3 ms·

Why is it morally acceptable for a landlord to be able to evict a tenant from their home if their payment was not received for a reason out of the tenant's cont

Why is it morally acceptable for a landlord to be able to evict a tenant from their home if their payment was not received for a reason out of the tenant's control, like being lost by the post office or stolen from the landlord's mailbox? The grandparent comment was responding to starting eviction process one day after rent was due. I don't see how contacting the tenant and waiting a week equates to giving lifetime free rent.

rripken 8y ago
Just b/c the eviction process is started doesn't mean the tenant can't resolve the problem before they are forced out. Assuming the tenant pays then waiting a week wouldn't matter. But if the tenant has decided that they won't pay then waiting the week delays the entire eviction process by an extra week - leading to the landlord getting 1 week less of income for every eviction. I have family that had to evict a tenant in California and it was an extremely long and drawn out process.
tacon 8y ago
I am having a hard time following your logic. The lease is a contract, and the tenant gets the use of the space in exchange for paying a certain amount on a certain schedule. What possible difference does it make why the payment was not received? If it was really lost in the mail or stolen from the landlord's mailbox (really, now...), then the tenant can prove that to the judge in eviction court. Have you ever been to eviction court? It is a learning experience. The judge is listening very carefully for the answer to the following question: "Did you pay the rent?" If he hears anything other than "I paid the rent.", he signs an eviction order. It is amazing how many words a defendant will say, on and on, and if the judge doesn't hear the magic words, he must evict the tenant. The defense is "I paid the rent". Anything else is pretty much irrelevant. Just like telling the IRS "The check was lost in the mail!" or "It must have been stolen out of your mailbox!" Why is it morally acceptable for someone to hang out in the landlord's house without paying, even if something really bad happened to the tenant (lost job, medical bills, auto repair bills, whatever)?

rripken 8y ago

Just b/c the eviction process is started doesn't mean the tenant can't resolve the problem before they are forced out. Assuming the tenant pays then waiting a week wouldn't matter. But if the tenant has decided that they won't pay then waiting the week delays the entire eviction process by an extra week - leading to the landlord getting 1 week less of income for every eviction. I have family that had to evict a tenant in California and it was an extremely long and drawn out process.

tacon 8y ago

I am having a hard time following your logic. The lease is a contract, and the tenant gets the use of the space in exchange for paying a certain amount on a certain schedule. What possible difference does it make why the payment was not received? If it was really lost in the mail or stolen from the landlord's mailbox (really, now...), then the tenant can prove that to the judge in eviction court. Have you ever been to eviction court? It is a learning experience. The judge is listening very carefully for the answer to the following question: "Did you pay the rent?" If he hears anything other than "I paid the rent.", he signs an eviction order. It is amazing how many words a defendant will say, on and on, and if the judge doesn't hear the magic words, he must evict the tenant. The defense is "I paid the rent". Anything else is pretty much irrelevant. Just like telling the IRS "The check was lost in the mail!" or "It must have been stolen out of your mailbox!" Why is it morally acceptable for someone to hang out in the landlord's house without paying, even if something really bad happened to the tenant (lost job, medical bills, auto repair bills, whatever)?