Well, take a wild guess as to what my position would be on that issue!
Seriously, did you think i was advocating a law that would reward tenants for not paying rent?
Damn straight! And when I read about some family whose house has been completely leveled after an airplane crashes into it, destroying all their possessions and leaving them homeless and traumatized, I always say, Hey, you choose to live in a relatively flimsly above-ground structure made of or containing large amounts of wood and other flammable materials, you take certain risks. It was your choice not to live in a decommissioned underground missile silo made of reinforced concrete.
I say: Let 'em crash!
One thing I can say for Rand Rover: just when I think he’s reached the pinnacle of ridiculousness, he always comes back and surprises me by besting himself.
You’re not just an asshole, you’re also stupid. I wanted to make it clear, because you might not know. 
Sorry, the question was more rhetorical and it didn’t come out that way in my post. I should have said …
… unless, of course, the the tenant’s unlawful failure to pay rent caused the landlord’s default on the mortgage.
To say you are an asshole would be an insult to assholes everywhere.
I don’t think it’s such a big deal either. Putting aside the issue of foreclosure, when your rent real estate, your landlord can often simply decide that he or she does not want to renew your lease and evict you.
It does not say in the article whether the woman has a lease or rents month to month, but the main thing that’s worse in this situation is that the woman is down a month or two of rent. However, she can easily delay things for a few months in housing court and more than make up the lost rent. Which it seems she is doing since the bank apparently offered her $1000 to leave. Probably she could do a lot better if she hires a lawyer and negotiates.
ETA: I’m not saying it’s a great situation, but I don’t see how it’s “just horrible.” Presumably, she still has whatever revenue stream was allowing her to pay $1900 per month in rent. In all likelihood, that money can be used to rent something else.
Minus the nearly $6K in deposit, which she’s going to have to scrape up again for a new place, I suspect. She described it as “everything she had” in the article. And I don’t know what kind of lease she’s on, but I’ve never been on a month-to-month lease in my lifetime, and I’ve rented multiple apartments; if I were suddenly evicted without warning and for no fault of my own, I’d be livid. I also think she had a very good point about how it wouldn’t be so bad if it was just her, but she’s got 3 children to care for and think about, plus pets, which few hotels and many rentals won’t accept. A single person can crash on a friend’s couch, can get a cheapo yucky hotel room, whatever it takes until you find a new spot. Having to think about your children’s health and happiness makes it so much more complicated.
All she has to do is stop paying rent; dance around in housing court for a few months; and make a deal with the new landlord near the end.
As I said, that’s always a risk when you rent. See, even assuming you have a 1-year lease, the landlord can usually send you a letter a month before the lease ends saying that you are out. Or that your rent has been doubled.
I agree. And I’m not saying it’s a great situation.
Yes, that would seem to be the sensible course, but it is apparent that most banks do not think that way. The typical course of events seems to be to evict all human inhabitants from the house. All too often, the result a few weeks later is an influx of scavengers that strip the building of everything of any worth, including smashing into walls to cut out copper plumbing and wiring to sell for scrap. Of course, then the property’s worth falls even further.
The only thing that I can think of to explain this is that in better times foreclosed properties sold much quicker, so that a new owner took possession before entire neighborhoods became vacant and properties were stripped by vandals, and that banks have not adjusted their thinking to changed conditions.
I don’t know about where you live, but where I live evictions take a minimum of 90 days, and if there is a signed lease there has to be a reason for it (such as failure to pay rent) or there can be substantial penalties, if the tenant can be forced out at all. Even a month-to-month lease requires 30 days notice, and security deposits must be refunded.
I’ve rented all my adult life. I’ve worked for several landlords as well. It is extremely unusual and rare for a landlord to summarily get rid of a good tenant who pays the rent on time reliably.
Mr. Rover, I am sure you have respect for the law. I am not sure of the exact rules governing where the women in the article lives, but in MY part of the country banks are required, by law, to notify tenants that the property they are renting is in foreclosure IN ADVANCE. I emphasize: the BANK is required to notify the TENANT as well as the mortgage holder. In my area, doing this through a “real estate broker” or the sheriff showing up to put your stuff on the lawn is NOT proper or lawful notification. Failure of banks to do this is a major reason one of our local sheriffs stopped evicting tenants from foreclosed property - because the law had not been properly followed.
Those of us who rent enter into a contract, governed by law, in order to obtain housing. We expect that the law will be adhered to. As a renter I am well aware that I may be required to vacate my current residence. I am also aware that by law I am to recieve at least 30 days notice, in some cases considerably more.
If what occurred to this woman, as reported, happened in my county it would not have been in accord with the law. Of course, I am also aware that the laws are not uniform across the country. Nonetheless, do you not agree that any laws governing contracts between private parties (and a lease is one such contract) should be adhered to?
Mr. Rover, such an option is almost never an option. She is not, after all, the owner, and “part of the rent” will not prevent a foreclosure. The tenant’s contract is not with the mortgage lender, it is with the owner.
Ah, but what if someone else buries landmines in their backyard without notifying the person? As I mentioned, in my area there are legal requirements to notify tenants BEFORE foreclosure actually occurs.
Well, yes, I think you’re an asshole, but I’d like to think my reply is more than a one-liner.
Tenants in multi-unit apartment buildings are actually in no better a position when the building goes into foreclosure. In my area, actual foreclosure may be delayed due to the necessity of notifying everyone properly, but in the end the result is the same as if the tenants were each renting a stand-alone house.
One difference is that a rented home is more likely to be owned by a private individual who is not primarially a landlord. Multi-unit buildings are usually owned by someone who manages rental properties as a profession, and if sold are usually sold to the same sort of entity. This makes the “my brother-in-law needs a place to live, get your stuff out of here in 30 days” scenario much less likely. A lot of homes in recent decades were bought as investments and rented out by people who didn’t really know what they were doing, had little or no experience as landlords, and who didn’t understand what was involved and what their obligations were. That sort of thing can get very messy.
If a tenant isn’t paying the rent then the landlord should start eviction proceedings. However, the landlord assumes risk in renting to someone (hence the reason so many require background/credit checks). If you can’t stomach the risk of a tenant possibily defaulting on the rent you shouldn’t be a landlord. The landlord is responsible for meeting the terms of the mortgage, not the tenant. This is another reason that renting in a multi-unit building is less risky in some respects for either party. If one tenant of several fails to pay rent the landlord will usually still be able to make the mortgage payment. If there is only one tenant, and that tenant does not pay, then the landlord can wind up in a very bad spot.
On the flip side, the tenant can also decide not to renew and just leave, meaning the landlord has to find a new tenant or carry an empty unit. Or, in the case of my dad, he has just given his landlord notice that he is vacating early (in accordance with terms of the lease) and now the landlord will lose at least some income while the unit sits and a new occupant is found. This is why breaking a lease early often incurs some sort of penalty (last time I did it I was required to pay 3 months rent beyond the month the last month I was in residence, but the circumstances were such that it was worth it for me to do it).
The $1000 isn’t a very unusual offer for tenant moving expenses, and isn’t selfless on the part of the bank. It’s a way of getting the tenant out promptly. The tenant might do better with a lawyer IF she has grounds for a case, and IF she has money to hire a lawyer. From the sound of it, she may have overextended herself.
She may also have to settle for something else, something that isn’t a picturesque house. People can wind up paying too much for rent just as they can pay too much for a mortgage. Putting “everything” you have into renting isn’t too bright. That said, I have some empathy for the woman’s situation. Whether it’s her fault or not, whether the letter of the law was followed or not, having to move in a hurry and dealing with children and pets under such circumstances is a slice of hell. And being out 6k in security deposit, which she is supposed to get back when she moves out, is a hardship for most people. If the money isn’t there she’s screwed, but in most places I’ve rented failure to return the deposit is a legal violation.
Um… no. Failure to pay rent is grounds for eviction, regardless of who owns the property. Try that and you’ll lose in housing court. And why would the new landlord want to make a deal with a tenant who fails to live up to her end of the lease and withhold’s rent?
Yes, but you know when your lease is coming to an end, it’s not without warning. Also, it is possible for the tenant to move out, too, but again notifications must be done properly. From the way the article is written, proper and timely notification may not have occurred, and she should have gotten her security deposit back, but is out that, too. That is not what she agreed to when she signed on the dotted line.
Yes, I knew someone would respond thusly. The difference between the woman in the article and your analogy is that she was engaging in a business transaction. She had options and she chose one. The option she chose had a set of possible foreseeable consequences, and one such consequence occurred. The situation is therefore not at all analogous to a meteor htting her house or dying in a terrorist attack in the US.
Therefore, your attempt to mischaracterize my position as saying that a person is responsible for ecerything bad that happens to them fails, and obviously so.
Of course, it’s rarely that the bank does any of this directly. Usually there’s at least one degree of separation there.
It’s the security deposit bit that puzzles me; if the bank is taking possession of the house, they should also have to take possession of all associated debts and liens. If, for instance, the bank took possession of a house on which the property tax had not been paid, you can be damned sure the city would come asking for the back taxes, and while they might try going after the former owner, they wouldn’t take long to ask the bank for the dough. A security deposit constitutes a legal debt. Why is the bank not on the hook for that?
I suspect that in fact they ARE, but that the lady in question has been bullshitted into thinking they are not. She doesn’t have the lawyers the bank does and they’re certainly not going to volunteer the truth.
It’s no tragedy that she’s getting evicted; that’s part of being a renter, and you can be evicted for a lot of stupid reasons. It’s a big pain in the ass, but it’s not a norror What’s wrong is that (a) she’s not getting back a huge chunk of money she is rightfully owed and (b) 30 days strikes me as being far too short a notice for a no-fault eviction.
So in your world, the $6,000 security deposit that she’s contractually owed doesn’t matter? Is $6,000 not a big deal in your world? What about any lease contract she may have entered into in good faith?
Dude, you really ARE a 17 year old in a basement, aren’t you? I can’t imagine how else you would have no idea how renting works.
I was responding only to the sentiment in the article and OP that something bad has happened based only on the foreclosure and eviction, so nothing I said applies to any money she’s owed or other legal claims she has.
What do you mean? She entered into a contract with another individual. She could have bargained for new flowers in the front yard every spring or a turkey dinner every thanksgiving if she wanted to.
Also, I did presume that she didn’t try to bargain for other protections, but maybe she did and just didn’t get them, in which case it’s still not a big deal because she took the deal without those protections.
Yeah, you’ve clearly never rented. Property owners are almost always in a superior contract negotiation position, in my experience. “You want what? Eh, I’ll just find another tenant.” It’s only once the rental contract has been signed that the tenant gets into a better bargaining position- because the contract spells out the renter’s rights.
Oh, and I didn’t read the story. I had no idea the woman was black. I empathized with her because that’s what normal humans do. I’ll just echo the sentiment others have expressed, here- anyone who holds the opinions that you do is an asshole, and I hope that someday, you get to experience her situation firsthand.
You mean…deal with the landlord before you rent? And on Long Island no less? Clearly you have never rented nor lived on Long Island!
Here is the thing about LI. There is no way the average renter on Long Island could also afford a house in the same area. And landlords on Long Island pretty much have their choice of clientele. A lot of people want to move there. (Well, not me, but lots of people.)
Here is the thing about renting. As others have said, you rent, well, you take the chances. And yes, we do take the chances - but it would make me extremely resentful and bitter if I was paying my rent and still getting evicted - with a 30 day notice, no less.
All that aside - she absolutely should get her security deposit back.
Rand, I don’t really understand you. You are practically living under a rock. I have read a lot of your posts and you are nowhere near reality, yet you claim to be. In real life, we don’t get everything we want just because we work for it or set ourselves up in the “right path”. Some people can’t set themselves up in the right place to start with. They made mistakes when they were young. Some people will never be in the right place - not everyone is born to middle class America that can send their kids to college and help them.
And those people that are set up wonderfully? Lightning strikes there, too, for your information. Perfectly well-off people with good jobs can be devastated by a severe illness or depression. Life doesn’t go like clockwork like you seem to think it should. Be happy your life is well and hope tragedy never strikes.
Correct, a contract guaranteeing the use of a particular asset for a particular length of time. Then the individual sells the asset and she’s apparently not allowed to use it anymore.
To me, the right way to go is to rule that anyone who purchases a property, also purchases any leases or other obligations that involve the property.
As an aside, if the bank is going to kick me out and isn’t willing to give me my $5,700 security deposit back, that house is going to absorb 10x that amount of damage by the time I leave. Of course, that’s just the Internet Tough Guy in me speaking, but what the hell, it makes me feel good to think about the bank being a bunch of assholes then getting ten cents on the dollar when trying to sell a ruined house.
There’s something odd about this situation – in New York law, a security deposit is required to be treated like a trust fund and not be commingled with the owner’s own money. Further, if the residence is sold, that deposit has to be transferred to the new owner.
Now it may be that the previous owner of the house broke the law, took the deposit and is now bankrupt so that suing for relief is not an option. But the article doesn’t explicitly say that.
Also, I’m not current with rental prices on Long Island, but if $6000 is all you have in the world, then I’d look for a cheaper rental than $1900/month.