3 ms·

> The fact that they expect the occupants to just leave when asked as if they have somewhere to go is bizarre. Who are these people? Well, I mean, I don't thin

by csydas 9y ago

> The fact that they expect the occupants to just leave when asked as if they have somewhere to go is bizarre. Who are these people? Well, I mean, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to ask people to leave the property you just bought. Like, don't get me wrong, I'm all for ensuring that there is good housing for everyone, and property values and gentrification are having a horrible effect on anyone not fortunate enough to be born into a family with some money, but it's not like it's a house the buyers had just let sit empty for years at a time. The seller probably should have been more involved in ensuring that the property was either actually empty or at the very least securing it and ensuring there were no existing contracts, as one of the residents there apparently had. Like, there's plenty to be annoyed with regarding the buyers. This isn't one of the reasons.

michaelmrose 9y ago
The one party jack was determined to have legal residence there. The other parties were allowed to stay there by the legal resident. Bums that broke in would have been removed on the spot. Legal residence gives them the right to time to move on peacefully rather than be dumped immediately into the sometimes permanent downward spiral of homelessness because this would be awfully convenient for the new owner. Buying the properly doesn't entitle you to skip this step. I can't imagine a world in which it ought to. This is something the prior owner ought to have ironed out prior to selling. Either the property was still a worthy project despite the issue or they should have taken their money elsewhere. Put yourself in the place of the residents. You have few resources and nowhere to go. The government provides that the new owner must give you a finite and reasonable time to move elsewhere do you a) lose most of your few belongings and go sleep on the curb because some yuppy comes and yells at you or b) use that time to save money, make plans, and secure yourself a new place to live. You see it from the perspective of someone with connections, family, money. Many people have none of these things. It wasn't a choice between the inconvenience of moving to a new home and thumbing their noses at her it was in all likelihood a choice between the street and keeping their lives together. If you have never struggled you likely don't understand.
- csydas 9y ago
  I'm not really disagreeing with you. I do believe strongly in tenant rights because I've seen what bad landlords can do, and I've have close friends (now basically family) suffer because of the spiral of of homelessness. What I was suggesting was that no, it wasn't really unreasonable for the buyers to be surprised and expect squatters to not be present in their newly bought property. That is the responsibility of the seller. The seller sounds to have been fairly irreputable and tried to pawn off a problem property. At no point did I suggest, or am I suggesting, that a buyer should be able to immediately force legal residents or tenants to vacate. I'm saying that they probably had every right to be a bit surprised and annoyed/frustrated to find that the seller hadn't really done their duty. The story is farcical enough without inventing more ways to be upset at the buyers in the story, and such outrage really isn't useful for anyone.
- Jach 9y ago
  I've had to leave a rental residence twice now in under 30 days because the owner wanted to sell instead of renew a lease and didn't bother telling us until just about the legal limit. It sucks, it'd be much better to have 2 months, but as a person with some dignity I recognize I don't own the property and I'm no longer welcome after 30 days. Sure I could be an asshole and fight the eviction out in courts as they worried Jack could do (with some weird incomplete post-sell-date form with the original owners) but no. In the story he had 2 months already, according to the original owners, and to make things worse no rent was being collected. Struggling with life doesn't give you a free pass to be an asshole, we all have our struggles, so if you've had legal notice, which is designed to take away the threat of immediate homelessness by giving time to find a new place, GTFO.
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure 30 days is the minimum you are required to give in virtually any circumstance but these laws do vary by state. We really need a semi official landlord rating website where you can expect to see ratings for landlords. A landlord shouldn't be able to get a second set of decent tenants at market rate 10 years after he screws over the first. To be clear yelp for landlords with less of an extortion angle.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by csydas 9y ago

michaelmrose 9y ago

The one party jack was determined to have legal residence there. The other parties were allowed to stay there by the legal resident. Bums that broke in would have been removed on the spot. Legal residence gives them the right to time to move on peacefully rather than be dumped immediately into the sometimes permanent downward spiral of homelessness because this would be awfully convenient for the new owner. Buying the properly doesn't entitle you to skip this step. I can't imagine a world in which it ought to. This is something the prior owner ought to have ironed out prior to selling. Either the property was still a worthy project despite the issue or they should have taken their money elsewhere. Put yourself in the place of the residents. You have few resources and nowhere to go. The government provides that the new owner must give you a finite and reasonable time to move elsewhere do you a) lose most of your few belongings and go sleep on the curb because some yuppy comes and yells at you or b) use that time to save money, make plans, and secure yourself a new place to live. You see it from the perspective of someone with connections, family, money. Many people have none of these things. It wasn't a choice between the inconvenience of moving to a new home and thumbing their noses at her it was in all likelihood a choice between the street and keeping their lives together. If you have never struggled you likely don't understand.

csydas 9y ago
I'm not really disagreeing with you. I do believe strongly in tenant rights because I've seen what bad landlords can do, and I've have close friends (now basically family) suffer because of the spiral of of homelessness. What I was suggesting was that no, it wasn't really unreasonable for the buyers to be surprised and expect squatters to not be present in their newly bought property. That is the responsibility of the seller. The seller sounds to have been fairly irreputable and tried to pawn off a problem property. At no point did I suggest, or am I suggesting, that a buyer should be able to immediately force legal residents or tenants to vacate. I'm saying that they probably had every right to be a bit surprised and annoyed/frustrated to find that the seller hadn't really done their duty. The story is farcical enough without inventing more ways to be upset at the buyers in the story, and such outrage really isn't useful for anyone.
Jach 9y ago
I've had to leave a rental residence twice now in under 30 days because the owner wanted to sell instead of renew a lease and didn't bother telling us until just about the legal limit. It sucks, it'd be much better to have 2 months, but as a person with some dignity I recognize I don't own the property and I'm no longer welcome after 30 days. Sure I could be an asshole and fight the eviction out in courts as they worried Jack could do (with some weird incomplete post-sell-date form with the original owners) but no. In the story he had 2 months already, according to the original owners, and to make things worse no rent was being collected. Struggling with life doesn't give you a free pass to be an asshole, we all have our struggles, so if you've had legal notice, which is designed to take away the threat of immediate homelessness by giving time to find a new place, GTFO.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure 30 days is the minimum you are required to give in virtually any circumstance but these laws do vary by state. We really need a semi official landlord rating website where you can expect to see ratings for landlords. A landlord shouldn't be able to get a second set of decent tenants at market rate 10 years after he screws over the first. To be clear yelp for landlords with less of an extortion angle.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]