In the fast-paced world of high-cost city living, an unexpected conflict arises when the Original Poster (OP), a property owner, decides to relocate due to a new job. Tensions ignite among the tenants when the OP offers the soon-to-be-vacant master bedroom for rent, leading to accusations of greed and exploitation. As the conflict reaches its climax with the potential sale of the house, the tenants are left facing an uncertain future, and we’re left wondering, “What happens next?”
Acquisition and Cohabitation
OP secures a mortgage on a house in a high-cost-of-living city and moves in with four roommates – a couple and two single people. They are aware OP owns the house, and they all came as recommendations from friends or family. Even though renting at below market rates, OP insists on a lease agreement and security deposit.
A Symbiotic Living Arrangement
Between the four roommates, OP collects enough rent to cover the mortgage and utilities, saving a little surplus. OP uses the savings to take care of major repairs and maintenance. This living arrangement appears to work well for all.
A Change on the Horizon
OP secures a new job in a different city, which means having to leave the house. OP knew about this job offer since late October. The upcoming move introduces a potential disruption to the current living situation.
A Sweet Deal for the Couple
OP offers the couple a chance to upgrade to the basement suite in the new year for slightly more rent. This deal includes a massive bedroom, private living room, bathroom, and kitchen. The couple agrees and signs a one-year lease, planning to move out after that period.
A Proposition for the Singles
OP approaches the two single tenants with the offer of the master bedroom that the couple would vacate. They both decline the offer but propose to use the room as a home office. OP agrees but insists they must cover the rent for the extra room.
The Discontent of the Singles
OP’s insistence on charging rent for the home office sparks tension. The single tenants believe that since OP is making more from the couple, their own rent should remain the same. OP counters by offering the room for 80% of its previous rate, which they still find unreasonable.
Friction in the House
The disagreement over the extra room’s rent escalates into a major conflict. The singles accuse OP of being a selfish and greedy landlord, exploiting them for profit. Even though they would be paying less than the market rate, they persist in their argument.
The dispute grows, involving the people who initially recommended the single tenants. They join the chorus, calling OP a greedy individual for trying to extract more money from their friends. The once peaceful house is now embroiled in a fierce feud.
The Final Straw
OP, tired of the escalating drama and accusations, decides to withdraw. OP doesn’t need the hassle and finds a potential solution in a property investor. The investor is willing to buy the house and honor the existing leases, including the one for the couple.
A Harsh Reality for the Singles
For the two single tenants, the sale of the house carries negative implications. Their leases are due to end in February, and they will likely face a significant rent hike under the new owner. However, OP feels this is no longer her problem.
A Community Backlash
The sale of the house leads to a community backlash against OP. Friends of the single tenants are angry because they will likely need to move to a less desirable living situation. Tension rises as OP is seen as the antagonist.
Conflict Resolution and Exit
Despite feeling guilty, OP decides that the easiest way out of the situation is to walk away. The new job and the city await, and OP is unwilling to stay and handle the brewing conflict, so she makes the tough decision to leave it all behind.
A New Chapter
The tenants grapple with the impending changes as OP prepares to embark on a new journey. The couple looks forward to their new spacious living arrangements while the single tenants brace for a significant upheaval. The tranquil cohabitation has been shattered.
Was The Woman’s Behavior Appropriate?
OP posts her story online for feedback. The readers in the forum had a lot of mixed views on the matter. Here are some of their responses:
One reader said, “If you weren’t going to be there to care for the house, you would have to pay someone to do it. This seems like the right decision for you.”
Another Commenter Thinks
Another responder wrote, “You owned the place, so it was yours to sell to whomever you wish. Now that someone else owns it, they can charge whatever they want in rent.”
A Third View on The Story
A different person stated, “Everyone wants something for free. The tenants wanting to use extra space that they refuse to pay for is ridiculous. It’s their fault they made this untenable for you.”
A Final Perspective on the Matter
Another reader commented, “You aren’t required to give away rental space for free, and it is your business what you decide to do with your property.”
What Do You Think?
What are your thoughts on their actions?
What would you have done in this situation?
This story is inspired by a thread from an online forum.