6 ms·

How is not paying rent for a year not legal grounds for eviction? That's what's wrong. I can see being delinquent a coupe of months or three but a freaking ye

by mc32 3y ago

How is not paying rent for a year not legal grounds for eviction? That's what's wrong. I can see being delinquent a coupe of months or three but a freaking year?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
Because it’s California.
- sangupta 3y ago
  This is the real problem. How can not paying rent for an year, and staying in a property that you don't have legal title/rent agreement for not construe a legal cause for eviction under "Just Cause Ordinance". Shame on such city leaders who care only for votes.
agilob 3y ago
If a person has nowhere to go they are at risk of being homeless, no court will sign eviction notice. Same thing in many EU countries. I've seen some stories where tenants don't pay rent for months, so the landlord rents one of the rooms to some super noisy, aggressive, smelly tenants who are actors. Their role it to make life of the tenants so miserable they move out on their own.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  > If a person has nowhere to go they are at risk of being homeless, no court will sign eviction notice this is FALSE, and typical of the kind of table-talk among older landowners
- oldbbsnickname 3y ago
  There are 3 groupings that should get conflated: 1. Otherwise good tenants just without means who would otherwise be homeless. 2. Hellish tenants without means who also would be homeless. 3. Hellish tenants with means who play the "But I would be homeless" card as an excuse to cheat landlords. The tenant in question here is 3. rather than 1. A judge cannot side with everyone as 1, must treat everyone equally with the given facts but should not enable those refuse to pay or exploit technicalities to create a situation without relief. The landlord didn't understand the law, was too generous, and failed to hire a lawyer.
  - Scea91 3y ago
    Am I insane if I think none of these cases should be the landlord´s problem? If the judge does not evict (1) then state should pay the rent for them.
xwdv 3y ago
California doesn’t think it’s fair for a tenant to be evicted from a place they’ve lived for some time just because they can’t pay.
- artursapek 3y ago
  They are essentially stealing income the landlord should have been making. Seems pretty fair to me.
- mc32 3y ago
  They have to have some accommodation for blatant and willful violation of the spirit of the law and taking advantage of the law and violating other people's property rights for an excessive amount of time.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  > California doesn’t think it’s fair for a tenant to be evicted from a place they’ve lived for some time just because they can’t pay this is FALSE and also typical of uninformed commentary
- YeBanKo 3y ago
  She does not want to pay. It’s not a case of a financial hardship.
lukeschlather 3y ago
The owner offered the unit for rent illegally. This is like the proverbial drug dealer that calls the cops to report someone stole $10k of product and is upset that the police are unconcerned with returning his property.
- arp242 3y ago
  Did they? That's what is being claimed but it's not clear to me that's actually the case, but maybe I read over it? Regardless, I don't think this should matter for the eviction, although the city could imposes additional fines for the landlord if they wanted to. "You rented it illegally therefore I don't have to pay rent and I can stay here for as long as I want" is obviously not reasonable.
  - lukeschlather 3y ago
    According to the article she paid $20k and her lawsuit says that she wants that money back since he didn't have a legal right to collect rent. Assuming her account is correct (and it sounds like the city agrees this was an illegal rental) why is it unreasonable for her to remain in the unit until he pays restitution? Why should the fine go to the city (and do you think the fine should be less than the amount collected in rent?)
    - arp242 3y ago
      Demanding all your rent back is ridiculous. That there may not have been a license is a matter for the appropriate authorities to deal with such matters. Fact is the services were rendered and that some bureaucratic procedure may not have been entirely correct, something she did not suffer any damages from, is frankly none of the tenant's business but between the city and landlord. This has all the hallmarks of someone intentionally trying to find flaws to exploit (also see the whole business with the shower).
      - turquoisevar 3y ago
        Depends on the legal language of the lease. If there’s any language regarding the dwelling being habitable, then the lack of a license makes it by definition not a habitable dwelling and thus the he never fulfilled his end of the agreement, making it necessary to refund the rent paid. In other words, services might be rendered, but not the services as agreed upon in the lease. The secondary matter would be if occupying someone’s property is an allowable remedy until the payment is made, which is a bit more thorny, on the other hand, occupation notwithstanding, it’s not uncommon to maintain possession of someone’s property until payment is made as a form of leverage (e.g. keeping a customer’s laptop until they’ve made payment for repairs made on said laptop). What’s interesting is that he’s a Netherlands native, but then acts stumped about LA’s Just Cause requirement. In the Netherlands leases for consumers are always under a Just Cause principle and pretty much the only way to cancel a lease as a landlord is non-payment. End dates in leases are void, landlord wanting to occupy the property themselves is not a valid reason to cancel the lease, sale of property is not a valid reason to cancel the lease (lease gets transferred over to new owner). Basically the only way to get a tenant out is if the tenant cancels the lease themselves or if there’s a significant period of non-payment.
gamblor956 3y ago
There was a COVID-related eviction moratorium in LA that recently expired. (see https://cityattorney.lacity.gov/tenant-protections https://cityattorney.lacity.gov/tenant-protections) But in this guy's case, because he was renting out an unregistered AirBnB, and for a term of greater than 30 days, it was treated as a normal tenancy rather than as a short-term stay, and thus normal landlord-tenant laws apply. Generally, one of the main rules of rental law is that tenants cannot be evicted for nonpayment of rent if there are habitability and compliance issues with the unit, which it appears there may be. (EDIT: also, it appears the unit itself was never permitted for occupancy, so he shouldn't even have been renting it out on AirBnB. This is probably why he didn't register it as a short-term rental.) Basically, she's the tenant from hell...but he's also made a number of serious mistakes which let her take advantage of him in the first place.
- bagels 3y ago
  If it's uninhabitable, the city should remove her, and they can fight over whether he pays her money or not in court.
  - droopyEyelids 3y ago
    Why should the city send working people, on the clock, to do a favor for the scheming, illegal landlord?
- beowulfey 3y ago
  Thanks, this is a really good explanation for what happened. None of this was making sense to me haha

by mc32 3y ago

How is not paying rent for a year not legal grounds for eviction? That's what's wrong. I can see being delinquent a coupe of months or three but a freaking year?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

Because it’s California.

sangupta 3y ago
This is the real problem. How can not paying rent for an year, and staying in a property that you don't have legal title/rent agreement for not construe a legal cause for eviction under "Just Cause Ordinance". Shame on such city leaders who care only for votes.

agilob 3y ago

If a person has nowhere to go they are at risk of being homeless, no court will sign eviction notice. Same thing in many EU countries. I've seen some stories where tenants don't pay rent for months, so the landlord rents one of the rooms to some super noisy, aggressive, smelly tenants who are actors. Their role it to make life of the tenants so miserable they move out on their own.

mistrial9 3y ago
> If a person has nowhere to go they are at risk of being homeless, no court will sign eviction notice this is FALSE, and typical of the kind of table-talk among older landowners
oldbbsnickname 3y ago
There are 3 groupings that should get conflated: 1. Otherwise good tenants just without means who would otherwise be homeless. 2. Hellish tenants without means who also would be homeless. 3. Hellish tenants with means who play the "But I would be homeless" card as an excuse to cheat landlords. The tenant in question here is 3. rather than 1. A judge cannot side with everyone as 1, must treat everyone equally with the given facts but should not enable those refuse to pay or exploit technicalities to create a situation without relief. The landlord didn't understand the law, was too generous, and failed to hire a lawyer.
- Scea91 3y ago
  Am I insane if I think none of these cases should be the landlord´s problem? If the judge does not evict (1) then state should pay the rent for them.

xwdv 3y ago

California doesn’t think it’s fair for a tenant to be evicted from a place they’ve lived for some time just because they can’t pay.

artursapek 3y ago
They are essentially stealing income the landlord should have been making. Seems pretty fair to me.
mc32 3y ago
They have to have some accommodation for blatant and willful violation of the spirit of the law and taking advantage of the law and violating other people's property rights for an excessive amount of time.
mistrial9 3y ago
> California doesn’t think it’s fair for a tenant to be evicted from a place they’ve lived for some time just because they can’t pay this is FALSE and also typical of uninformed commentary
YeBanKo 3y ago
She does not want to pay. It’s not a case of a financial hardship.

lukeschlather 3y ago

The owner offered the unit for rent illegally. This is like the proverbial drug dealer that calls the cops to report someone stole $10k of product and is upset that the police are unconcerned with returning his property.

arp242 3y ago
Did they? That's what is being claimed but it's not clear to me that's actually the case, but maybe I read over it? Regardless, I don't think this should matter for the eviction, although the city could imposes additional fines for the landlord if they wanted to. "You rented it illegally therefore I don't have to pay rent and I can stay here for as long as I want" is obviously not reasonable.
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  According to the article she paid $20k and her lawsuit says that she wants that money back since he didn't have a legal right to collect rent. Assuming her account is correct (and it sounds like the city agrees this was an illegal rental) why is it unreasonable for her to remain in the unit until he pays restitution? Why should the fine go to the city (and do you think the fine should be less than the amount collected in rent?)
  - arp242 3y ago
    Demanding all your rent back is ridiculous. That there may not have been a license is a matter for the appropriate authorities to deal with such matters. Fact is the services were rendered and that some bureaucratic procedure may not have been entirely correct, something she did not suffer any damages from, is frankly none of the tenant's business but between the city and landlord. This has all the hallmarks of someone intentionally trying to find flaws to exploit (also see the whole business with the shower).
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      Depends on the legal language of the lease. If there’s any language regarding the dwelling being habitable, then the lack of a license makes it by definition not a habitable dwelling and thus the he never fulfilled his end of the agreement, making it necessary to refund the rent paid. In other words, services might be rendered, but not the services as agreed upon in the lease. The secondary matter would be if occupying someone’s property is an allowable remedy until the payment is made, which is a bit more thorny, on the other hand, occupation notwithstanding, it’s not uncommon to maintain possession of someone’s property until payment is made as a form of leverage (e.g. keeping a customer’s laptop until they’ve made payment for repairs made on said laptop). What’s interesting is that he’s a Netherlands native, but then acts stumped about LA’s Just Cause requirement. In the Netherlands leases for consumers are always under a Just Cause principle and pretty much the only way to cancel a lease as a landlord is non-payment. End dates in leases are void, landlord wanting to occupy the property themselves is not a valid reason to cancel the lease, sale of property is not a valid reason to cancel the lease (lease gets transferred over to new owner). Basically the only way to get a tenant out is if the tenant cancels the lease themselves or if there’s a significant period of non-payment.

gamblor956 3y ago

There was a COVID-related eviction moratorium in LA that recently expired. (see https://cityattorney.lacity.gov/tenant-protections https://cityattorney.lacity.gov/tenant-protections) But in this guy's case, because he was renting out an unregistered AirBnB, and for a term of greater than 30 days, it was treated as a normal tenancy rather than as a short-term stay, and thus normal landlord-tenant laws apply. Generally, one of the main rules of rental law is that tenants cannot be evicted for nonpayment of rent if there are habitability and compliance issues with the unit, which it appears there may be. (EDIT: also, it appears the unit itself was never permitted for occupancy, so he shouldn't even have been renting it out on AirBnB. This is probably why he didn't register it as a short-term rental.) Basically, she's the tenant from hell...but he's also made a number of serious mistakes which let her take advantage of him in the first place.

bagels 3y ago
If it's uninhabitable, the city should remove her, and they can fight over whether he pays her money or not in court.
- droopyEyelids 3y ago
  Why should the city send working people, on the clock, to do a favor for the scheming, illegal landlord?
beowulfey 3y ago
Thanks, this is a really good explanation for what happened. None of this was making sense to me haha