.
^ Such a grump. You are stuck on this "employer" issue. Just because someone is ambitious and does not work for the man does not mean that he is unemployed. Are you trying to say a man who owns eight properties and collects 8k/month from the rent each month is going to be denied a loan over an attorney making 80/k year while 100k in debt? In addition to the first guy making more, he also has tangible assets that make him a better candidate for a loan. I believe the term one would use on a home loan or immigrant application would be: self-employed, entrepreneur, or the man.

Surely, if OP can convince all relevant parties that this indeed is employment using truthful information then there's no need to persuade us. Otherwise, it is misleading at best.
It may come as a shock, but I do have to claim my income from my properties each year when doing my taxes.
Why get so defensive? I'm not denying your financial capability or credit worthiness. But in terms of "employment", which by definition is a relationship based on work rather than earning arising from possession, you may need to be prepared for certain justification when asked, and you need to disclose truthfully. Even self employment requires certain documents and licenses, and not all "taxes" are the same. If, of course, you can nail the proceedings then there's no problem. That's what I mean. Are all veterans belligerent?

And I hate to say this but, if you are so sure and determined why do you come and ask? I don't need you to piss on me when I am giving honest suggestions.
(it's because your first reply was really unnecessary and rude.) I'm with them btw, I would absolutely play it up.
LOL I hate it when people take it personally (and you are being judgmental btw. I can make the same to you: are you rudely looking down on people who raise and trade home pets?). And I do think there is a strong parallel in between. I don't know if now renting own properties count as self-employment, but if it does, one day they may do the same to pet owners. Some people indeed make a living in this way.

Indeed, I reserve the right to be judgmental when people act rude. Also, not that I care, but calling you rude for rudely using an analogy doesn't necessarily imply that am being judgmental towards the characters in your analogy.

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:11 am

Clearly wrote:
Indeed, I reserve the right to be judgmental when people act rude. Also, not that I care, but calling you rude for rudely using an analogy doesn't necessarily imply that am being judgmental towards the characters in your analogy.

Okay, let's try to replace raising parrots with trading my trucks/sport cars. Do you still find rude? The only reason you find it rude (and wrongly behave judgmentally) is the implicit derogatory characterization, the notion that these people are jerks/jokes/should not be taken seriously. And I really love to hear a structural difference in between.

Clearly · Post by **Clearly** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:16 am

Yes, it's still rude. He asked a question, you replied with an analogy. It's stupid. If you had a serious question, make your own thread, or post seriously asking for help with your analogous situation in this thread. BUT, lets be real. Your irrelevant analogy was to demonstrate how absurd his idea is, when in reality his sincere question provided three options (put on on anywhere, put it on as employment, or leave it off) any one of which could be reasonable. Pick one, perhaps explain your reasoning and move along.

Seriously, I've seen your posts since you signed up, you're a fine poster. You're just wrong here, re-read the question and your reply and tell me honestly that it was made in good-faith to answer his question. It's ok, everyone is rude sometimes, best to just let it go than try to argue that it wasn't.

ihenry · Post by **ihenry** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:37 am

Clearly wrote:Yes, it's still rude. He asked a question, you replied with an analogy. It's stupid. If you had a serious question, make your own thread, or post seriously asking for help with your analogous situation in this thread. BUT, lets be real. Your irrelevant analogy was to demonstrate how absurd his idea is, when in reality his sincere question provided three options (put on on anywhere, put it on as employment, or leave it off) any one of which could be reasonable. Pick one, perhaps explain your reasoning and move along.

Seriously, I've seen your posts since you signed up, you're a fine poster. You're just wrong here, re-read the question and your reply and tell me honestly that it was made in good-faith to answer his question. It's ok, everyone is rude sometimes, best to just let it go than try to argue that it wasn't.

Yes, I admit for my first post I did have ridiculing OP as part of my intention because I indeed found it a bit absurd: it's so out-of-my-book that I could not tell if he is joking or not (and his question is really only about whether to put it in employment). But I also think my doubts are legit and reasonable, and I, in good-faith, reminded OP to be prepared to be asked in interviews or screenings. Perhaps someone with more experience or legal knowledge can better advise OP (and me) whether it is proper and things to note, although it's nbd I imagine.

Clearly · Post by **Clearly** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:56 am

ihenry wrote:
Clearly wrote:Yes, it's still rude. He asked a question, you replied with an analogy. It's stupid. If you had a serious question, make your own thread, or post seriously asking for help with your analogous situation in this thread. BUT, lets be real. Your irrelevant analogy was to demonstrate how absurd his idea is, when in reality his sincere question provided three options (put on on anywhere, put it on as employment, or leave it off) any one of which could be reasonable. Pick one, perhaps explain your reasoning and move along.

Seriously, I've seen your posts since you signed up, you're a fine poster. You're just wrong here, re-read the question and your reply and tell me honestly that it was made in good-faith to answer his question. It's ok, everyone is rude sometimes, best to just let it go than try to argue that it wasn't.
Yes, I admit for my first post I did have ridiculing OP as part of my intention because I indeed found it a bit absurd: it's so out-of-my-book that I could not tell if he is joking or not (and his question is really only about whether to put it in employment). But I also think my doubts are legit and reasonable, and I, in good-faith, reminded OP to be prepared to be asked in interviews or screenings. Perhaps someone with more experience or legal knowledge can better advise OP (and me) whether it is proper and things to note, although it's nbd I imagine.

Atta boy. To be clear, after your first post I agree you provided a helpful perspective. I just pointed out that people weren't being nice to you in response to that first post. Goodnight!

Property rentals Forum

Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Register for access!

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Register now!

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Re: Property rentals

Register now, it's still FREE!