can additional contracts be used to defeat the spirit of tenant protection rules?

suppose I am a landlord who is concerned about the threat of a tenant not paying and dragging me into an eviction battle. Can I defeat the spirit of the tenant protection regulations by making the tenant sign a contract that says “in case of failure to move out immediately upon stopping to pay rent (rules to easily and unequivocally establish this fact follow) tenant immediately pays a fine of (big amount)” and then, in the event the tenant doesn’t in fact pay, use the collections agency to go after him?

What I am trying to get at here is that it seems that failure to comply with request for moving out seems like a way to get a benefit (housing) without paying penalty. Indeed, it is the landlord who is paying penalty by having to convince authorities to kick out the tenant. So what I am suggesting above might be a way to impose that very penalty.

Well, so is this legal? Do people do things like that? Do people achieve similar results differently but equally effectively? Is the problem of deadbeat tenants just overblown and so nobody bothers with such defenses?

There are usually limits to the amounts fines for late payments can be.
Other than that, you can attempt to recoup the costs of the eviction process (although there are also limits on that, too).

You can’t do that in most places. First, it’s a penalty clause, which are frowned upon because contracts are solely economic, and you are trying to recoup costs you haven’t actually incurred. You have a responsibility to mitigate damages as well. A court would probably throw out anything more than allowed for actual costs or small late fees.

Secondly, most states have specific rules about landlords and tenants, because the landlords have a lot of power. You probably aren’t allowed to contract around the landlord tenant law since the law was put in place to avoid these sorts of tactics.

I cannot speak to your specific case. Consult an attorney in your jurisdiction for facts and law related to your specific case.

Generally speaking, in California, lease provisions that amount to a waiver of certain tenant protections under the law are not enforceable. Also, the “big fine” may be unenforceable, too, as there are limits on liquidated damages clauses. Also, handing an non-collectable debt to a debt collector can get you and the debt collector in trouble with fair debt collection and fair credit reporting laws.

Well you can’t contract for illegal things. So if you put something in a contract and it runs contrary to law, it’s not enforceable.

If I contract to deliver marijuana to you, this isn’t legal (except in some unusual circumstances), so it matters not if it’s in a contract, it can’t be enforced.

If the local laws spell out the way to evict a tenent, it doesn’t matter what you put in a contract as it’s not enforceable. If you are deliberately setting out to defeat the “spirit” of a law when you go to court to enforce it, most likely a judge will throw that part of the contract out.

Collection agencies also have laws they must follow, if they violate them you can take them to court, so they’re more sympathetic. Also collection agencies work by buying your debts. They won’t pay much for them if they feel there is any chance a judge will throw out the case.

The rules were put in place years ago, because landlords would abuse them. You’re not one of those particular landlords, but you have to pay the cost of those past abuses.

Collection agencies work both on commission and by buying other peoples’ bad debt. Some specialize in one type or the other; most do both.

In my state, such contracts are specifically declared as unenforceable in the relevant law.