I put up a 3 day notice for lack of rent payment to a new resident who is also young. My signature is not legible to make out the name. I am also in a relatively small town so if someone try to figure it out it's not hard order to talk to others.

The things that disturbs me is that the resident communicated via text, I would like to know the name of the person that signed this

Of all things that are important on that paper, in my opinion that has very little importance. But I really didn't know the most important response while appearing professional

Property is in a llc

Unless you are required to sign the notice by law, don't. Problem solved.

I don't sign our leases. The TENANT is promising to abide by the terms of the lease, not me. The law already spells out what my duties and responsibilities are, so I simply comply with them. Other than that, me handing them the keys is what seals the deal.

Notice needs to be signed. The legibility of the signature is not so important, but the notice should make clear who is giving notice.

Professional practice would be to print name, address and telephone number of noticer underneath the signature.

Jan,

Congrats for staying on top of this!

The deadbeat is wanting to argue and distract you from the main issue - nonpayment. I would ignore the text and proceed with eviction.

I would text them back and tell them it was me and ask them where the rent is. It might be better as others said though to ignore and proceed with eviction process.

going forward, change your lease so you don't need to give notice.

Shady Sid , et.al.

Seems that you are not comfortable in the environment of honesty and fairness.

On the issue of requiring signature of tenant, while you don't sign, it doesn't really make any difference. The lease is a (mutual) contract which obligates both parties. Even if you don't put a signature, contracts are also made by behavior, so by offering YOUR lease to the tenant, requiring them to sign it, retaining a copy, and giving them the keys and by continuing to accept rent, YOU AGREED TO THE CONTRACT AND ARE OBLIGATED BY IT.

I am quite comfortable out here in sunny CA, with being open and fair, signing mutually fair agreements, putting my name, address and telephone number beneath my signature, presenting myself in court as the landlord and facing up to my obligations. I have faith in CA courts, without having to look to some subterfuge to try to escape obligations.

Being open and honest goes a long way. I haven't been in court in about 20 years. Actually, right now, I have a situation where I made an agreement with a tenant (architect, young, masters degree, wife and baby, everyone is pleasant and agreeable, pays rent on the dot,) where I stipulated in the lease that I (landlord) could modify the lease in a certain way by certified mail notification, but they never picked up the certified mail. Its not an important modification, and actually, here in CA, the service is valid even though they never picked up the certified mail, but they'll be gone after the lease expires, because I don't have such a relationship with any of my other tenants, for many, many years. I only keep tenants with whom I can work honestly, comfortably and mutually, and with whom I can make and keep agreements.

In PA, Notice of Default doesn't require a legal signature, there are no words or format defined or required. It just needs to let the tenant know they have violated the lease and need to correct. Do not respond to the inquiry of name, proceed with eviction if the violation is not corrected.

As Nicole noted, modify your lease to have tenants waive the notice to quit.

Moshe, If I read your response correctly you are saying that you will not renew the lease of the tenant who did not pick up the certified mail.

Is that right?

Other wise they sound like great tenants.

Could you clarify a little more why this would be a deal breaker?

6 x 6:

Yes, tenants with whom I cannot trust to keep agreements cannot remain tenants of mine. By declining to pick up their certified mail, they have demonstrated an immaturity that I will not tolerate, because I take only mature, intelligent and trustworthy tenants. These tenants are well educated, old enough to be mature, in all other respects, they have behaved like the kind of tenants that I really want to keep, but they have failed the test of good faith and fair dealing. If they had changed their mind about our agreement, they should have discussed it with me and worked out a mutually satisfacory agreement with me.

They are in their first year with me, they came to Southern California from the Bay area (San Francisco, Oakland to be exact) where the balance between landlords and tenants is much further ahead than down here in the Southland. Oakland has drastic rent control, including just-cause eviction. The husband in this case, came from the Midwest to the Bay Area, where he met his wife and the baby was born, and they found digs in Oakland, so he may not yet understand how we work here in La-La land, at least for now.

The real key to effective landlording is in choosing and keeping tenants with whom you can have this relationship of good faith and fair dealing. That relationship needs to work both ways. I am fair and honest with my tenants, and I expect (must have) the same relationship in return. I keep the rent below market for these kind of tenants, so that their loss of tenancy from me means that they will have to pay more on the open market, besides losing a desirable property.

Where I agree with what you are saying Moshe, can you prove what you say in a manner to a resident repeatedly? For some the answer is a resounding yes.....and for others - the fact you hold any kind of authority, you are suspect. I am sure you are fair and honest - isn't everyone all the time?

It is so easy for me to judge anyone.....that is until I am actually in there shoes. That makes things a great deal tougher, and the words "it depends" more valid and less black in white.