Person loses job - moves whole family in with parents

[ecman51`]

This has to be one of the toughest things for a landlord. Ain't it? What do you tell someone?

Yet, it be rather precedent setting to allow one family to do this, but not allow everyone else in your complex to do this? Obviously if everyone were able to fill up their units, while maintaining city health rules, they'd all be able to split rent and utilities and live cheaper.

What if you tell the parties involved that I am sorry but I don't allow that? And they ask Why not? And you tell them that they are not on the lease? And they say, Then why can't you put them on the lease? And then you say more poeple is more noise, more wear and tear, (more included utilities used, if applicable).....that most people get a place of their own. And they say, Fine, we will pay like $25 more a month to cover the water. And then they also say they will not make noise, not wreck anything, and that they have no money and nowhere to go, and any damages(in the event there were some) will be covered by the security deposit. And then they ask you why so and so down the way has 5 or 6 people living there, so why can't you? And you can't even tell them they have 1 month because they are honest with you up front and tell you that the job market is bleak and they won't be able to afford to live anywhere unless they find work. That it might be 6 months or ?

What do you say? You could tell the parents that they would be breaking the agreement of the lease as it currently stands. And if they what to keep pressing the issue, that then they all can leave! That be the easy thing to say, right?

They presented their case that they see no valid reason why they can't all be there. What is the landlord's valid reason where even they can see that what you have to say makes logical sense?

[Concretemasonry]

I saw this in the Twin cities (St. Paul/Minneapolis) about 25 years ago when the first Hmongs (Mongs) immigrated to the area.

they rented a building in a bad area but paid the rent on time and never put anyone's nose out of joint. It was a predominately black neighborhood with a lot of crime, by "our" or others standards.

Other families moved in with the first families and everyone worked hard for long hours, since that was their tradition. A couple of months later the second family rented another unit. then additional families moved in with the first or second families. They all worked and saved money and within a year the different families pooled their savings and bought the building from the slumlord.

It was strange to see corn growing on the 8'x 60' boulevard between the sidewalk and street. There were early string beans (first ripe crop) climbing the corn (second ripe crop) while the squash (third ripe crop) was growing between in the area where there was not a weed to be seen. The rest of the land was very similar (side and front). I imagine everything left was composted and not sent to the dump in a trash bag.

There were similar situations in the neighborhood and ultimately many of the other renters moved out as everything improved and changed as the neighborhood improved.

Unfortunately, some children became "Americanized" and the other SE Asian groups moved in along with the "gang concept" that caused some problems. Things are now managed better that they were before before the mass immigration, which increased the academic levels in all the schools in that area. - This area is one of the largest and most successful areas of some SE Asian immigration improvements in the U.S. because of the work and honesty of the families settling. I have no idea why someone from the rural mountains of Viet Nam would come to a cold climate. The bad side is that the social problems were just pushed out, relocated and diluted.

This is the neighborhood that my great grandfather settled in, my grandfather and father were raised in and it is good to see it is better than it was 35 to 25 years ago.

It was fortunate that the short term money-grubbing slumlord did not enforce any rules and the smarter and harder working renters did everything right and quickly to buy out the short term owner that was only in it for the cash.

In many parts of the world, there may be no opportunity to honestly buy property, so this group had the desire, effort, frugality and means to buy and control where they lived. Possibly from coming from an agricultural area where it was not possible to really own and improve property.

Dick

[ecman51`]

I've already worked in such described ethnic rentals in Eau Claire, with like 12 people living there. Quite the interesting experience to have etched in my mind. Roosters even inside.

Now, back to my question....tough one to give an answer to....no?

This girl I know squealed to the landlord about this, yesterday, when the landlord got back from his vacation. I'll be curious come Monday, when I talk to the landlord, to see how he handles it. I bet he allows it.

We've had the same issue we have fought with tenants in rental trailers. They argue with you with the logic I wrote about in my OP. One thing that we don't like about such communal living arrangements is how when more adults live there, there are more friends who stop in. Often that brings car doors slamming at wee hours after bars close, and small talk outside, sometimes with foul language, that resonates through trailer walls.

But if you tell that to someone where they want to have some kin move in with them and you tell them about this, then they obviously say that they do not do that. No matter what you say to them, they say they will be good and not bother anybody.

Yet, like I said, this practice opens up a pandoras box. A precedent others see, where after a while, in theory, you could be running a communal camp.

[nap]

Now, back to my question....tough one to give an answer to....no?

it is a cold answer but: the lease is the contract which both parties agreed to and that is what counts.

having a apartment of building over burdened by housing more people than it was intended to causes a lot of premature wear and tear and often times, more damage.

additionally, many areas have laws that would not allow such a situation. Without researching any germane laws, the discussion is meaningless.

as well, if there are any federal or state aid funds involved, there are rules and limitations that would not allow such a situation.

[Wayne Mitchell]

Nap - It's only a cold answer from a tenant perspective. When I owned rental properties my lease identified the only authorized occupants, defined guests and limited the amount of time guests could stay without my written permission.

That was after I discovered 9 people living in a 2 br duplex that I had rented to a single mom and her kid.

[ecman51`]

Originally Posted by nap

it is a cold answer but: the lease is the contract which both parties agreed to and that is what counts.

having a apartment of building over burdened by housing more people than it was intended to causes a lot of premature wear and tear and often times, more damage.

additionally, many areas have laws that would not allow such a situation. Without researching any germane laws, the discussion is meaningless.

as well, if there are any federal or state aid funds involved, there are rules and limitations that would not allow such a situation.

Yes, but.....

It is a given that say 6 people can live there, by law. No research needed.

And it is a given that they will tell you that they will pay for any damges. Maybe even get the parents to sign that they will. And that they wodu be willing to be put on the lease.

Have you personally ever had to argue with someone who is down on their luck? Who begs you basically to have mercy?That they will cause no harm or trouble? And do this face to face with them? It is really, really, really tough. Take it from me. Especially if you hold to any religious beliefs.

From what I know of my boss's situation - if the people were snuck in, then that alone is grounds regarding breaking any rules/lease. Tomorrow I am going to ask him about this situation.

[ecman51`]

Originally Posted by Wayne Mitchell

Nap - It's only a cold answer from a tenant perspective. When I owned rental properties my lease identified the only authorized occupants, defined guests and limited the amount of time guests could stay without my written permission.

That was after I discovered 9 people living in a 2 br duplex that I had rented to a single mom and her kid.

You going to let us hang? Well? What did you do? What did you say, and what did THEY say? And did they just leave without putting up much fuss? Or did you have to threaten them with police or a court appearance? Or - did you allow them to stay for a month or two or whatever?

I will say this though: You had it easy(easy argument against them) from a health dept. legal standpoint, being 9 in a 2 bedroom (1 bath?)

[nap]

Originally Posted by ecman51`

Yes, but.....

It is a given that say 6 people can live there, by law. No research needed.

.

It is rarely a head count that makes it legal or not but let's assume it is legal.

First, it would depend on what kind of tenant the lessee already there. If they are poor, or marginal, out goes the new folks and if not out within the legally mandated time to cure, out goes the whole bunch.

If they are good tenants, I would not have a problem as long as I believe the unit would not be overburdened.

I would want all parties on the NEW lease. The amount of increase would be up to me. Deposits are often limited by law so unless it was unlimited, I would have to leave the deposit where it already is, which would already me the max allowed by law.

[Claw Hammer]

I have seen this happen many times and unless they do a midnight move, there is nothing that you can do about it.

More people is going to equal more damage, but unless the lease says that you can't have anyone living in your home, there is nothing that you can do about it.

Think about this, legally in the USA how can you tell someone who can and cannot live with you. short term or long term?

It is a free country and unless you are destroying stuff or unless you are bothering other people in the building - there is no way to enfoce it.

They could tell you that those people only came for a short visit and there isn't a judge in the world that is going to give you a eviction notice.

Even now with winter weather - you might not get a eviction notice until spring. So you antagonize them now and they will make sure that there is damage when they have to leave.

Usually gypsies will only hang out somewhere until they leach off the people. When the money runs out - they all leave and the person that was the original renter is left with all the bills and no money. When people comes to leech off you, they usually don't offer you money to stay.

And people who are homeless or semi homeless, will look for a indoors situation - a warm place to live for the winter and will leave as soon as spring arrives because they don't want to pay anymore rent then they have to.

Usually it revolves around drugs and alcohol and sex and sooner or later someone gets arrested anyways.

[nap]

you are really wrong claw hammer.

Most leases limit the residents to those listed on the lease, either as a lessee or as an occupant (children would be the latter).

Dang, many leases limit how long a guest can stay. There are even some I have read the do not allow overnight guests even and yes, they are all perfectly legal.

Think about this, legally in the USA how can you tell someone who can and cannot live with you. short term or long term?

It is a free country and unless you are destroying stuff or unless you are bothering other people in the building - there is no way to enfoce it.

if the contract limits occupants, it can be enforced by the courts and is on a very regular basis.

It is called eviction. Pretty simple process in most states.

They could tell you that those people only came for a short visit and there isn't a judge in the world that is going to give you a eviction notice

.want to bet? It all is contingent upon the verbiage of the lease and a LL is often more believable in court concerning such situations, especially when the LL brings in dates he observed non-tenant/occupants at the residence.

Even now with winter weather - you might not get a eviction notice until spring. So you antagonize them now and they will make sure that there is damage when they have to leave.

You really need to read the laws. I know of no state that will delay an eviction because of the season. In fact, unless the law specifically allows it, the courts do not have discretion in the matter. If the LL files for an eviction and the justification is supported, the court must order the eviction.

[Wayne Mitchell]

Ecman - I simply told my tenant to get them out or I would have her evicted. They left but returned in a couple of weeks. I decided not to renew her lease.

I got out of the rental property business shortly after. I got tired of dealing with deadbeats, dirtbags and druggies.

[Claw Hammer]

In Pennsylvania you have two types of lease.

1 is a month by month lease - where at the end of the month the renter can be told to leave and the tenant has 15 days to leave or else they have to go to court - where it takes as long as two months to get on the docket of the magistrate and then the magistrate gives them a additional 15 days to leave.

As long as you pay your rent, do not do any damage and do not do anything illegal, it is pretty hard to evict, and you cannot evict without a hearing.

If you have a one year lease, the landlord basically cannot do or say anything as long as the landlord cannot prove any damage and as long as the tenant pays their rent on time every month and does not do any property damage or does not break any laws.

For a yearly lease, the landlord has to give 30 days notice and then the tenant can still stay as long as they do not have a hearing at the magistrate and even then the magistrate will give the tenant 30 days to get out. But as long as the tenant pays their rent and does not do any property damage and does not break any laws or rules on the lease - the landlord has a hard time evicting them.

In the wintertime - they might get a eviction from the magistrate - but then again, if they done nothing wrong, the magistrate might make the landlord pay all moving costs and give back 100% of the cleaning deposit and security deposit before the tenant moves out.

Some scumbag landlords thinks that they can charge exuberant fee's for cleaning up a flea bag apartment after the tenant leaves and tries to keep the security deposit and cleaning deposit - because they claim that there was damage when the people moved out and because they claim that they had to paint and clean the carpets after they moved out.

The magistrate will tell the landlord that normal wear and tear is not allowed to be deducted from the deposits. So basically the landlord has to use their own money to fix the place up. Even if you did some damage - dings and dents to the trim, scuffs to the paint etc. - moving out, the magistrate will tell the landlord that it was normal wear and tear.

[nap]

Boy, where to begin?

1 is a month by month lease - where at the end of the month the renter can be told to leave and the tenant has 15 days to leave or else they have to go to court - where it takes as long as two months to get on the docket of the magistrate and then the magistrate gives them a additional 15 days to leave.

this is called a "month to month tenancy".

and you are correct as to the timelines except:

excerpt from 68 P.S. 250.501(b)

In case of failure of the tenant, upon demand, to satisfy any rent reserved and due, the notice shall specify that the tenant shall remove within ten days from the date of the service thereof.

that means if you do not pay your rent, that 15 days now becomes a 10 day notice to cure or quit which is actually curable while a general notice of termination is not curable.

As long as you pay your rent, do not do any damage and do not do anything illegal, it is pretty hard to evict, and you cannot evict without a hearing.

Now, per Penn statute 68 P.S. 250.501 (a), the landlord needs provide no justification to end the tenancy other than they want the tenants to leave. Here is the first line of the statute:

(a) A landlord desirous of repossessing real property from a tenant

the term desirous simply means the LL wants the tenants to vacate. No other reason is required.

If you have a one year lease, the landlord basically cannot do or say anything as long as the landlord cannot prove any damage and as long as the tenant pays their rent on time every month and does not do any property damage or does not break any laws.

addition: or breach the terms of the lease.

For a yearly lease, the landlord has to give 30 days notice and then the tenant can still stay as long as they do not have a hearing at the magistrate and even then the magistrate will give the tenant 30 days to get out.

once the initial 30 days expires, they are then holdover tenants and subject to the penalties allowed by law. Also, the statutes require no less than 7 but no more than 10 days from notice the tenants are required answer the summons. Then, the courts allow 5 days from the time of the court hearing for the tenants to vacate where the constable is ordered to remove the tenants. The tenants will then be liable for the costs iinvolved for said action.

of course, then tenants deposit it being whittled away during this time and if completely absorbed to offset the additional rent for the period of hold over, the tenant will owe any remaining balance charged for the period of holdover.

This, of course, is in addition to any charges for items such as damages the tenant is liable for.

In the wintertime - they might get a eviction from the magistrate - but then again, if they done nothing wrong, the magistrate might make the landlord pay all moving costs and give back 100% of the cleaning deposit and security deposit before the tenant moves out.

that's not what the law states PLUS what you are suggesting even violates the landlords 14 th amendment constitutional rights that prevent the government from taking a citizens property without due process and just compensation.

I really don't think a judge is going to want to be charged with violating a LL;s constitutional rights simply because of the weather.

Some scumbag landlords thinks that they can charge exuberant fee's for cleaning up a flea bag apartment after the tenant leaves and tries to keep the security deposit and cleaning deposit - because they claim that there was damage when the people moved out and because they claim that they had to paint and clean the carpets after they moved out.

a cleaning deposit is non-refundable, period. It is to be used for the cleaning of the apartment. Damages are a totally separate issue.

The magistrate will tell the landlord that normal wear and tear is not allowed to be deducted from the deposits.

normal wear and tear, correct. Damages are not normal wear and tear. Dents on furniture and doors, stains on carpets and such items are not normal wear and tear.

So basically the landlord has to use their own money to fix the place up. Even if you did some damage - dings and dents to the trim, scuffs to the paint etc. - moving out, the magistrate will tell the landlord that it was normal wear and tear.

Well, you can argue that point all you want. Damage is not normal wear and tear.

[ecman51`]

Originally Posted by nap

if the contract limits occupants, it can be enforced by the courts and is on a very regular basis.

It is called eviction. Pretty simple process in most states.

I agree that there is no debate as what the court can do when it is all in writing on a lease. You are absolutely right.

But I want to know specifically what you say to someone when they beg and ask you WHY NOT. Sure you can say because you said so. Or that this was on the lease. But they want to know WHY. WHY the lease can't be changed. WHY it is so bad a few extra people stay.

Would you tell them the toilet seat will wear out faster? Or the carpet life will reduce from 15 years to 14.75 years?

I am looking for excellent answers where you can face a tenant eye to eye and tell them something that even makes sense to them, even though they might not like it. If it makes sense though, then they would have no reason to keep arguing with you.

If you find actual just cause why that particular party should not be there, then you have gotten lucky, as then there is no argument there. But how do you handle someone who say has no history of them causing a problem, other than they have problems associated with no money? What do you say to them people? That rules are rules? I'm sorry? And just walk away? ....of course being looked at as a jerk because you never gave them a REAL answer.

Not to sound like a broken record but......sure it's easy to just say that we can't have people doing this sort of thing. Ya, on the surface that makes some sense....the no-communal-living thing. But what do you say if they point out that other people in the neighborhood, perhaps your own rentals, have like 5-6 people living there. And perhaps more kids, that in theory, are more likely to cause damage than adults would. ???

Here is a good answer: "Yes, the reason is,... us landlords are greedy. We want every 2-3 people to rent another one of our units, rather than pile in and share rent in just one of our rentals!"

[ecman51`]

Originally Posted by Wayne Mitchell

Ecman - I simply told my tenant to get them out or I would have her evicted. They left but returned in a couple of weeks. I decided not to renew her lease.

I got out of the rental property business shortly after. I got tired of dealing with deadbeats, dirtbags and druggies.

You and my dad would make good golfing buddies. He and you share very similar sentiments. I'm an easy going guy that has lived amongst the lower class, and got used to it. I'm more like....., if they don't bother me.....well?.....Where my dad grew up like in the show Leave It to Beaver. (Naturally he was like Ward and not Eddie.) Or, my dad is like Eddie Albert in Green Acres, contending with all those misfits that surrounded him.

[ecman51`]

Claw,

A number of years back, I believe Wisconsin passed this new law that said landlords cannot charge tenants for cleaning apartments.

Now that I am bringing this up, I want to research that, as at the time, I was infuriated. Naturally the reason being that if you are a responsible landlord and rent out an apt. in near perfect condition, you expect to to be returned to that condtion. If you are required to pay for the cleaning, then doesn't the courts have enough common sense to know the landlord has to charge more for rent? Doesn't it make more sense to try to keep rents lower, but have the tenants clean up their own messes?

[Bruce H]

As a landlord, I've been reading all this with great interest. Just a few random thoughts based on what my lease says and what MN law says:

My lease spells out how many adults can live permanently in a unit. Those are the ones listed on the lease. It also says how long an adult guest can stay.

Any adults permanently living in my unit is either on the lease or is added to my lease after a background check and credit check. No exceptions. That's based on a a very bad experience.

If someone is in violation of my lease, if they don't correct it, they have to leave. And I do literally say "Because my lease and I say so". It sounds harsh (and probably is), but this is MY property and MY responsibility and MY retirement. If I want to give to charity, it will be one that I can write off on my taxes; I can't write off rent not received. Not one of my tenants would help me out with more rent when I was laid off for 4 months earlier this year.

Finally, I would say that not everyone is cut out to be a landlord. You have to make the hard decisions in order to survive. Just like the employer who has to lay people off for the business to survive.

[mitch17]

We have two and three bedroom units. Our leases are for two adults and we charge more for three adults (adult children do not count, like a college student, if Mom and Dad are the leaseholders, though we do have the kids sign the lease). We do not allow four adults in a unit. Period.

Bruce is right, not everyone is cut out for the job, it's nowhere near as glamorous as some people think.

[ecman51`]

I guess it sounds like, "Because I said so", or, "Because the lease says so", is all one can say. And then you just have to walk away while they keep gibbering away, I guess.

Along the lines of what Bruce said, tenants also try to get you to bend your payment due schedule, over an emergency, when they can't pay the rent. And they will pay for child care and car repairs and past due bills, before paying you the rent.

I think tenants feel that if they get cut off by a utility company, that there is no recourse or hope, with such large and powerful companies. But with a small-time landlord, they feel they can sit there and argue their case.

[Bruce H]

And don't believe everything a tenant tells you when it comes to paying rent. I had a tenant just a year ago that got over a month behind in rent. She had every excuse in the book and wouldn't move when I asked her nicely. So I served her with an unlawful detainer for the past due rent, late fees and attorney fees. Well, lo and behold, when she showed up in court (which surprised me!) she had a cashiers check for everything I asked for. And she has been fine ever since.

[ecman51`]

She paid you when?: Right in front of the courtroom doors to avoid court? Or after the judge ruled?

[Bruce H]

She paid there right in front of the judgeafter the judge ruled in my favor! The judge then asked me if I wanted to evict her or let he try again. I went soft and said I would let her try again and so far, so good. I guess she figured out that I wasn't kidding when I said I wanted the rent and on time!

[ecman51`]

Did you dismiss late fees and/or attorney's fees? Was the "attorney's fees" something said to scare her? Did you really have an attorney, or go to small claims court?

[Bruce H]

I absolutely had an attorney, mostly because this was the first unlawful detainer I ever had to do. I received all my attorney fees and late fees. That was the only way I would let her stay.

[Wayne Mitchell]

"And they will pay for child care and car repairs and past due bills, before paying you the rent."

Ecman - I'll add to your list. They will also pay for their booze, their dope, their cloths, their cell phone, to get their hair and nails done etc.

[Gunguy45]

Don't forget the Rent to Own 50" TV, pay-per-view, the fancy wheels and tires they got on credit, and trips to the amusement park/concerts.

[ecman51`]

They do all that because they know you just can't have the police come and throw them out. They are professionals. Professional renters. They know what a problem it is to get rid of them.

And I suppose they try to convince themselves that even though they are broke from paying for all that other stuff, that the time they for REAL get evicted (like the day of their scheduled court date) that maybe by then they will come up with the money.

I saw an ad the other day where the rental was listed and it said the first month is free. I thought.....what? That would just invite someone who has no money to move in, and already have it figured in advance that they will get kicked out between 1-2 months from then, and then hopefully find some other place they can live where the landlord does not check them out and/or not charge security deposit.

[marksr]

My 1st wife had some relatives like that. They'd sweet talk their way into the rental never paying more than the 1st month rent with a "promise" to pay the deposit later.... and that was all they ever paid. The laws at that time required them to be 1 month behind before you could get a court ordered eviction which meant another 30 days. Apparently because they had a small child they could go the the welfare dept [?] and get an automatic 30 day extension.

They would move every 5-6 months and only pay 1 month rent I guess you could call them professional dead beats.

[ecman51`]

He caved in. I asked him today. He said he'd rather have the place stay full this winter, rather than risk an argument, and they all move out.