Would you evict a pregnant woman?

21 Replies

This article was posted by WMC TV 5 in Memphis:

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/27175888/mothe...

To sum it up, this woman is pregnant with triplets, already has other children and is behind on her rent. This article to me is basically making the landlord out to be the bad guy for evicting her. People not in the business don't understand that the margins are really small and rarely take into account the expenses associated with it. They just see "I'm giving him $1300 or $1500 a month in rent, they're making a killing". I would like to hear the BP community's thoughts on this article.

I have been know to let people slide a little but $4800 is WAY too much. 

In the end business is business.

Me too, if she doesn't pay, she is taking money out of my kids mouths. Business is business. 

Would Target or Walmart just  let this person take diapers off the shelf without paying? No. Both the landlord and the retail store are providing a service..and both should get compensated for it.

Yup, her being pregnant is irrelevant. 

Honestly I have no sympathy for anyone not following up to their expectation or requirements! Life happens and that is why you have to be responsible and have savings!

Not sure what the eviction "difference" is for a pregnant woman and a single parent with children. All landlords I know cannot afford to support another family, and it's to the detriment of their own family when they hesitate. 

I would evict if the rent is not paid according to the lease agreement.  Period.  I have learned that this is a business and many tenants will try to take advantage of you. 

yes.

I think this could really come back to slap the investor. If you let her slide on rent but don't let another tenant I could see a "professional tenant" filing a discrimination lawsuit. We all know people will sue for less. 

Originally posted by Aly NA:

Not sure what the eviction "difference" is for a pregnant woman and a single parent with children. All landlords I know cannot afford to support another family, and it's to the detriment of their own family when they hesitate. 

Is this overstated just a little bit?  Do you really not know any landlords who have the resources to "support another family"?  Is it just who I know or where I live?  LOTS of people I know have savings and earnings and resources that could easily afford to provide $20K annually to support another family's housing....for many years. Lots of BP members are in the same boat I'm sure.   I'm guessing you are not broke and indeed probably have savings and equity.  We choose not to support another family, especially one living in our investment property. I could say I couldn't afford it, but it wouldn't be true.  And I have way less in savings and assets than many other investors my age. 

My children would not starve and they could still attend college if I allowed a non-paying tenant to to remain in my property. It's a choice we are making to enforce rent and keep our rental properties profitable.  We're running a business.  A landlord whose children are at risk from a non-paying tenant is playing WAY to close to the edge and probably shouldn't be in this business.

Yes, I would evict her, I think we have half a story.  Can you apply your policies unequally because she has children?    The real question is that no one in the article is asking what happened to the  triplets dad.  She is so behind and where is the support from  the family and baby's fathers They are asking a stranger to let the rent slide.  That is what this landlord is paying his taxes for, to contribute to a social system that helps people with issues like this equitably. 

I don't evict a "pregnant woman' or "single mom with kids",,,,I will evict a tenant that brakes promises to pay, not the individual.

Because someone is running past due, I would come up with a plan for them to catch up on a timetable they can do it,,,if they don't follow that plan, then I would evict them.

One of my best tenants I served a 3 day letter to, only after they had broken promises to pay,,guess what, they don't break promises to pay now (but do run late, always paying late fees)

If I can afford to let them stay without paying or not is not a question I think about, this is a business and I will give some slack, but will not allow someone to stay without paying rent, and as @K. Marie Poe  stated, that is my choice

@Account Closed   I am not sure anyone is saying their children will starve if they allowed someone to live rent free, or even slide for a few months. I think @Aly L  was saying is that the money that didn't come in from this woman, could have gone to the family of the landlord. Even if the landlord is well off, and they have food, clothes, and a college tuitions paid for... I know I'd like to be able to give my kids (when/if I have them) down payments on their first homes to help them get started. The extra $5k would be nice there. And even if a landlord can afford to take the loss, why should they?   Yes, it's a choice to evict them or now, but why should it be frowned upon if someone exercises that right to choose. And when you decide to "sponsor" one of your tenants, why is that fair to the other tenants? I think consistency needs to be across the board... whether that is to "sponsor" a tenant or evict a tenant.

Thanks @Jon Huber , I'm glad my single sentence wasn't taken *too* literally ;)

Yes, I would evict her. I evicted two single mothers with 3 kids living for free in my property. And because I was trying to be a good landlord they owe me 2.5+ months of free rent. Now I know: how can you trust someone to deliver on their promises when they just broke them.

The landlord does not singlehandedly evict people - he files an eviction with the courts. And if the courts decide that the woman has to be evicted she is. And if she refuses to leave the premises a policeman is sent at the due date and she is taken out to the curb.

It looks like there are a lot of people that protect the rights of the pregnant woman so if any of them disagrees they can take her in their own homes and support her. But I don't think all those people that are trying to tell you how to manage your properties are willing to take this pregnant women to live in their personal property and not pay any rent.

On the other hand, where is the father of the triplets? What about the mother and the father of the woman? If her parents are not willing to put up with her why should anyone? What about her friends and relatives?   

Originally posted by @Jon Huber :

@K. Marie Poe  I am not sure anyone is saying their children will starve if they allowed someone to live rent free, or even slide for a few months. I think @Aly L  was saying is that the money that didn't come in from this woman, could have gone to the family of the landlord. Even if the landlord is well off, and they have food, clothes, and a college tuitions paid for... I know I'd like to be able to give my kids (when/if I have them) down payments on their first homes to help them get started. The extra $5k would be nice there. And even if a landlord can afford to take the loss, why should they?   Yes, it's a choice to evict them or now, but why should it be frowned upon if someone exercises that right to choose. And when you decide to "sponsor" one of your tenants, why is that fair to the other tenants? I think consistency needs to be across the board... whether that is to "sponsor" a tenant or evict a tenant.

I never suggested that anyone should continue a tenancy with a non-paying tenant.  Far from that.  I said we, as landlords, are running a business and that how we run our business is a choice. Evicting a tenant is not something that is forced on us because we can't afford it or because our children are at risk. It makes investment and business sense.  Pretty sure I've evicted more than most on this thread.  Literal or not, Aly said the landlords she knew "could not afford" a non-paying tenant and that to do so was to the"detriment" of their children.  Why use those words if you don't mean them? 

Sadly, I would evict long before it got to $4800 due. But as @K. Marie Poe says, its not because my kid would lose out on anything or my lifestyle would change in any way. A business should be run as a business. And charity should be done for its own sake. Mixing the two is dangerous. Otherwise the lines get too blurry. Every tenant who doesnt pay has some reason. And in this case there is a boyfriend, family etc. If none of them step up, why is it expected the landlord should? There are a lot of such cases of people not living in your property. Are you obligated to help them all? And how about the reverse? If the furnace blows out and you have no cash at all, will the tenant reciprocate and say "its okay, i will fix it myself? Of course not. You better get it fixed ASAP right? So its a contract that goes both ways.

Well, Octomom got evicted.  She can get evicted too.  Agreed that she would not be allowed to walk into a grocery store and remove items from a shelf.  Not paying rent is basically the same thing, in my very humble opinion.

But let's think about this.  We cannot choose not to rent to any person based on their family situation.  By that very law, we also must evict evenly and not based on their family situation.  Period.

My opinion on her breeding habits will remain my own, but take one guess.

Where is the father? Why are they wasting resources reporting on this nonsense?

This ho is out like the gout

Create Lasting Wealth Through Real Estate

Join the millions of people achieving financial freedom through the power of real estate investing

Start here