Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm SO glad to read someone else say EXACTLY what I've been telling my family who do not live in Vegas.... It is WORSE in Vegas than any other place in the US. Of course, then I get what about Detroit? Admittedly, Detroit is hurting, but their bread and butter does not depend on tourists!
Detroit would be ecstatic if they could depend on tourists, at this point. Their bread and butter was the auto industry and that is all moving out or closing. They are in a much bigger hurt than Vegas, IMO. Detroit looks like a war zone and it will likely get worse before or if, it ever gets better.
Neither link answers the question. The first in fact deals with the situation where the property has been foreclosed...in which case the rent payment cannot be collected by the property manager. The fact that the change of ownership has not yet been posted does not change the ownership.
She said the trustee sale has been postponed. There is no change of ownership until the trustee sale. The landlord is still the legal owner of that home. He has the legal right to evict a tenant not paying their rent. I know the rent free flim-flam is near and dear to your heart, but them's the breaks. The law cuts both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
Your standard garbage. Second link contains no value. While would you list the first as it does not apply?
Right, the second link contains no value, yet the only thing you've added that isn't idle speculation was lifted directly from that second link; i.e., consult an attorney.
Quote:
Best quick way is a dicker with the owner. Work most of the time. Probably not lose in small claims court if the funds are put aside. Worst outcome is you have to pay the LL. But I suspect it possible that the property manager will be ordered to escrow the payments for the security deposit and perhaps all of it in contemplation of an action for failure to fulfill the contract.
Small Claims is a court of equity not law. Never can tell what will come out.
Court of equity, not law? I think you've been watching too much Judge Judy. I believe the answer from the first link would be validated in small claims court -
Quote:
Yes * until the bank sticks its head up that it has title BACK, the property manager has a contract with and duty to the property owner.
You need to keep paying your rent if you want to remain for the remainder of your lease....stop paying your rent and loose that protection!!
That was the answer given by someone with 45 years of property management experience, in the real estate law, tenant/landlord section of a free advice legal forum. Granted, all free advice is worth what you've paid for it, but I'm inclined to believe that's exactly what's going to happen in court, small claims or not.
Then again, I hear small claims isn't a court of law so you might want to role the dice.
Last edited by tony soprano; 10-11-2009 at 01:39 AM..
She said the trustee sale has been postponed. There is no change of ownership until the trustee sale. The landlord is still the legal owner of that home. He has the legal right to evict a tenant not paying their rent. I know the rent free flim-flam is near and dear to your heart, but them's the breaks. The law cuts both ways.
Than why on earth do you cite a link that deals with the already foreclosed situation? Needed a little obfuscation again?
Quote:
Right, the second link contains no value, yet the only thing you've added that isn't idle speculation was lifted directly from that second link; i.e., consult an attorney.Court of equity, not law? I think you've been watching too much Judge Judy. I believe the answer from the first link would be validated in small claims court -That was the answer given by someone with 45 years of property management experience, in the real estate law, tenant/landlord section of a free advice legal forum. Granted, all free advice is worth what you've paid for it, but I'm inclined to believe that's exactly what's going to happen in court, small claims or not.
You have the strangest ethics code. You are all upset about an owner occupant staying without payment for a few months while you believe it is ethical for a LandLord to rip the tenant for the security deposit and moving costs when they fail to fulfill their side of the lease. Your ethics spin on whose ox gets gored?
The answer from the first link was pure garbage. That is a claim that one who no longer owns a property has a right to collect the rent. The renter provides the court decision and it is all over. The PM would likely not even show up.
Quote:
Then again, I hear small claims isn't a court of law so you might want to role the dice.
The suggestion I made is to make a deal with the owner. Simple and solves the problem for the tenant. If it does not work than a lawyer...who will prove too expensive to actually handle the case but who will provide insight as to how to proceed. That advice will include the ramifications of witholding the rent.
Still find your ethics really strange. It is ethically OK with you to rip off the tenant. How strange.
And if i were a renter, i would find it ethically wrong not to pay the rent....That's simple ethics people. Just because someone is a landlord doesn't mean that anyone should take advantage of them.
But, it's okay to have a lapse in ethics because legally you can, right? Wow.
ADVANTAGE? Of them? 11 MONTHS she has collected rent KNOWING she has no intention of paying the bank. Who is taking advantage of whom?
I guess it depends on the situation, but I know someone who stopped paying on his house, and is still living in it going on the second year without making any payments. They have an agreement with the bank that as long as they continue to keep on and pay for the utilities, keep the house and land in good condition, and let realtors show the home, they can stay. I guess the bank feels like this is better than them walking away and the house being abandoned and falling into disrepair or baing vandalized. It hasn't sold yet, even through a short sale. But again, I guess it depends on the situation. Of course, this same person has now ruined his credit probably for good.
You have the strangest ethics code. You are all upset about an owner occupant staying without payment for a few months while you believe it is ethical for a LandLord to rip the tenant for the security deposit and moving costs when they fail to fulfill their side of the lease. Your ethics spin on whose ox gets gored?
I've noticed a lot of these folks have strange ethics codes. It is somewhat interesting though as you show in your statements above.
I guess it depends on the situation, but I know someone who stopped paying on his house, and is still living in it going on the second year without making any payments. They have an agreement with the bank that as long as they continue to keep on and pay for the utilities, keep the house and land in good condition, and let realtors show the home, they can stay. I guess the bank feels like this is better than them walking away and the house being abandoned and falling into disrepair or baing vandalized. It hasn't sold yet, even through a short sale. But again, I guess it depends on the situation. Of course, this same person has now ruined his credit probably for good.
Tony will tell you that is unethical. No freebies for those who used to own the place.
IN fact he will likely claim the bank is unethical. Tony has strange views.
Than why on earth do you cite a link that deals with the already foreclosed situation? Needed a little obfuscation again?
Let me explain how this works - if someone has a question if they are legally on the hook for rent after they've received a notice of trustee sale, and I post a link where someone states the renter is on the hook until the sale of the home is recorded with the county, then one can reasonably extrapolate that yes, they are still legally on the hook before the trustee sale has occurred. You may dispute the answer that was given, but it clearly relates to the question. It's called deductive reasoning. You may want to try it out.
Quote:
You have the strangest ethics code. You are all upset about an owner occupant staying without payment for a few months while you believe it is ethical for a LandLord to rip the tenant for the security deposit and moving costs when they fail to fulfill their side of the lease. Your ethics spin on whose ox gets gored?
You have no absolutely no idea if the landlord intends to rip off the tenant. You're so eager to counsel everyone on how to live rent free, having all the facts in front of you isn't terribly important. The landlord has up until the trustee sale to find a remedy; he may be seeking other financing, he may win the lottery, he may be awaiting an inheritance, he may be waiting for the funds from the sale of another property, any number of possibilities of which you have no clue. He is still the legal owner of the home and until such time that he's not, the rent is due.
How do you think this will play in your court of equity? Judge, I'm doing everything within my power to come up with a solution before the trustee sale, the willful witholding of rent by my tenant, further jeopardizes my chances of success."
Quote:
The answer from the first link was pure garbage. That is a claim that one who no longer owns a property has a right to collect the rent. The renter provides the court decision and it is all over. The PM would likely not even show up.
Says you. I'd like to see an objective source. Not that someone is entitled to rent when they no longer own the property, that's obviously not the case, but the official time at which they are legally no longer the owner. I'd say the prudent definition of when a sale has actually closed, and perhaps legal as well, is when it's recorded with the county.
Quote:
The suggestion I made is to make a deal with the owner. Simple and solves the problem for the tenant. If it does not work than a lawyer...who will prove too expensive to actually handle the case but who will provide insight as to how to proceed. That advice will include the ramifications of witholding the rent.
I suspect the owner is fully aware of the actions the property manager is taking, but it's worth a phone call to find out. Barring success with that, consult an attorney. The same advice given in the valueless second link.
Quote:
Still find your ethics really strange. It is ethically OK with you to rip off the tenant. How strange.
Yes, anyone in the business of counseling others on how to bilk the system, would likely find my ethics strange. As would someone calling the landlord a thief because they defaulted on their contract, while angling on a way to default on their lease. When a landlord defaults, he's a thief. When you default, why you're just looking out for your best interests. Funny how that works.
Typically, you don't get to break a contract because you think the counterparty is going to break the terms of the contract. "Judge, we repossessed his car because we were pretty sure he was going to miss another payment." You wait until the counterparty breaks the contract and seek legal remedy. If, for some reason sierramadre lost her security deposit, she could take the landlord to small claims court to recover it. I say "if" because the plan appears to live rent free if possible, in which case I don't consider the deposit "lost".
But, it's okay to have a lapse in ethics because legally you can, right? Wow.
Olecapt advises others on doing just that on a regular basis. Take advantage of the foreclosure system to live rent free as long as possible, because it's within the letter of the law. Distasteful isn't it?
Olecapt advises others on doing just that on a regular basis. Take advantage of the foreclosure system to live rent free as long as possible, because it's within the letter of the law. Distasteful isn't it?
Nope. Olecapt avoids the ethics thicket...he leaves it to the Tony's who find it fine when done by a landlord but reprehensible when done by an owner occupant.
And Tony feels good about that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
