Before we start, I know that the people advocating the deadbeat’s rights are ‘right’. The safe course of action is to eat the money the deadbeat owes and to allow said deadbeat to live for 30+ more days rent free and to shell out the money to do the proper procedure.
I also fully acknowledge that the roommates screwed up and should have had a lease document signed by the deadbeat before she moved in and that they should have required first and last month’s rent.
I all that being said…
WTF!!! A person moves in on an informal basis and doesn’t pay the rent and then says that she gets to continue living there rent free for x weeks until the other roommates jump through all these hoops and $$ to get her expelled?!
If the roommates threw her deadbeat ass out the door, they could then end up owing the deadbeat money? Do these laws protecting people really help?? I’m sure in specific cases, they do but in general wouldn’t all they do is add a whole lot of expense and hassle to an arrangement? I’m thinking that these laws end up costing most everyone a whole bunch of $$$.
Consider that if you want to move in with the OP in the linked thread. In the past you agreed to pay your share and your in! Now, you must cough up first and last months rent, which will be higher because they will have the added expense of getting a lawyer sign off on the lease document, and damage deposit plus probably other items. Whole lot more hassle to everyone.
Wouldn’t it be better to just let people not have to act like such wimps when confronted by deadbeats? If you overstep your bounds you could still be taken to court but these automatic ‘rights’ of deadbeats making YOU guilty because you object to paying for a deadbeat for another several weeks is not helpful.
All it does is make things more expensive for everyone because roommates/landlords now must protect themselves.
Maybe this is a Debate instead of the Pit. Feel free to move if desired.
The freeloader would be out of my house by any method or object at my disposal, in less time then it took to read this. There is no way an oral agreement could hold water in that situation.
All my life it has seemed to me that the most basic principle of our civilization, indeed the very definition of civilization, is that you must allow anyone who wants to, to knock you down and stomp all over you and ream your ass with a jackhammer if they wish.
This applies to everything from government (duh), to crooked corporations, to dangerous drivers, playground bullies, etc. etc. etc.
I’m glad I live in NH now, at least here I am allowed to stop anyone who is trying to kill or severly injure me*. NH is not a very civilized state
unless they are a government employee
Or they are doing it from a motor vehicle
What if they are a government employee trying to kill you from a motor vehicle? Do the two exemptions cancel?
World Eater, I think the consensus was that the oral agreement plus past partial payments would make the oral agreement have validity.
I imagine these laws were enacted from the plight of a few tenents that were abused by landlords. I was just complaining that these laws make renting more expensive for anyone outweighing the benefits that a few abused might receive. It also sets up others for abuse, like the OP in the original thread.
Not to offend the OP of the other thread, but the people that would handle these situations best, usually never get in them in the first place. Of course not everything is in your control in life.
Consensus, my ass. Did you read the link to Florida law in the other thread, which was my response to a series of unsupported yammerings which claimed that oral agreements are unenforceable? Oral leases of less than one year are valid. End of story.
Past partial payments have nothing to do with that, other than maybe providing evidence that the agreement did, in fact, exist.
That said, I don’t disagee with your philosophical statement.
No need, idiot. I had actually made up my mind to be pissed the instant I saw your reply but was giving you the benefit of the doubt, in case there was a subtle joke going on that I wasn’t getting.
Your insult was totally out of left field and had nothing to do with what I said. Even in the Pit, I think that’s out of line.
Oh, come on now, don’t whine about the bikers. At least 80% of them bask in the fact that we don’t require helmets, so odds are that the bike guy bothering you is probably going to be run off the road by ice or other poor road conditions and crack his fool head open anyway. And, if you’re there, you can point and laugh. Bonus.
