5 ms·

The article doesn't explain how this woman supposedly became homeless. Was she evicted from a property she was renting to live in? Did her bank foreclose on her

The article doesn't explain how this woman supposedly became homeless. Was she evicted from a property she was renting to live in? Did her bank foreclose on her residence? Given the moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, I'm not sure how a lack of money due to her tenants' unpaid rent could cause her to become homeless.

zugi 5y ago
I mean it doesn't really matter all that much, but I think I read elsewhere that she broke up with her long-term boyfriend and had to move out. Normally that wouldn't be a problem for someone who owns 3 houses. But her tenants aren't paying so she's broke and isn't allowed to kick them out and live in her own house.
- vmception 5y ago
  She is allowed to list the property for sale though. But in any case, I would probably go to the media first too. But also list the property for sale. Not my problem which part of the story they go with. At least I could point to why I sold the properties, to any other sentimental stakeholders.
  - ganoushoreilly 5y ago
    Good luck selling a home with an existing tenant that's not paying.
dragontamer 5y ago
> moratorium on foreclosures and evictions That only applies to some areas of the country, and I believe the supreme court just struck it down. So as of now, applies no where iirc.
- gizmo686 5y ago
  The Supreme Court struck down the federal moritorium [0]; and there wording made it clear the issue was the CDC exceeding it's authority under current law (as opposed to a fundamental constitutional issue). As such, this ruling has no bearing on state issued eviction moratoriums. Having said that, the New York moratorium (which was passed as a law by the state legislature) expired today (August 31, 2021), so that is a moot point in this case. For completeness, I will point out that the US Supreme court also evaluated this state law [1], and mostly allowed it to continue. The only change they made was allowing landlords to contest the claim of hardship from the tenants. For further completeness, that was the only part of the New York law the Court was asked to rule on, so conceivably they would still have overturned the entire thing if the proper case was brought before them. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a8_3fb4.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a8_3fb4.pdf

zugi 5y ago

I mean it doesn't really matter all that much, but I think I read elsewhere that she broke up with her long-term boyfriend and had to move out. Normally that wouldn't be a problem for someone who owns 3 houses. But her tenants aren't paying so she's broke and isn't allowed to kick them out and live in her own house.

vmception 5y ago
She is allowed to list the property for sale though. But in any case, I would probably go to the media first too. But also list the property for sale. Not my problem which part of the story they go with. At least I could point to why I sold the properties, to any other sentimental stakeholders.
- ganoushoreilly 5y ago
  Good luck selling a home with an existing tenant that's not paying.

dragontamer 5y ago

> moratorium on foreclosures and evictions That only applies to some areas of the country, and I believe the supreme court just struck it down. So as of now, applies no where iirc.

gizmo686 5y ago
The Supreme Court struck down the federal moritorium [0]; and there wording made it clear the issue was the CDC exceeding it's authority under current law (as opposed to a fundamental constitutional issue). As such, this ruling has no bearing on state issued eviction moratoriums. Having said that, the New York moratorium (which was passed as a law by the state legislature) expired today (August 31, 2021), so that is a moot point in this case. For completeness, I will point out that the US Supreme court also evaluated this state law [1], and mostly allowed it to continue. The only change they made was allowing landlords to contest the claim of hardship from the tenants. For further completeness, that was the only part of the New York law the Court was asked to rule on, so conceivably they would still have overturned the entire thing if the proper case was brought before them. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a8_3fb4.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a8_3fb4.pdf