3 ms·
The landlord in the egregious example cited in the very short article can sue the tenant. The moratorium simply means the tenant can't be evicted for non-payme
by gamblor956 4y ago
The landlord in the egregious example cited in the very short article can sue the tenant.
The moratorium simply means the tenant can't be evicted for non-payment of rent. It doesn't mean that the tenant does not owe rent for the period, and while judges are generally lenient to people struggling to make rent, that wouldn't apply to the tenant described in the article.
- colejohnson66 4y agoCorrect. The landlord can always sue the tenant(s) for missed rent if they wish. In the case of the landlord in the article, a judge will probably be unsympathetic to their "plight", and could even order wage garnishment.
- WWLink 4y agoThey're probably whining because landlord-tenant lawsuits are usually expensive and the tenants might not have the money to pay back. Like, you might spend $10k trying to get back $15k and only get back say, $3-5k of that money. Doesn't hurt to try anyway though.
- gamblor956 4y agoIn this case, the tenant is alleged to have been able to afford a new collectible car and vacations while skimping out on rent, so this isn't that type of tenant. Moreover, in cases of deliberate malfeasance such as these, judges can and sometimes do award legal fees. It doesn't happen frequently in landlord-tenant cases, but it does happen regularly in cases involving wealthy tenants.