4 ms·

I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force renters to leave their homes just because. That hardly seems fair to the tenant, no?

sigzero 12y ago
If you don't own it. Yes.
sithadmin 12y ago
It seems that at some point, the property holder's right to dispose of their property as they wish ought to trump any claims that a temporary tenant might have. That said, I don't know enough about California law to say what 'point' might be.
WalterBright 12y ago
It is kind of the difference between owning and renting.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Ask someone who's been evicted by foreclosure. Say, by way of robosigning.
  - ageek123 12y ago
    Foreclosure is part of the voluntary agreement you signed with the bank when they loaned you the money to voluntarily purchase the property. It's not government intervention.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      You're missing the point that if a more empowered party than you wants your property, they're likely to get it. Terms of mortgages in the past decade or so have been in tremendous flux, fraudulently granted (on the part of both lender and borrower, yes, in cases), and changed unilaterally. They've also been transferred with little or no documentation. Cases in which homes that were not even under any mortgage being seized are fairly easy to find. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robo-signing-of-mortgages-still-a-problem/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robo-signing-of-mortgages-still-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/ohio-bank-forecloses-wrong-home-katie-barnett_n_3644246.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/ohio-bank-foreclose... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing-wrong-homes/story?id=9637897 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing...
  - manigandham 12y ago
    Foreclosure... for not paying your bills? Not seeing the point.
cookiecaper 12y ago
It's plenty fair. This is why we have lease contracts. The lease protects both the tenant and the landlord for the lease's duration, and contractually obligates the landlord to prevent habitable premises while the lease is in force, but the landlord is under no obligation to renew if he wishes to do something else with his property. That's how ownership works. You don't lose ownership just because you choose to rent to a tenant.
slavik81 12y ago
As a tenent myself, I think it's perfectly fair. I signed a contract saying it's mine for the next year. The landlord cannot take it back before then. A few months before the year ends, we decide if we will renew the contract for another year. If not, I have a month or two to find a new place.
DannyBee 12y ago
For at least the past thousand years, the bedrock principal of law has been "restraints on alienation of property are generally considered invalid". That is, property owners are free to do what they want with their property. Another is: Your rights cannot exceed those of who you got them from (IE tenants cannot have greater rights to land than landlords) Tenants are tenants for a reason. The whole point of ownership is to have exactly the ability to have these rights. Why should somebody who has no title to the land, be able to control what happens to the land? The fact that someone lives somewhere doesn't give them magical rights to the place, and it shouldn't. (Most landlord/tenant law exists to ensure everyone plays fair and doesn't flat out abuse each other, but doing something within your rights, tough shit)
- tfigment 12y ago
  Rent control is in play here I believe to prevent price gouging. Some companies are not very moral/ethical when it comes to tenants. I would argue that the fairer thing (when Rent Control is in place) for owners might be that they can discontinue the contract when it expires but they also forfeit the right to rent that unit for a period of time (like 6 mo or 1 yr). Owners have some right to reclaim the property for own use but then are discouraged from flipping the unit and just reusing it the same way with different people. When I rented in Boston from operating companies, they always increased rent the maximum allowed every opportunity allowed. This encouraged a lot of churn in the area I lived which I don't think was good for the area. I also had a lot of problems with them never fixing appliances so I moved out. When I started renting directly from personal owners and allowed to go month-to-month then we were both happy and the owners generally never increased rent unless when their costs also increased.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    Sure, i understand the moral/ethical part, and i'm generally in favor of preventing price gouging. But the vast majority of complaints i've seen are more "my rent increased from 3000 to 4000", when all the other rents in the area are $4000. I had a bad experience myself renting in boston, that involved the health inspector fining the operating company about 20k.
manigandham 12y ago
Seems fair to me... when it's not your property.

sigzero 12y ago

If you don't own it. Yes.

sithadmin 12y ago

It seems that at some point, the property holder's right to dispose of their property as they wish ought to trump any claims that a temporary tenant might have. That said, I don't know enough about California law to say what 'point' might be.

WalterBright 12y ago

It is kind of the difference between owning and renting.

dredmorbius 12y ago
Ask someone who's been evicted by foreclosure. Say, by way of robosigning.
- ageek123 12y ago
  Foreclosure is part of the voluntary agreement you signed with the bank when they loaned you the money to voluntarily purchase the property. It's not government intervention.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    You're missing the point that if a more empowered party than you wants your property, they're likely to get it. Terms of mortgages in the past decade or so have been in tremendous flux, fraudulently granted (on the part of both lender and borrower, yes, in cases), and changed unilaterally. They've also been transferred with little or no documentation. Cases in which homes that were not even under any mortgage being seized are fairly easy to find. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robo-signing-of-mortgages-still-a-problem/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robo-signing-of-mortgages-still-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/ohio-bank-forecloses-wrong-home-katie-barnett_n_3644246.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/ohio-bank-foreclose... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing-wrong-homes/story?id=9637897 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing...
- manigandham 12y ago
  Foreclosure... for not paying your bills? Not seeing the point.

cookiecaper 12y ago

It's plenty fair. This is why we have lease contracts. The lease protects both the tenant and the landlord for the lease's duration, and contractually obligates the landlord to prevent habitable premises while the lease is in force, but the landlord is under no obligation to renew if he wishes to do something else with his property. That's how ownership works. You don't lose ownership just because you choose to rent to a tenant.

slavik81 12y ago

As a tenent myself, I think it's perfectly fair. I signed a contract saying it's mine for the next year. The landlord cannot take it back before then. A few months before the year ends, we decide if we will renew the contract for another year. If not, I have a month or two to find a new place.

DannyBee 12y ago

For at least the past thousand years, the bedrock principal of law has been "restraints on alienation of property are generally considered invalid". That is, property owners are free to do what they want with their property. Another is: Your rights cannot exceed those of who you got them from (IE tenants cannot have greater rights to land than landlords) Tenants are tenants for a reason. The whole point of ownership is to have exactly the ability to have these rights. Why should somebody who has no title to the land, be able to control what happens to the land? The fact that someone lives somewhere doesn't give them magical rights to the place, and it shouldn't. (Most landlord/tenant law exists to ensure everyone plays fair and doesn't flat out abuse each other, but doing something within your rights, tough shit)

tfigment 12y ago
Rent control is in play here I believe to prevent price gouging. Some companies are not very moral/ethical when it comes to tenants. I would argue that the fairer thing (when Rent Control is in place) for owners might be that they can discontinue the contract when it expires but they also forfeit the right to rent that unit for a period of time (like 6 mo or 1 yr). Owners have some right to reclaim the property for own use but then are discouraged from flipping the unit and just reusing it the same way with different people. When I rented in Boston from operating companies, they always increased rent the maximum allowed every opportunity allowed. This encouraged a lot of churn in the area I lived which I don't think was good for the area. I also had a lot of problems with them never fixing appliances so I moved out. When I started renting directly from personal owners and allowed to go month-to-month then we were both happy and the owners generally never increased rent unless when their costs also increased.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Sure, i understand the moral/ethical part, and i'm generally in favor of preventing price gouging. But the vast majority of complaints i've seen are more "my rent increased from 3000 to 4000", when all the other rents in the area are $4000. I had a bad experience myself renting in boston, that involved the health inspector fining the operating company about 20k.

manigandham 12y ago

Seems fair to me... when it's not your property.