Overheard on the Metro, openly stated for all to hear:
“I own two buildings with six tenants. No, I don’t live there, I don’t want to be near them. Most of them don’t like where they’re at…One couple was married when they moved in and then they divorced, so I had to evict them. We went to court and the judge said, ‘She has three kids and you can’t just throw her out on the street, so I’ll give her sixty days to move out.’ I told the judge, ‘Sixty days, are you kidding me?’ I got her out in thirty. I went over and super-glued her locks every single night. Then she would ask me to call a locksmith, and I’d say ‘Hell no!’”
The audience was a group of lawyers in town for a legal insurance convention, and they were yucking it up and telling him what a great story that was. No concern, no questions beyond a joking “Is there a super-glue clause in the lease?”
Obviously she could not afford to put nail polish remover into her locks each morning… Dissolve the superglue.
I would imagine that the violation of a court order, harrassment of a tenant, is a violation of the state’s equivalent of the landlord-tenant act and a contempt of court action. Whether it’s criminal ( except maybe criminal harrassment) is a different issue.
What’s a lawyer’s obligation in hearing of a random act that violates a court order or borders on harrassment - good question. As landlord he’s obviously not trespassing. If he’s vandalizing property he’s let to her, for her own enjoyment, it’s a violation of contract.
You think people make things up in casual conversation to shock anyone who might overhear? Or he was trying to impress or challenge his new lawyer acquaintances?
One couple was married when they moved in and then they divorced, so I had to evict them
In what state is getting a divorce a cause for eviction? Even in places where eviction does not need to be for cause, exactly where is it mandatory that those who divorce must be evicted?
We went to court and the judge said, 'She has three kids and you can’t just throw her out on the street, so I’ll give her sixty days to move out.
In what state are people who have children exempt from being lawfully evicted? What state has the power, by judicial order no less, to force landlords to provide free housing to individuals that have children? In many places a stay on an lawfuleviction is possible, but it is for a short period, as in less than a week. Any stays longer than that reqire rent to be paid as a condition of the stay. And evicting a paying tenant just because they are, gasp, divorced!, is rather strange.
I got her out in thirty. I went over and super-glued her locks every single night. Then she would ask me to call a locksmith, and I’d say ‘Hell no!’"
That’s called a self-help eviction, and is illegal in every state. You cannot deny tenants basic services, remove their doors, lock them out without due process, turn off the water, super-glue their locks or any of the other cutsey things people claim to do without consequence. Any normal person would be calling the cops and filing a complaint, and then making a quick trip back to housing court, right before filing a civil action. Tenants can collect big money in self-help eviction cases, and the landlord can easily face criminal charges in addition to the civil action. Anyone who is a real lawyer or a real landlord is well aware of this.
I’ll be the first to admit, we may never know the truth of the situation – only this man’s boasts, which may or may not be true. But I maintain that it is more likely to be true than not.
To answer your three points:
The fact that divorce is not legal cause for eviction would not necessarily stop a landlord from evicting someone for arbitrary reasons. His construction, “had to evict them,” would not necessarily indicate he had to comply with anything; it could just mean he felt he ‘had to’ do it, for moral or financial reasons, or for b.s. reasons.
If the cause for eviction is questionable in the first place, why wouldn’t a judge grant a stay to the tenant? And it wouldn’t be “free” housing; the tenant would still have to pay for those extra sixty days.
The fact that self-help evictions are illegal would not necessarily stop a rogue landlord from attempting one. Unfortunately, such a landlord may be successful in cases where the tenant either doesn’t know their rights or doesn’t have proof that the landlord is doing this – the second is more likely, since he was going over there “every night” to super-glue the locks and apparently was never caught.
My own question for you: Have you never heard of cases where landlords acted in an arbitrary or even illegal manner? Because there are plenty.
Actually, I have personal experience of such a case. The apartment in the building in front of mine was being sold to developers who wanted to tear down the building for an auto parts store. Since residential housing was being taken off the market, Los Angeles city ordinances require that the residents be paid a $500 relocation fee – $1,000 if a child under 18 lives there, which was the case.
Every day, a lawyer would visit the mother of the family, to scream at her and threaten her if she didn’t leave immediately – in Spanish, since the mother didn’t speak English. If she asked about the relocation fee, he would reply, “Estás mala de la cabeza.” (“You’re sick in the head.”)
Eventually, the mother got sick of being yelled at and threatened and decided not to fight any more. She and her family ended up imposing on another family, where she slept on the couch.
Yes, it’s true. People can and do get away with all kinds of s**t. Particularly if they have money and access to lawyers. Like some landlords and developers.
I suspect that the OP misheard or misunderstood the statement. For example : "“I own two buildings with six tenants” sounds unlikely, more likely he has six tenements.
I’d speculate that the woman had trouble paying her rent post divorce and had fallen into arrears. And that’s why he evicted her.
People loudly speaking, of matters best left private, are attention whores, playing to you, their audience. I just ignore them, like I would the over loud teenagers they are emulating, usually due to drink.