Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

    In a Tenant occupied house, a garage screen was broken. (Frame and all) The
    tenant says, someone tried to break in?
    Is the tenant responsible for replacing it, or is it the landlords
    responsibility?
    Thanks to all who reply.


  • #2
    Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

    Over40pirate wrote:
    In a Tenant occupied house, a garage screen was broken. (Frame and all) The tenant says, someone tried to break in? Is the tenant responsible for replacing it, or is it the landlords responsibility? Thanks to all who reply.
    My opinion as a non-lawyer and as a tenant is that the tenant would be
    liable. Same thing if a window is broken. Unless the landlord was
    stupid enough to write it into a lease taking responsibility for it.

    Now, the furnace quits working or the refrigerator explodes, that's
    possibly a different issue.

    Comment


    • #3
      Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

      Is there a police report? Is it something that the tenant would be likely
      to break, or something only a burgler would be likely to break?

      Falky
      San Diego, Calif.
      ----------------
      Disclaimer: This has been the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.
      Author advises each reader to get the opinion of a legal professional.
      This post is not intended to be legal advice.


      "Over40pirate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
      news:[email protected]
      In a Tenant occupied house, a garage screen was broken. (Frame and all)
      The
      tenant says, someone tried to break in? Is the tenant responsible for replacing it, or is it the landlords responsibility? Thanks to all who reply.

      Comment


      • #4
        Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

        >Is there a police report? Is it something that the tenant would be likely
        to break, or something only a burgler would be likely to break?FalkySan Diego, Calif.
        It was pryed out from the outside.
        When the Tenant told the Landlord, the Landlord reported it to the Police.

        Comment


        • #5
          Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

          [email protected]ospam (Over40pirate) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
          In a Tenant occupied house, a garage screen was broken. (Frame and all) The tenant says, someone tried to break in? Is the tenant responsible for replacing it, or is it the landlords responsibility? Thanks to all who reply.
          Probably no clear answer. If there is no indication that the tenant
          did it, then I would say it's the landlord's issue. In general I
          would hold the tenant responsible for damage he or his guests cause.
          Damage caused by normal wear and tear, natural causes, or criminal
          acts by unknown third parties would be on the owner. Just my opinion
          as a [former] landlord.

          I put responsibility on the tenant in one of our rentals for a broken
          window, as it was broken by her daughter's boyfriend during a little
          lovers spat in front of the house. Adding to my feelings about that
          was that the tenant never told me about it - one of the neighbors
          called me and asked, "When are you going to fix that broken window?"

          What broken window?

          If they had a reported it as a break-in attempt by an unknown person,
          I would have replaced it, unless I had evidence that it was their
          responsibility.

          In your case - it's a screen. Relatively cheap. The lanlord should
          pick it just to keep the property in decent repair.

          Comment


          • #6
            Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

            [email protected]ospam (Over40pirate) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
            In a Tenant occupied house, a garage screen was broken. (Frame and all) The tenant says, someone tried to break in? Is the tenant responsible for replacing it, or is it the landlords responsibility? Thanks to all who reply.
            I don't know the true and correct legal answer, but my instinct (as a
            lawyer) tells me that landlords have a duty to maintain their property
            in habitable condition, and a broken window is a condition that makes
            a property inhabitable. Therefore, the duty would lie on the landlord
            to fix the window unless there is a lease provision specifically
            stating otherwise.

            Comment


            • #7
              Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s


              "cbreitel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected] om...
              [email protected]ospam (Over40pirate) wrote in message
              news:<[email protected]>...
              In a Tenant occupied house, a garage screen was broken. (Frame and all)
              The
              tenant says, someone tried to break in? Is the tenant responsible for replacing it, or is it the landlords responsibility? Thanks to all who reply. I don't know the true and correct legal answer, but my instinct (as a lawyer) tells me that landlords have a duty to maintain their property in habitable condition, and a broken window is a condition that makes a property inhabitable. Therefore, the duty would lie on the landlord to fix the window unless there is a lease provision specifically stating otherwise.
              Except that, in this case, the window isn't broken. The screen and its frame
              are. Neither of those are considered to be material to the dwellings fitness
              for habitability. In the absence of statute or contractual obligation
              dictating responsibility, any landlord with good business sense will
              maintain his property in a condition to maximize his ROI. If that means
              repairing damages and holding the tenant liable, so be it. He has the option
              to deduct from security deposit and demand tenant reimburse or vacate. The
              tenant then has the option to take it to court and let a judge decide.

              Personally, I hold the tenant liable for all damages other than normal wear
              and tear, routine maintenance or acts of nature. I always repair the damage
              and demand payment. Once had a tenant tell me a broken door was a break-in
              attempt. Turned the debt over to collections, went to court, tenant told the
              judge such things were just the cost of doing business. I got my money.

              FWIW, such damages are almost always the result of a tenant attempting to
              break in to his own dwelling. He has either locked himself out, the
              significant other has locked them out, lost the keys, left them somewhere or
              some other similar event.


              Comment


              • #8
                Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

                "TinCanMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                I don't know the true and correct legal answer, but my instinct (as a lawyer) tells me that landlords have a duty to maintain their property in habitable condition, and a broken window is a condition that makes a property inhabitable. Therefore, the duty would lie on the landlord to fix the window unless there is a lease provision specifically stating otherwise. Except that, in this case, the window isn't broken. The screen and its frame are. Neither of those are considered to be material to the dwellings fitness for habitability.
                I stand corrected, and I agree with the last sentence.
                In the absence of statute or contractual obligation dictating responsibility, any landlord with good business sense will maintain his property in a condition to maximize his ROI. If that means repairing damages and holding the tenant liable, so be it. He has the option to deduct from security deposit and demand tenant reimburse or vacate. The tenant then has the option to take it to court and let a judge decide.
                And the judge, hopefully, will decide the question according to law,
                which brings us back to full circle as to what the law is. This isn't,
                let's remember, a "business sense" question. It's a legal question,
                and the 2 are not always in lock-step with one another. Obviously this
                issue will depend on the state in which this incident took place,
                specifically to determine whether there is any statute or city/county
                ordinance which governs the question. But assuming there is no
                statutory authority, common law contract principles still dictate the
                same result I suggested earlier. If the lease does not specifically
                provide that the tenant will be responsible for such damages, the
                court will be left to only guess what the parties intended at the time
                they entered into this contract for tenancy. And as a general rule
                that is followed in all states, ambiguities in a contract are
                construed against the drafter, which is most likely the landlord in
                this instance. If the landlord wants to shift the expense of such
                repairs to the tenant, he is perfectly free to modify his lease
                agreement accordingly. If he chose not to do so in this case, he has
                to live with that choice, and the tenant is not responsible.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s


                  "cbreitel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected] om...
                  "TinCanMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:<[email protected]>...
                  I don't know the true and correct legal answer, but my instinct (as a lawyer) tells me that landlords have a duty to maintain their property in habitable condition, and a broken window is a condition that makes a property inhabitable. Therefore, the duty would lie on the landlord to fix the window unless there is a lease provision specifically stating otherwise. Except that, in this case, the window isn't broken. The screen and its
                  frame
                  are. Neither of those are considered to be material to the dwellings
                  fitness
                  for habitability. I stand corrected, and I agree with the last sentence.
                  In the absence of statute or contractual obligation dictating responsibility, any landlord with good business sense will maintain his property in a condition to maximize his ROI. If that means repairing damages and holding the tenant liable, so be it. He has the
                  option
                  to deduct from security deposit and demand tenant reimburse or vacate.
                  The
                  tenant then has the option to take it to court and let a judge decide. And the judge, hopefully, will decide the question according to law, which brings us back to full circle as to what the law is. This isn't, let's remember, a "business sense" question. It's a legal question, and the 2 are not always in lock-step with one another. Obviously this issue will depend on the state in which this incident took place, specifically to determine whether there is any statute or city/county ordinance which governs the question. But assuming there is no statutory authority, common law contract principles still dictate the same result I suggested earlier. If the lease does not specifically provide that the tenant will be responsible for such damages, the court will be left to only guess what the parties intended at the time they entered into this contract for tenancy. And as a general rule that is followed in all states, ambiguities in a contract are construed against the drafter, which is most likely the landlord in this instance. If the landlord wants to shift the expense of such repairs to the tenant, he is perfectly free to modify his lease agreement accordingly. If he chose not to do so in this case, he has to live with that choice, and the tenant is not responsible.
                  Note: In this case the OP says nothing about a lease, rental agreement or
                  other contractual instrument. AFAICT, he doesn't even say he is the tenant.
                  It sounds as if he is speaking hypothetically. My state has a particularly
                  well developed Landlord & Tenant Act and it clearly identifies the landlord
                  as being responsible to make repairs of such things degrading habitibility.
                  It even states how long he has to start to make those repairs. What it does
                  not say is what he has to pay for with the exception of normal wear and
                  tear.

                  When I agree to rent a building, I give posession to the tenant of a
                  dwelling worth ten's of thousands of dollars. It's not unreasonable I'd
                  expecct him to care for it as if it were his own and I will hold his feet to
                  the fire if necessary. I have little or no influence on what happens to the
                  building. If a window is broken, he pays. If the frame rots out, I pay. If
                  the carpet is burned or stained he pays. If it is worn out, I pay. When you
                  use someeone else's property, you are as responsible for its care as much
                  as the owner. In any event, I always make the repair and bill the tenant as
                  appropriate. My experience leads me to believe the courts agree, at least in
                  my area. YMMV.



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

                    "TinCanMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                    Note: In this case the OP says nothing about a lease, rental agreement or other contractual instrument. AFAICT, he doesn't even say he is the tenant. It sounds as if he is speaking hypothetically. My state has a particularly well developed Landlord & Tenant Act and it clearly identifies the landlord as being responsible to make repairs of such things degrading habitibility. It even states how long he has to start to make those repairs. What it does not say is what he has to pay for with the exception of normal wear and tear. When I agree to rent a building, I give posession to the tenant of a dwelling worth ten's of thousands of dollars. It's not unreasonable I'd expecct him to care for it as if it were his own and I will hold his feet to the fire if necessary. I have little or no influence on what happens to the building. If a window is broken, he pays. If the frame rots out, I pay. If the carpet is burned or stained he pays. If it is worn out, I pay. When you use someeone else's property, you are as responsible for its care as much as the owner. In any event, I always make the repair and bill the tenant as appropriate.
                    You can hold a tenant's feet to the fire if you wish, out of court,
                    and I imagine that works most of the time when you attempt it. Both
                    landlords and tenants and indeed citizens in all kinds of situations
                    ignore the law routinely, in their day to day lives. That doesn't mean
                    the law is what you say it is, though.

                    Even taking your assumption as true, that there is no "lease, rental
                    agreement or other contractual instrument", these facts do not change
                    the analysis under the law of contracts. For one thing, you don't need
                    a "contractual instrument" (whatever that is) in order for a contract
                    to be formed. A piece of paper is only evidence OF a contract. It is
                    not necessarily the contract itself. And as long as this poster is
                    referring to a "tenant", it's safe to assume that there is a
                    landlord-tenant relationship and therefore a contractual arrangement
                    between the two governed by their state's landlord-tenancy statutes
                    and the law of contracts. And under the law of contracts in your
                    hypothetical non-written lease situation, since we can't really say
                    there is an ambiguity in any written provision and therefore can't
                    invoke the "ambiguities to be construed against the drafter rule," we
                    can still resort to another rule of contract interpretation: course of
                    past performance. The burden of proving this, of course, would lie on
                    the landlord. If there is no past performance from which to draw, the
                    argument fails for insufficient evidence.
                    My experience leads me to believe the courts agree, at least in my area. YMMV.
                    If you're talking about small claims courts in your area, I suppose
                    it's possible they routinely ignore the law.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s


                      "cbreitel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                      news:74317df6.0408212259.6f[email protected] om...
                      "TinCanMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                      news:<[email protected]>...
                      Note: In this case the OP says nothing about a lease, rental agreement
                      or
                      other contractual instrument. AFAICT, he doesn't even say he is the
                      tenant.
                      It sounds as if he is speaking hypothetically. My state has a
                      particularly
                      well developed Landlord & Tenant Act and it clearly identifies the
                      landlord
                      as being responsible to make repairs of such things degrading
                      habitibility.
                      It even states how long he has to start to make those repairs. What it
                      does
                      not say is what he has to pay for with the exception of normal wear and tear. When I agree to rent a building, I give posession to the tenant of a dwelling worth ten's of thousands of dollars. It's not unreasonable I'd expecct him to care for it as if it were his own and I will hold his
                      feet to
                      the fire if necessary. I have little or no influence on what happens to
                      the
                      building. If a window is broken, he pays. If the frame rots out, I pay.
                      If
                      the carpet is burned or stained he pays. If it is worn out, I pay. When
                      you
                      use someeone else's property, you are as responsible for its care as
                      much
                      as the owner. In any event, I always make the repair and bill the tenant
                      as
                      appropriate. You can hold a tenant's feet to the fire if you wish, out of court, and I imagine that works most of the time when you attempt it. Both landlords and tenants and indeed citizens in all kinds of situations ignore the law routinely, in their day to day lives. That doesn't mean the law is what you say it is, though. Even taking your assumption as true, that there is no "lease, rental agreement or other contractual instrument", these facts do not change the analysis under the law of contracts. For one thing, you don't need a "contractual instrument" (whatever that is) in order for a contract to be formed. A piece of paper is only evidence OF a contract. It is not necessarily the contract itself. And as long as this poster is referring to a "tenant", it's safe to assume that there is a landlord-tenant relationship and therefore a contractual arrangement between the two governed by their state's landlord-tenancy statutes and the law of contracts. And under the law of contracts in your hypothetical non-written lease situation, since we can't really say there is an ambiguity in any written provision and therefore can't invoke the "ambiguities to be construed against the drafter rule," we can still resort to another rule of contract interpretation: course of past performance. The burden of proving this, of course, would lie on the landlord. If there is no past performance from which to draw, the argument fails for insufficient evidence.
                      My experience leads me to believe the courts agree, at least in my area. YMMV.
                      If you're talking about small claims courts in your area, I suppose it's possible they routinely ignore the law.
                      I understand what occurs when there is no written instrument memorializing
                      the agreement. In fact, our Landlord and Tenant Act defines some of it
                      including the assumption that it comes under the statutes of month-to-month
                      tenancy. The OP didn't say he had a lease or rental agreement, therefore I
                      didn't assume he had one and discussed the issue with the information
                      available. The case I referred to occurred in Superior Court. I had turned
                      the debt over to a collection agency, They filed suit and I was called as a
                      witness. In the end, I got what asked for.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

                        "TinCanMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                        I understand what occurs when there is no written instrument memorializing the agreement. In fact, our Landlord and Tenant Act defines some of it including the assumption that it comes under the statutes of month-to-month tenancy. The OP didn't say he had a lease or rental agreement, therefore I didn't assume he had one and discussed the issue with the information available. The case I referred to occurred in Superior Court. I had turned the debt over to a collection agency, They filed suit and I was called as a witness. In the end, I got what asked for.
                        But the devil's in the details, and you haven't provided those. I'd
                        like to examine the pleadings and the judgment you received, but of
                        course I can't. Since it was a debt collection action, it appears that
                        more was at stake than simply a broken garage frame of an otherwise
                        paying tenant who was in compliance with the lease agreement. Did the
                        tenant your collection agency sued hire counsel to represent him?
                        Probably not, which means that the arguments I'm raising may not have
                        even been raised on his behalf in court. Did the tenant actually leave
                        the premises by the time the debt action was filed? If so, and there
                        were parts of the home damaged, that again presents an entirely
                        different legal issue.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s


                          "cbreitel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                          news:[email protected] om...
                          "TinCanMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                          news:<[email protected]>...
                          I understand what occurs when there is no written instrument
                          memorializing
                          the agreement. In fact, our Landlord and Tenant Act defines some of it including the assumption that it comes under the statutes of
                          month-to-month
                          tenancy. The OP didn't say he had a lease or rental agreement, therefore
                          I
                          didn't assume he had one and discussed the issue with the information available. The case I referred to occurred in Superior Court. I had
                          turned
                          the debt over to a collection agency, They filed suit and I was called
                          as a
                          witness. In the end, I got what asked for. But the devil's in the details, and you haven't provided those. I'd like to examine the pleadings and the judgment you received, but of course I can't. Since it was a debt collection action, it appears that more was at stake than simply a broken garage frame of an otherwise paying tenant who was in compliance with the lease agreement. Did the tenant your collection agency sued hire counsel to represent him? Probably not, which means that the arguments I'm raising may not have even been raised on his behalf in court. Did the tenant actually leave the premises by the time the debt action was filed? If so, and there were parts of the home damaged, that again presents an entirely different legal issue.
                          There were of course more issues than the broken entrance door which the
                          tenant claimed was due to a breakin and he didn't have an attorney, most
                          never do. In this case the attorney for the collection agency had 10 or 12
                          cases lined up assembly line fashion and the judge heard all of them in less
                          than a morning. Makes it worthwhile to have an attorney prosecute for a
                          couple hundred bucks and kinda expensive for the tenant to have one. None of
                          the defendants this morning had attorneys and very few showed up. The one
                          thing that stands out in my mind is the tenant telling the judge that that
                          sort of damage was just the cost of doing business and as a landlord it was
                          my responsibility to absorb such expenses. The judge quite pointedly
                          informed him that that was not so and as he had custody of the dwelling, it
                          was his responsibility to be a good steward of the property. Which is the
                          point of my bringing up the story. In at least this case the judge held the
                          tenant responsible for damages not covered by statute or agreement, written
                          or otherwise.

                          Quite frankly, I don't think the judge believed his sad tale of woe. He
                          didn't file a police report, they never do. It didn't take me long to modify
                          my rental agreement identifying the tenant as responsible for all damage
                          other than acts of nature. I've been in this business long enough to know
                          these "unexplained" damages are usually caused by the tenant or one of the
                          tenants acquaintances. In my 62 years I've never experienced a breakin. No
                          one in my family has experienced one but they seem to occur at least
                          annually in one or more units I let.

                          This kind of action costs the landlord half of the disputed amount if he
                          wins, otherwise nothing. It costs collections very little since they line em
                          up like ducks in a shootin gallery and has the potental to cost the tenant
                          more than the the value of the disputed amount if he hires an attorney and
                          wins. Even if it doesn't go to court it become part of his credit rating.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s

                            "TinCanMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                            There were of course more issues than the broken entrance door which the tenant claimed was due to a breakin and he didn't have an attorney, most never do. In this case the attorney for the collection agency had 10 or 12 cases lined up assembly line fashion and the judge heard all of them in less than a morning. Makes it worthwhile to have an attorney prosecute for a couple hundred bucks and kinda expensive for the tenant to have one. None of the defendants this morning had attorneys and very few showed up. The one thing that stands out in my mind is the tenant telling the judge that that sort of damage was just the cost of doing business and as a landlord it was my responsibility to absorb such expenses. The judge quite pointedly informed him that that was not so and as he had custody of the dwelling, it was his responsibility to be a good steward of the property. Which is the point of my bringing up the story. In at least this case the judge held the tenant responsible for damages not covered by statute or agreement, written or otherwise. Quite frankly, I don't think the judge believed his sad tale of woe. He didn't file a police report, they never do. It didn't take me long to modify my rental agreement identifying the tenant as responsible for all damage other than acts of nature. I've been in this business long enough to know these "unexplained" damages are usually caused by the tenant or one of the tenants acquaintances. In my 62 years I've never experienced a breakin. No one in my family has experienced one but they seem to occur at least annually in one or more units I let. This kind of action costs the landlord half of the disputed amount if he wins, otherwise nothing. It costs collections very little since they line em up like ducks in a shootin gallery and has the potental to cost the tenant more than the the value of the disputed amount if he hires an attorney and wins. Even if it doesn't go to court it become part of his credit rating.
                            Your approach makes perfect business sense. It's actually somewhat
                            gratifying to see our court system used in a way that allows a
                            law-abiding business owner like you to minimize your financial costs
                            of doing business by applying the law.

                            Having said that, I've seen some landlords abuse the crap out of the
                            court system against tenants. I'm tempted to take on a pro bono tenant
                            who's being victimized one day and surprise the hell out of the
                            landlord's counsel by showing up in court and obliterating his case.
                            Just you watch, I'll do it one day.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Tenant or Landlord' responsibility?s


                              "cbreitel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                              news:74317df6.[email protected] om...
                              "TinCanMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                              news:<[email protected]>...
                              There were of course more issues than the broken entrance door which the tenant claimed was due to a breakin and he didn't have an attorney, most never do. In this case the attorney for the collection agency had 10 or
                              12
                              cases lined up assembly line fashion and the judge heard all of them in
                              less
                              than a morning. Makes it worthwhile to have an attorney prosecute for a couple hundred bucks and kinda expensive for the tenant to have one.
                              None of
                              the defendants this morning had attorneys and very few showed up. The
                              one
                              thing that stands out in my mind is the tenant telling the judge that
                              that
                              sort of damage was just the cost of doing business and as a landlord it
                              was
                              my responsibility to absorb such expenses. The judge quite pointedly informed him that that was not so and as he had custody of the dwelling,
                              it
                              was his responsibility to be a good steward of the property. Which is
                              the
                              point of my bringing up the story. In at least this case the judge held
                              the
                              tenant responsible for damages not covered by statute or agreement,
                              written
                              or otherwise. Quite frankly, I don't think the judge believed his sad tale of woe. He didn't file a police report, they never do. It didn't take me long to
                              modify
                              my rental agreement identifying the tenant as responsible for all damage other than acts of nature. I've been in this business long enough to
                              know
                              these "unexplained" damages are usually caused by the tenant or one of
                              the
                              tenants acquaintances. In my 62 years I've never experienced a breakin.
                              No
                              one in my family has experienced one but they seem to occur at least annually in one or more units I let. This kind of action costs the landlord half of the disputed amount if he wins, otherwise nothing. It costs collections very little since they
                              line em
                              up like ducks in a shootin gallery and has the potental to cost the
                              tenant
                              more than the the value of the disputed amount if he hires an attorney
                              and
                              wins. Even if it doesn't go to court it become part of his credit
                              rating.
                              Your approach makes perfect business sense. It's actually somewhat gratifying to see our court system used in a way that allows a law-abiding business owner like you to minimize your financial costs of doing business by applying the law. Having said that, I've seen some landlords abuse the crap out of the court system against tenants. I'm tempted to take on a pro bono tenant who's being victimized one day and surprise the hell out of the landlord's counsel by showing up in court and obliterating his case. Just you watch, I'll do it one day.
                              There are good folks and bad folks in every interest. Judges, Attorneys,
                              Landlords, Tenants, whatever. Some good, some bad. Hopefully the good folks
                              are more numerous than the bad. My family has owned rental property for the
                              past 80 years. It's what we do. I understand how to earn money owning real
                              property and couldn't make a nickel on securities. We've also figured out
                              long ago, screwing the tenant didn't pay in the long run. OTOH, I won't
                              stand still for a tenant attempting to walk away from his responsibility.
                              Understand, the landlord never pays for damage. He/she may front the money
                              but the tenant pays in the long run. No landlord stays in business
                              subsidizing a rental.

                              If you want a real hoot and have nothing better to do some day, seek out the
                              local apartment operators association. They usually make available to their
                              members what landlords call the deadbeat list. Actually, it's a list of all
                              individuals that are defendants in an unlawful detainer suit. makes
                              interesting reading. One finds the same names multiple times, sometimes 4 &
                              5. You quickly get the idea there are a large number of folks getting into a
                              rental and immediately quit paying. they stay 2-6 mos for free and then get
                              evicted. They work under the table, acquire enough for the entrance fee and
                              live for free till the Sheriff evicts. Smart landlords have a copy of the
                              deadbeats list, then there are the others.

                              Then there are the landlords I don't even associate with. Sadly, there are
                              entirely too many.




                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X