5 ms·

But people violate leases in little ways all the time. As long as the renters didn't cause any additional problems, I don't see what the big deal is.

jerf 14y ago
$20,000 isn't "little ways".
- tgrass 14y ago
  I don't understand why the amount is important. He did not cause $20,000 in damages to the landlord. At most, he did $20,000 in damages to the hotel down the street.
  - maratd 14y ago
    No, he didn't. But he did do some damage. That's the nature of property, the more it's used, the more damage it accrues. By having "extra" people in the apartment, the property was being depreciated at a greater rate without compensation to the landlord.
    - pyre 14y ago
      I'm unsure that this makes sense. If he had picked up a roommate instead of renting on ABnB, the landlord wouldn't have gotten more money, yet there would more 'more people' causing 'more damage.'
      - mseebach 14y ago
        Generally, the shorter time you're staying for, the less invested in the property and community you are. For an example, a guest will on average think less of making noise when coming in late than a tenant who will be having a longer term relationship with the neighbours.
        pyre 14y ago
        Personally, I've never known anyone that would treat a place poorly just due to a short stay. The people I know that would treat a place poorly are people would do so on a long or short stay.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      To that point, I wouldn't think it matters in any appreciable way. The lessee is still responsible for those damages whether or not he was renting the room, so the landlord has a path for recompense in the event that any portions of the place are damaged to the point of requiring rumuneration.
      - maratd 14y ago
        > to the point of requiring rumuneration. And that's the key. I have never met a landlord who demanded compensation from regular wear and tear. Not for the appliances, floors, walls, etc. I wasn't talking about holes in walls. I was talking about the general wear and tear that the landlord would never be compensated for. In the end, he would have to replace appliances out of his own pocket at a faster rate, etc.
  - jerf 14y ago
    "I don't understand why the amount is important." Because, at the risk of repeating myself, $20,000 isn't "little ways". It is $20,000. We are talking about something important here. Yes, we all make a few holes in the wall or unsanctioned little repairs or something, but we're talking $20,000. It's not "little things". I'm not saying it's automatically "damage" or harm of any kind. In fact it pretty clearly isn't since it's hard to miss $20,000 in damages. But we're not talking about a couple holes in the wall, we're talking about $20,000. I've got a very simple four-word point, and I was not trying to imply any further argument.
    - tgrass 14y ago
      The large amount of profit may inspire attention, but it doesn't correlate with the extent of lease violation (to my mind). The lease likely mentions guests generally, not charging for them. Which would mean CouchSurfing.org is just as problematic - and that the amount of profit is immaterial.
      - jerf 14y ago
        You seem to be continuing to impute arguments to me that I am not making. No, I don't particularly think that AirBNB is especially problematic, I think the entire "genre" of business faces the same problems. None of them are the sort of little issue we don't have to worry about, they're all worth talking about (and, alas, probably litigating and legislating about).
  - rprasad 14y ago
    He may have imposed more than $20,000 in potential liability on the landlord (i.e., if something went wrong). Standard insurance does not usually extend to the hotel-style leasing that AirBnB offers, so the landlord (and the tentant) would have been personally liable for any damages. It is possible that the actuarial value (i.e., risk-adjusted value) of those potential liabilities exceeds $20,000, but we would need more information to know.
pixelbath 14y ago
Breach of contract is generally considered a "big deal" by most lawyers and judges.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  Yeah... this is why the San Francisco rental market is a joke. I'm pretty sure the standard SFAA lease is more or less designed to be broken, so that the landlord can toss you out if he needs to (because otherwise the inane rent board regulations would keep him from doing so even in a legitimate situation). On top of that you have landlords who tell you "oh, such and such won't be a problem" even though it says in the lease that it's a problem and that the lease comprises the whole of the agreement. (cough hi, J Warvro and Associates, it's me again cough) And no one wants to modify it because it's too legally risky. </semi-topical-rant>
  - simoncion 14y ago
    How would modifying the SFAA lease be legally risky? In the absence of a written lease, the obligations of a tenant to the landlord are to not cause damage to the landlord's property -beyond ordinary wear and tear-, to pay the landlord the agreed-upon rent in a timely manner, and to not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of others tenants in the building. A landlord's obligation to his tenants are to provide a place that's fit for habitation (There are some things like a functional phone jack in definition of that), ensure that any hazards that may be caused by damage to the building are rectified in a timely manner, and to address any tenant's complaints regarding those two items. A written lease will generally only add restrictions on one or both parties. Unless explicitly changed by the terms of a written lease both parties are required to live up to the basic obligations that they would be held to in the absence of a written leasing agreement. (And even then, there are certain obligations that a landlord cannot free himself from.) Edit: Replaced "waive" with "free himself from" in last paragraph. "waive" wasn't the right word to use.
    - fennecfoxen 14y ago
      In San Francisco, the Rent Board places additional obligations on the landlord and declares random things legal and enforceable or not legal and not enforceable. (For instance, a recent example: if there are multiple tenants in the apartment and their rooms are the same, they may not split the rent unequally. it must be split proportionally. so decreeth the rent board.) The SFAA lease contains things that are... battle-tested. If you're a tenant, it's not your problem, but if you're a landlord, you probably don't want to be one of those guys who ends up with a tenant that's impossible to get rid of, stays in the apartment forever, and pays half of what you could get if you could legally rent the apartment to someone else (which you can't).
maratd 14y ago
It's not up to you to determine what is a "little" thing and what's a "big" thing. It's up to the people who signed the contract. Apparently, the landlord thinks it's a big thing. In fact, I never met a landlord who didn't. They always verbally specified that I am not to run a boarding house, on top of it being in the lease. Probably because I was a college kid and well, rent to a college kid and you get a boarding house ...
- deelowe 14y ago
  Actually, it's because the landlord could get sued or even end up going to jail due to stuff you did if his contract doesn't protect him from issues resulting from the sublease. The #1 concern with being a landlord is liability.
deelowe 14y ago
I'm a landlord and my wife works in property management. Here's why this is a big deal: You're technically violating contract law and opening yourself and the landloard up to a ton of liability by doing this. Leasing and renting is much more complex than simply letting someone sleep over at your property. A property owner can get in some serious trouble if something were to happen (someone gets hurt, robbed, etc..) and he/she hasn't taken the correct steps to protect his/herself. Not to mention the issues around covenants, local ordinances/regulations, taxes, mortgages, and insurance.
sliverstorm 14y ago
There are clauses in leases the landlord will often let slide. For example, limits to number of cars on the property. Such clauses are often there so that the landlord can take action if the tenant does something like put eight cars on blocks on the lawn, rather than actually attempting to limit the tenant to 1 car. There are also clauses in leases that are completely unacceptable to break. For example, paying rent.
- elliottcarlson 14y ago
  One of my clauses is that I can't run a business from my apartment. I know this is meant to prevent me from warehousing or having some kind of showroom type traffic going on - and I am fine doing programming on my own stuff or other projects in my place.

jerf 14y ago

$20,000 isn't "little ways".

tgrass 14y ago
I don't understand why the amount is important. He did not cause $20,000 in damages to the landlord. At most, he did $20,000 in damages to the hotel down the street.
- maratd 14y ago
  No, he didn't. But he did do some damage. That's the nature of property, the more it's used, the more damage it accrues. By having "extra" people in the apartment, the property was being depreciated at a greater rate without compensation to the landlord.
  - pyre 14y ago
    I'm unsure that this makes sense. If he had picked up a roommate instead of renting on ABnB, the landlord wouldn't have gotten more money, yet there would more 'more people' causing 'more damage.'
    - mseebach 14y ago
      Generally, the shorter time you're staying for, the less invested in the property and community you are. For an example, a guest will on average think less of making noise when coming in late than a tenant who will be having a longer term relationship with the neighbours.
      - pyre 14y ago
        Personally, I've never known anyone that would treat a place poorly just due to a short stay. The people I know that would treat a place poorly are people would do so on a long or short stay.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    To that point, I wouldn't think it matters in any appreciable way. The lessee is still responsible for those damages whether or not he was renting the room, so the landlord has a path for recompense in the event that any portions of the place are damaged to the point of requiring rumuneration.
    - maratd 14y ago
      > to the point of requiring rumuneration. And that's the key. I have never met a landlord who demanded compensation from regular wear and tear. Not for the appliances, floors, walls, etc. I wasn't talking about holes in walls. I was talking about the general wear and tear that the landlord would never be compensated for. In the end, he would have to replace appliances out of his own pocket at a faster rate, etc.
- jerf 14y ago
  "I don't understand why the amount is important." Because, at the risk of repeating myself, $20,000 isn't "little ways". It is $20,000. We are talking about something important here. Yes, we all make a few holes in the wall or unsanctioned little repairs or something, but we're talking $20,000. It's not "little things". I'm not saying it's automatically "damage" or harm of any kind. In fact it pretty clearly isn't since it's hard to miss $20,000 in damages. But we're not talking about a couple holes in the wall, we're talking about $20,000. I've got a very simple four-word point, and I was not trying to imply any further argument.
  - tgrass 14y ago
    The large amount of profit may inspire attention, but it doesn't correlate with the extent of lease violation (to my mind). The lease likely mentions guests generally, not charging for them. Which would mean CouchSurfing.org is just as problematic - and that the amount of profit is immaterial.
    - jerf 14y ago
      You seem to be continuing to impute arguments to me that I am not making. No, I don't particularly think that AirBNB is especially problematic, I think the entire "genre" of business faces the same problems. None of them are the sort of little issue we don't have to worry about, they're all worth talking about (and, alas, probably litigating and legislating about).
- rprasad 14y ago
  He may have imposed more than $20,000 in potential liability on the landlord (i.e., if something went wrong). Standard insurance does not usually extend to the hotel-style leasing that AirBnB offers, so the landlord (and the tentant) would have been personally liable for any damages. It is possible that the actuarial value (i.e., risk-adjusted value) of those potential liabilities exceeds $20,000, but we would need more information to know.

pixelbath 14y ago

Breach of contract is generally considered a "big deal" by most lawyers and judges.

fennecfoxen 14y ago
Yeah... this is why the San Francisco rental market is a joke. I'm pretty sure the standard SFAA lease is more or less designed to be broken, so that the landlord can toss you out if he needs to (because otherwise the inane rent board regulations would keep him from doing so even in a legitimate situation). On top of that you have landlords who tell you "oh, such and such won't be a problem" even though it says in the lease that it's a problem and that the lease comprises the whole of the agreement. (cough hi, J Warvro and Associates, it's me again cough) And no one wants to modify it because it's too legally risky. </semi-topical-rant>
- simoncion 14y ago
  How would modifying the SFAA lease be legally risky? In the absence of a written lease, the obligations of a tenant to the landlord are to not cause damage to the landlord's property -beyond ordinary wear and tear-, to pay the landlord the agreed-upon rent in a timely manner, and to not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of others tenants in the building. A landlord's obligation to his tenants are to provide a place that's fit for habitation (There are some things like a functional phone jack in definition of that), ensure that any hazards that may be caused by damage to the building are rectified in a timely manner, and to address any tenant's complaints regarding those two items. A written lease will generally only add restrictions on one or both parties. Unless explicitly changed by the terms of a written lease both parties are required to live up to the basic obligations that they would be held to in the absence of a written leasing agreement. (And even then, there are certain obligations that a landlord cannot free himself from.) Edit: Replaced "waive" with "free himself from" in last paragraph. "waive" wasn't the right word to use.
  - fennecfoxen 14y ago
    In San Francisco, the Rent Board places additional obligations on the landlord and declares random things legal and enforceable or not legal and not enforceable. (For instance, a recent example: if there are multiple tenants in the apartment and their rooms are the same, they may not split the rent unequally. it must be split proportionally. so decreeth the rent board.) The SFAA lease contains things that are... battle-tested. If you're a tenant, it's not your problem, but if you're a landlord, you probably don't want to be one of those guys who ends up with a tenant that's impossible to get rid of, stays in the apartment forever, and pays half of what you could get if you could legally rent the apartment to someone else (which you can't).

maratd 14y ago

It's not up to you to determine what is a "little" thing and what's a "big" thing. It's up to the people who signed the contract. Apparently, the landlord thinks it's a big thing. In fact, I never met a landlord who didn't. They always verbally specified that I am not to run a boarding house, on top of it being in the lease. Probably because I was a college kid and well, rent to a college kid and you get a boarding house ...

deelowe 14y ago
Actually, it's because the landlord could get sued or even end up going to jail due to stuff you did if his contract doesn't protect him from issues resulting from the sublease. The #1 concern with being a landlord is liability.

deelowe 14y ago

I'm a landlord and my wife works in property management. Here's why this is a big deal: You're technically violating contract law and opening yourself and the landloard up to a ton of liability by doing this. Leasing and renting is much more complex than simply letting someone sleep over at your property. A property owner can get in some serious trouble if something were to happen (someone gets hurt, robbed, etc..) and he/she hasn't taken the correct steps to protect his/herself. Not to mention the issues around covenants, local ordinances/regulations, taxes, mortgages, and insurance.

sliverstorm 14y ago

There are clauses in leases the landlord will often let slide. For example, limits to number of cars on the property. Such clauses are often there so that the landlord can take action if the tenant does something like put eight cars on blocks on the lawn, rather than actually attempting to limit the tenant to 1 car. There are also clauses in leases that are completely unacceptable to break. For example, paying rent.

elliottcarlson 14y ago
One of my clauses is that I can't run a business from my apartment. I know this is meant to prevent me from warehousing or having some kind of showroom type traffic going on - and I am fine doing programming on my own stuff or other projects in my place.