OP, have you considered the “cash for keys” option? Instead of paying a lawyer, offer the deadbeat a significant sum if she moves out by X date, agrees that neither of you are bound by the lease anymore, and leaves the keys behind. Maybe also state that under this agreement that she is transferring ownership of anything she leaves behind to you (so you can just toss it in the dumpster & not store the trash for six months or whatever is legally required). I’m not a lawyer, BTW.
You were right the first time. They aren’t any of your business. Stop being a jerk. At least find the sperm donor and disparage his choices also.
BTW, her choices about a big TV that shows up isn’t any of your business either.
It may not really be his business, and could have been something other than a cash purchase by the tenant, but I can understand being annoyed by seeing that when he’s reduced the rent for several months because of her lack of income.
He’s a jerk? What’s your reasoning there? That’s harsh coming from you. Boo
He has the right to opine about her choices when one of her choices is to skip out on rent.
S/he can be annoyed. S/he shouldn’t mention it to anyone else. To do so is to perpetuate stereotypes and bigotry. Not his/her business. There is enough stereotyping causing way too much trouble as it is. The term ‘dog whistle’ is starting to come to mind here.
No, you as the landlord has to keep the property in a safe level of habitability.
You could be sued for this.
You have a fair point.
Mod Note:
Please don’t call other posters a jerk outside the pit.
If you feel that strongly about it, take it to the pit please.
Reminder: A Mod Note is not a warning and is not recorded anywhere.
A major difference is that squatting druggies have no legal rights - someone who has signed a lease DOES have legal rights.
It doesn’t have to involve a decision as such, just unprotected sex. Which is cheap and unlike many forms of birth control does not involve paying a doctor for a prescription, which also costs money.
Or using birth control but having it fail. Condoms can break, and other methods aren’t 100% sure either.
If the op is in financial danger because of this then sell the house when the lease is up.
While I agree with you regarding the “reproductive choices”, you are 100% wrong, something like a big screen TV expense is absolutely his business.
They have a legal contractual obligation to each other. The landlord provides the agreed-to accommodations in exchange for a financial payment.
The point at which she can no longer meet her legal contractual obligations because of her discretionary spending choices is the point at which it becomes his business.
I’d love to see you explain to the bank that how you spend your money is “none of their business” as you explain how you’re not repaying your mortgage because you’ve decided to purchase a big screen TV or a luxury car.
What a ridiculous thing for you to say.
That’s generally not correct, and it’s potentially dangerous to offer this advice. In most states, she would become a month-to-month tenant upon the expiration of the lease, not a squatter.
This is what my apartment complex always says in the lease renewal offer letter.[quote=“friedo, post:33, topic:920353, full:true”]
That’s generally not correct, and it’s potentially dangerous to offer this advice. In most states, she would become a month-to-month tenant upon the expiration of the lease, not a squatter.
[/quote]
The TV might have been a gift from Baby-Daddy, or from her mom or something.
But I get the landlord’s annoyance.
It’s like your friend who still owes you five hundred bucks, and whines about being unable to pay back even a portion … while also going out to eat sushi four nights a week.
Wait a minute here. I am not perpetuating stereotypes - she is. In my opinion (which I can share with whoever I damn well please), she is gaming the system, me included. Fine. We have a contract. Housing for money. She is not meeting her obligation while, at the same time, acquiring material goods. I have now found that she has a Facebook account and is showing off her new large tatoo, new furniture, fancy fingernail nails, newly painted walls (violation of lease without permission form me) and two pets, a dog and a cat. This is prohibited under the lease and I even told her “no” when she asked for an exception.
This is a no-brainer. I will have her out as soon as I am able to do so, legally. I don’t give a rat’s ass about how many kids she has but I’m not paying for it.
If you can prove lease violations (aside from non-payment) then you can probably get her out. Definitely lawyer time.
IANAL either but it depends on a) what your contract says, and b) what local laws say. Some states and/or municipalities have tenants rights even when they fall behind on rent. You can’t necessarily boot them the moment they fall into arrears on rents.
Since we’re not lawyers, OP, my advice is to get one who knows real estate/tenant laws in your area.
I don’t think that’s true if the landlord wants you out of their house. You don’t have a situation where the landlord tells you (with 30 days notice) that they are not renewing the lease and they want you out and you can say, “Naw, I choose to stay on a month to month lease.”
Tool late to edit. This is from a lawyer’s site
What is a holdover tenant?
A holdover tenant is a tenant who stays on the property after his or her lease has expired, without the landlord’s explicit permission. A holdover tenant (sometimes incorrectly referred to as a “tenancy at sufferance”) may stay at the property as long as the landlord doesn’t take any specific actions.
What Can I Do With a Holdover Tenant?
Landlords who have a holdover tenant typically have one of two legal options:
- Let the tenant stay. A landlord who continues to accept monthly rent and allows the tenant to stay cannot later seek to evict the tenant on the basis of the holdover.
- Treat the tenant as a trespasser and seek eviction. The landlord can usually evict the tenant for non-payment of rent or criminal behavior. The landlord may also be able to terminate the agreement with notice equal to the rent payment period.
In most jurisdictions, landlords are bound to whichever option they choose.
New Jersey’s order seems a little weird. If I’m reading it right, the order would allow the OP to go to court and go through the eviction process up to the final court order but not remove them but the NJ Supreme Court seems to have suspended all of the court proceeding related to evictions.
Oh and another article from a law firm that backs my up that if a landlord wants a tenant out at the end of their lease and they don’t leave, the former tenant is a tresspasser.
A holdover tenant is a tenant who continues to occupy the premises after the term of the lease expires. The liability of a holdover tenant will depend on whether the tenant, who remains in possession of the premises after the lease expires, does so with or without the landlord’s consent.
Without any provision in the lease to the contrary, a holdover tenant, who does not obtain the landlord’s consent to holdover, may be considered by the landlord as a trespasser. A holdover tenant, who is considered a trespasser, will be liable to the landlord for the fair rental value of the premises as well and any other damages that the landlord can recover from the holdover tenant (e.g., loss of a new tenant). Additionally, if the landlord entered into a new lease with another tenant for the premises, then the holdover tenant having knowledge of such new tenant, may also be liable to the new tenant for damages for loss of use of the premises. Lastly, if the lease includes an indemnification provision, which most commercial leases will certainly include, the holdover tenant may have to indemnify the landlord from claims arising against the landlord resulting from tenant’s wrongful holdover (e.g., claim by the new tenant against the landlord for its failure to deliver the premises as set forth in the new lease).
If a holdover tenant continues to trespass, then the landlord will likely have to initiate a special court proceeding known as an unlawful detainer action to evict the holdover tenant as the landlord cannot use self-help to evict the holdover tenant (e.g., changing locks and removing tenant’s belongings). If the court rules in favor of the landlord, then it will issue a writ of possession, which orders the sheriff to remove the tenant from the premises, but will give the holdover tenant five days to move voluntarily. If the lease provides for an attorneys’ fees clause, then the wrongful holdover tenant will be liable to the landlord for all damages as well as its attorneys’ fees.