2 ms·

of course not for the rest of their lives. i don't even know where that sentiment comes from. the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to

by em-bee 3y ago

of course not for the rest of their lives. i don't even know where that sentiment comes from. the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. and that is simply not true. the expectation almost always is that a lease will be renewed, and if a landlord doesn't want to renew they are the ones going against expectations. a landlord not renewing the lease has certainly happened to us. mostly i think it was because they wanted to sell the apartment. but this was never expected at the time we moved in. if we had known in advance we would have found another place. in germany btw, terminating a lease in order to sell is also illegal. the buyer of an apartment has to continue the lease. they may then only terminate it if they can prove that they need the apartment for themselves.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
>i don't even know where that sentiment comes from. I introduced when I said I dont know anyone who expected to be in a rental for the rest of their lives. This is support for the idea that the contracts in the US are expected to be terminatable by either party at will. You then countered with stories of family that never left and statements like the following: "most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed." "we'll stay here until life circumstances force us to move, which may well be never." >the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. and that is simply not true. If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract. If someone signs a contract saying they will leave whenever asked, then later refuses to leave without a payment, that is clearly changing the agreement.
- em-bee 3y ago
  If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract. ok, putting it explicit like that i kind of agree. but i don't see the example from the story in that way. the tenant had a clear expectation that they could stay, and the landlord knew that. they got blindsided by the landlord wanting them to move out because regardless of the actual contract they signed, the tenant clearly wasn't in the position to be able to simply move. situations like this are the reason why this is actually illegal in germany. being forced to move always creates a hardship for the tenant, and the laws are made to protect against that.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think the difference in emotional responses you and I have is largely dependent on the backstory that we are filling in. I'm more biased to believe or assume a malicious or incompetent tenant, and you are more inclined to assume a malicious landlord. You think they are being blindsided, and I think they've been given a minimum of 2 months notice. There are no facts about the reason for non-renewal in the article. Maybe the tenant is knocking holes in the walls or the owner is moving in. Like I said, our differences is probably colored by our experiences. I've seen people making 200k a year extort 50K cash for keys simply because they can and it's cheaper than an eviction. I've seen other tenants demand similar amounts to move out because they are doing 100K of damage per year and they know it's cheaper to pay them off.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      actually, i am not assuming that anyone is malicious here, and i am observing that even without anyone being at fault, the lack of tenant protection puts the tenant at a disadvantage. and that disadvantage is what i intended to address. if a tenant is malicious then none of this discussion is even relevant, because we no longer need to consider the expectations of the tenant. if they damaged the property, sue them to get them to pay for the fix, or do whatever you need to make the problem go away. but if they are just a harmless nuisance, well then, tough luck. until the landlord provides a good reason for the eviction, i'll side with the tenant. have you had to find an apartment to rent on short notice before? two months is not enough. i'd need half a year.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Most tenants are judgement proof, so there is no legal remedy. That is to say, there is no legal recourse and compensation avenue available. landlords are lucky if they can get possession of their property back intact. However, I agree that this is a distinct topic than no-cause eviction. The two intersect in that cash for keys is a common remedy for both situations. I think there are valid practical arguments that can be made for legally barring no-cause evictions or extending notice. The main point I was attempting to debate was the reasonableness of demanding cash-for-keys under a legal framework that explicitly allows no-cause eviction, and both parties have contractually agreed to no-fault eviction (and no-fault move out). This is largely because I believe in honoring my commitments, even if I could profit through breaking them or lying.
smsm42 3y ago
> the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. No, the argument was that the tenant that refuses to move out when the landlord does not want to rent to them anymore, after the original contract has expired, unless the landlord pays them off, is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The agreement with the landlord consists of the lease/rental contract, the law, and other unspoken expectations of both parties. Some times more things are spelled out (lease contracts that have built-in price changes; for example I've seen ones that basically auto-renew every year, with an optional x% increase on the landlord's side, which usually but not always is taken), sometimes they aren't. You can even agree to things that aren't allowed by law; both sides just never bother reporting it (this is one of those unwritten things you find from time to time). Usually a tenant "unilaterally changing the agreement" is just falling back on the tenant protection laws to their advantage. Savvy landlords know the laws and how to work with them, inexperienced landlords get caught out (often because all the tenants before have never used them).

by em-bee 3y ago

s1artibartfast 3y ago

>i don't even know where that sentiment comes from. I introduced when I said I dont know anyone who expected to be in a rental for the rest of their lives. This is support for the idea that the contracts in the US are expected to be terminatable by either party at will. You then countered with stories of family that never left and statements like the following: "most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed." "we'll stay here until life circumstances force us to move, which may well be never." >the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. and that is simply not true. If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract. If someone signs a contract saying they will leave whenever asked, then later refuses to leave without a payment, that is clearly changing the agreement.

em-bee 3y ago
If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract. ok, putting it explicit like that i kind of agree. but i don't see the example from the story in that way. the tenant had a clear expectation that they could stay, and the landlord knew that. they got blindsided by the landlord wanting them to move out because regardless of the actual contract they signed, the tenant clearly wasn't in the position to be able to simply move. situations like this are the reason why this is actually illegal in germany. being forced to move always creates a hardship for the tenant, and the laws are made to protect against that.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think the difference in emotional responses you and I have is largely dependent on the backstory that we are filling in. I'm more biased to believe or assume a malicious or incompetent tenant, and you are more inclined to assume a malicious landlord. You think they are being blindsided, and I think they've been given a minimum of 2 months notice. There are no facts about the reason for non-renewal in the article. Maybe the tenant is knocking holes in the walls or the owner is moving in. Like I said, our differences is probably colored by our experiences. I've seen people making 200k a year extort 50K cash for keys simply because they can and it's cheaper than an eviction. I've seen other tenants demand similar amounts to move out because they are doing 100K of damage per year and they know it's cheaper to pay them off.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    actually, i am not assuming that anyone is malicious here, and i am observing that even without anyone being at fault, the lack of tenant protection puts the tenant at a disadvantage. and that disadvantage is what i intended to address. if a tenant is malicious then none of this discussion is even relevant, because we no longer need to consider the expectations of the tenant. if they damaged the property, sue them to get them to pay for the fix, or do whatever you need to make the problem go away. but if they are just a harmless nuisance, well then, tough luck. until the landlord provides a good reason for the eviction, i'll side with the tenant. have you had to find an apartment to rent on short notice before? two months is not enough. i'd need half a year.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Most tenants are judgement proof, so there is no legal remedy. That is to say, there is no legal recourse and compensation avenue available. landlords are lucky if they can get possession of their property back intact. However, I agree that this is a distinct topic than no-cause eviction. The two intersect in that cash for keys is a common remedy for both situations. I think there are valid practical arguments that can be made for legally barring no-cause evictions or extending notice. The main point I was attempting to debate was the reasonableness of demanding cash-for-keys under a legal framework that explicitly allows no-cause eviction, and both parties have contractually agreed to no-fault eviction (and no-fault move out). This is largely because I believe in honoring my commitments, even if I could profit through breaking them or lying.

smsm42 3y ago

> the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. No, the argument was that the tenant that refuses to move out when the landlord does not want to rent to them anymore, after the original contract has expired, unless the landlord pays them off, is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord.

bombcar 3y ago
The agreement with the landlord consists of the lease/rental contract, the law, and other unspoken expectations of both parties. Some times more things are spelled out (lease contracts that have built-in price changes; for example I've seen ones that basically auto-renew every year, with an optional x% increase on the landlord's side, which usually but not always is taken), sometimes they aren't. You can even agree to things that aren't allowed by law; both sides just never bother reporting it (this is one of those unwritten things you find from time to time). Usually a tenant "unilaterally changing the agreement" is just falling back on the tenant protection laws to their advantage. Savvy landlords know the laws and how to work with them, inexperienced landlords get caught out (often because all the tenants before have never used them).