Today, I have made my decision to move out of my current residence as soon as possible. I will focus on finding a place to live and then once I am settled in with a roof over my head I will proceed with any legal actions against my landlord that may apply.
Today, the landlord and I spoke by phone. The landlord begged my roommate for me to talk to her. She begged. She was crying. I had told myself I would not talk to her orally without a witness in person but I gave in and we did talk.
The landlord immediately asked for my forgiveness for the statements she made in her March 28, 2011 letter. She explained she wrote the letter without thinking and was just trying to threaten me to leave. She stated she knew about the many disabilities I have and lost it when she heard I had been hospitalized. She panic. She did not want me to continue to live here because of my disabilites.
My response was in order for me to forgive you please void the June 30, 2011 date that I have to be moved out. Her response was I still want you out by June 30, 2011. I was totally shocked to hear her say that I must still move out after what she just admitted. Can you believe that?
I asked her if she would accept my July 1, 2011 rent money? She said no. Can you believe that? Hear is a person admitting to me she was wrong to mail me nasty notice to move out after she found out why I was in the hospital.
Of course she has no clue a housing discrimination complaint will arrive in her mail box soon. Of course what she told me on the phone she will never tell anyone else. However, during the HUD intake the specialist who is well trained to determine if a complaint is valid for a investigation knew housing discrimination was committed.
Now check this out. The new reason she says she wants me to move out is she wants to move into the house. Now that is a valid reason to end my oral rent agreement. Am I seeing this correctly? Is a red flag raised concerning the timing of this new reason to have me to move out? Is that legal that she can give another notice with a different reason for me to be out of the house? Can the original notice still be used as to any evidence or is it voided out?
Please, ask me any questions if you need more information?
At this point, the relationship between you and the landlord is so damaged, why would even want to stay another day there - let alone several more months.
What’s your roommate’s take on the situation? Any chance he and the landlord are involved in another kind of oral agreement?
I assume RADTENN would indeed like to leave as soon as possible, but thinks that it may take time to find a reasonable alternative place to live. Meanwhile, he would like to stay where he is. Because he would like to have the option of staying past the end of June, he wants to know whether the landlord can legally evict him by that date. If she cannot force him to leave, he will stay put until he has a better place to live.
My bare arsed supposition is that there is way more going on here than we know about.
But just addressing to the reasons that we have been told so far - it seems quite possible to me that the other tenant is blaming RADTENN for the problems, which if true would make it seem reasonable (to me anyway) that there is unequal treatment.
It also strikes me as weird that someone that is practising discrimination is giving MORE than the required minimum time to move out.
From my point of view, it looks just as likely that for whatever reason, the landlord needs RADTENN out, (which could be for any number of reasons) and is having an attack of “the guilts” about being mean to a vet which has led to really mixed signals.
She might also be trying to cover her own backside with regards to liability issues and it is hard to evaluate this without full and complete information from RADTENN.
Like
How did you come to move in, was the place advertised? Who Interviewed you?
How is the rent being paid - cash or otherwise?
What are you actually renting from the landlord? (a room or…?)
What are all 13 reasons for the eviction?
Has there been any written communication in the past?
What is the full story as regards the damaged bathroom?
I would also love to hear more about why she would put a bald arsed lie (he’s not paying rent) into the eviction letter unless she had some form of back-up. This is just too easily disproved for what otherwise seems to be a letter that follows the proper legal forms (or at least be rational)
I agree that there seems to be more here than meets the eye. This bit though, if I’ve understood correctly, is clear(ish). RADTENN pays his roommate, who is meant to make full payment to the landlady. The landlady’s contract is, I presume, with the roomie - as they have a full written agreement. RADTENN has a verbal agreement with the roomie.
IANAL - and I’m in the UK - but essentially I think you’ve got it spot on here. She’s worried about liability, but for whatever reason she’s more worried about RADTENN continuing to live in her house. As a landlord (and tenant) myself, it seems she’s perfectly within her rights to demand eviction with enough notice - the daft thing she did was invent reasons for this that might be discriminatory.
I just read the original thread and I’m confused on an issue. You said you have a “month to month” agreement with the landlord. What exactly do you mean by that? Because normally that means either side can end the agreement with a month’s notice. And you said that the landlord didn’t give you sixty days notice but you also said the landlord gave you notice in March that you had to leave by the end of June, which is well over sixty days.
The roommate’s agreement with the landlady is also verbal, according to the first thread. **RADTENN **gives the roommate the rent, and the roommate mails RADTENN’s rent and his own to the OP. **RADTENN **has been asked repeatedly by multiple posters if he has any proof that the rent has been paid, in the form of cancelled checks or receipts, and has thus far refused to answer the question.
I’m sorry you have to face this. This does seem the best approach. Concentrate on getting out to a good new place.
That is a shocking admission, but fits everything you said. Did your roommate hear this? Which side would he be on in court? Would he admit it or deny it?
Not a lawyer, so take it for what it’s worth (an internet idiot mouthing off), but the timing and original BS reasons listed are still legitimate evidence that she is trying to evict you discriminatorily. The fact that she now has a new legitimate reason and gave you more than the required 2 month notice will make the situation muddy and probably leave you needing to move out, but you might be able to get some compensation from her for the discrimination. Without legal assistance to file some sort of motion to stop the eviction until the discrimination issue is resolved, you are going to have to find new living arrangments.
No. According to the previous thread, both he and his roommate had separate oral agreements with the landlady. RADTENN hands his payment to the roommate to deliver the payments at one time, but it is RADTENN paying the landlady, not the roommate. That is an act of convenience, not an act of subletting.
What has not been answered is if the payments are cash or by check, which would address the ease of proving the payment was by RADTENN to the landlady.
Yeah, without a lawyer to file a stop motion or whatever, he’s going to have to move out because she followed the process, gave him sufficient notice. But because she explicitly and implicitly gave discriminatory reasons, the HUD action should fine her stiffly, and perhaps get compensation (even if a month or two rent).
I would suggest documenting any and all expenses associated with this move, especially with anything related to the rapid timing and hassles that causes. Like if you have to move into a hotel for a week or two before you can get into a new place or something. Again, I don’t know for certain, but I suspect there would be grounds for a civil suit and damages that could cover those expenses.
The thing that’s really pinging my “warnometer” is
From my experience, if somebody wants you gone for a discriminatory reason, they are not normally so “nice” as to give three months notice to a month to month renter.
The whole “he’s not paying rent thing”. While people may be stupid - this is bordering on the criminally retarded if what RADTENN is telling us is true - which makes me think there’s really a whole lot more to the agreement.
Read the other RADTENN thread. None of this makes sense. The OP wants very precise opinions about his legal options based on the extremely limited amount of context he chooses to deliver. For whatever reason, despite being told otherwise, he also keeps holding onto the notion that his “oral agreements” are some powerful legal argument that’s going to hold sway.
Unless he has some hard proof, other than hearsay, that she actively discriminated against him due to his disabilities the likelihood of his prevailing on his discrimination action is IMO pretty remote.
I’m also curious about this statement from Post 1 Thread 1
What exactly was in that letter that would have doctors pronounce a legal assessment of the situation?
Other questions:
Did RADTENN ask the landlord to make an accommodation for his disability? If he were in the hospital for his leg let’s say then made a request under ADA for a ramp or a handrail? If so, then the timing is extremely suspicious.
Why are the two rental terms so different? Why is the roomate on a 10 year lease yet he is on a month-to-month?
Is the landlord really this much of an idiot? Why give any reasons to evict a month-to-month other than a 60-day get the fuck out notice?
Does RADTENN write a check to the landlord that get’s sent along with his roommate’s or does he give the roommate the money who then writes one check? Suppose they each owe $450/mo in rent but the landlord only sees one check from the roommate for $900. Does this mean RADTENN didn’t pay rent to the landlord? Could the landlord be confused expecting to see a check from RADTENN?
Has the roommate complained about RADTENN and his disability? I was in one situation where four of us were each renting rooms but one roommate was sleeping with another roommate’s fiancee. Not wanting to create a scene (i.e. being a pussy) he had the landlord evict the guy banging his finacee rather than confronting him.
Wading through the two relevant threads, here are the “facts” that I’ve been able to glean. OPer, correct me if I’m wrong on any of these.
Background
OPer, a disabled vet, resides in San Diego, California.
OPer has shared his home with the same roommate for 6 years.
Roommate has a 10-year verbal contract with the landlord which expires in 2013.
OPer has a separate verbal month-to-month contract with his landlord.
OPer does not pay his rent directly to the landlord, but gives his portion of the rent to his roommate, who then forwards both tenants’ money to the landlord.
Thread #1
In March 2011, the OPer was hospitalized for a condition he chooses not to divulge.
In late March, the landlord learned of OPer’s recent hospitalization from Roommate.
Within days of learning about OPer’s condition, OPer received a letter of eviction which gave the OPer approximately 60 days to move out, citing minor infractions dating back 5 years, in addition to the claim that OPer was an “unauthorized non-rent paying occupant.” OPer denies this and claims that he was neither unauthorized nor non-paying.
Acc to the OPer, California law demands 60 days’ notice for eviction of month-to-month tenants.
Thread #2 (this thread)
Since the original notice of eviction, OPer has not found other housing arrangements.
On May 31st, landlord called and spoke to the OPer, asking him to forgive her for evicting him, but ultimately confirming that she still wants him out by June 30th.
During the phone conversation, she amended the reason for her eviction. She now claims that she wants him to move out of the residence so that she can move in.
Subsequent to receiving the original notice of eviction, OPer has filed a complaint with HUD, complaining of discrimination because he feels that the landlord evicted him solely on the grounds of his condition.
Yes, I do have some questions:
Per your verbal agreements, do you and your roommate have identical dates for when rent is due?
a) If yes, that bolsters your case because the landlord receives both you and your roommates’ rent on the same day. By evicting you and not your roommate, she is demonstrating a bias against you. This is true even if you both paid late because she’d have a cause for eviction against both of you.
b) If not, and your roommate’s rent due date is several days after yours, then it’s possible that the landlord is not receiving YOUR portion of the rent on time, and she may have valid grounds for evicting you. (However, one wonders why she wouldn’t have used this as grounds for eviction in the first place.)
Can you present proof that your landlord knew of your presence in the home prior to her visit in March? You say that you had a verbal contract with her. I assume that this means that you spoke to her directly 5 years ago, and discussed terms, such as due date of rent, and that she took no action to evict you for over 5 years.
If so, this would bolster your case because if she’s known about you but taken no action to evict you for over 5 years, then your claim that she evicted you based on your condition has more plausibility.
Does California law demand a reason for eviction? If so, then you need to come up with a defense for her initial claim that you were unauthorized and non-paying, which is probably the only thing a judge is interested in. If you have emails, letters, etc from the landlord which demonstrated that she knew that you were in the home on a permanent basis prior to spring 2011, this would certainly help your cause. Producing canceled checks made out to the landlord would be ideal. If not, ask your bank for statements going back 2-3 years to show that regular, routine withdrawals were made from your account several days before the due date.
Have you written her an answer, denying that you are an unauthorized/non-paying tenant? You may need to do this.
If she’s abandoned her original reason for evicting you (non-payment), it’s possible that she may need to start all over. That might buy you another 60 days to find a new place.
Obviously, your case is more complicated than back-seat lawyers can handle. I’d call HUD and ask if they can refer you to a lawyer or citizen’s group that can assist you in this. Each jurisdiction has their own method of dealing with landlord/tenant complaints and you need to make sure that you are following the correct procedures.
According to that, he does have a valid lease, it is his roommate’s lease that is in question. RADTENN’s oral lease is month-to-month. That’s less than the 1 year limit in your cite.
Why are you bare arsed, and what does that have to do with the OP?
Because she just learned about the OP’s disability that she didn’t know about previously, and she feels that disability makes him some sort of risk in remaining. Without knowing the disability, guessing at what makes her uncomfortable is fruitless.
Already answered that there are a number of immune system diseases and the like. How about kidney failure?
Presumably the landlady thinks that disability either makes the OP a risk for damage to property, or is squicked out, or has a moral objection. Without knowing the disability, guessing is fruitless.
Because the questions in the other thread were only tangentially related to the reason for eviction and were about the means of eviction. Nothing about the means of eviction requires knowing exactly what the disability is, only that it is a recognized disability for ADA.
I don’t see what you mean. He keeps mentionging the oral agreements because people keep being too stupid to understand when he says he has an oral agreement with the landlady, not a sublease through the roommate. He keeps getting asked questions about that agreement, so he keeps repeating about the agreement. But I don’t see where he has tried to claim his oral agreement is some sort of trump card.
Well that may be your IMO, but that’s not necessarily true. Being able to cite the timing of the eviction as triggered by her becoming aware of his disability, being able to cite the reasons on the original notice of why as being excuse fishing, and showing that the listed reasons apply equally to him and the roommate but the treatment is different for both of them all give strong reasons to make a circumstantial discrimination case. That in itself probably won’t keep him from getting forced out (not without legal help now and some sort of injunction, which I don’t know if it is possible), but could get her fined and him some compensation later.
They could be able to state that his disability falls under the ADA. They might also be sympathizing with the Op, which probably isn’t legally useful. They’re certainly as entitled to a non-legal opinion as much as a bunch of internet strangers, especially ones that don’t know the disability or the full list of excuses.
According to the OP, there was no request for accommodation for the disability. The roommate mentioned the OP was in the hospital to the landlady, and when asked why, told her about the disability. That was the extent of how the landlady became aware.
Because they are different people, who made different arrangements at different times, with different financial situations and different backgrounds?
Because she panicked? Because she wasn’t sure exactly all the rules, and was trying to comply with the legal rules for California and San Diego that say eviction requires at min 60 day notice and a list of reasons?
Possible, but less likely. The roommate appears to have no issue with RADTENN.
Actually, from the dates stated by the OP, it was 89 days notice.
But is looking.
Actually, I think the request for forgiveness was for being discriminatory, and hoping the OP would let her off the hook. Because she still wants him gone.
The OP has not indicated any instances of paying rent late. The claim of “non rent paying” appears to be a bald-faced lie, though people keep trying to create reasons why it could be made plausible by the landlady.
Well, if this website can be believed, the landlord doesn’t have to give grounds at all, so I’m not sure that her making up nonsense about the OPer being a non-paying, non-authorized tenant is even relevant. She simply needs to give 60 days notice (because he has lived in the rental for more than one year). And she has done this. (Exemptions apparently exist in some cities that offer rent control, etc.)
However, the same cite says that a landlord must follow a certain protocol for notifying the tenant. OPer just said that he received a letter from her. Depending on how she served it, that may not have been sufficient. (The website claims that the original letter must be hand delivered, professionally served, or taped to his door or some other conspicuous place AND mailing a copy of the letter.) If she didn’t follow procedure, she may need to start again. That wouldn’t relieve the OPer from paying rent, but it might buy him time.
Once again, I’d either work diligently to find a new place by June 30th, or I’d ask the advice of someone who is well versed in California landlord/tenant laws.
