My landlord entered my apartment illegally (did not give me 24 hour notice) and found out that I had broken the lease by having a pet, which is forbidden int he lease. He has now geven me 30 days to move out and I don't feel I have to because he got the infromation illegally. Can he do this? Our court date is set for next week. Help.
ALWAYS TRY TO GIVE A NOTICE! & LEARN THE LANDLORD AND TENANTS RIGHTS IN YOUR STATE BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU,ESP.IF THEY KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THE LAW!
I went to court today and the judge ruled in my favor, ordering the tenant to pay court costs, the unpaid rent for this month, and to move out by the end of the month. The tenant tried to make an issue of "illegal entry" and the judge ignored it.
Thanks everyone for all you help. I will be a lot smarter next time.
Hi Anna,
I have been reading the posts here and saw you're victory in court. Good job!
As an aside, most leases have a clause for the landlord/owner to enter a property with notice and if not possible, without notice if it's a matter of an emergency or a need to preserve the property from damage. I'd say the smell of animal urine in a building that doesn't allow pets is an emergency! My leases also have a clause that says I will be through the properties every three months for inspection. While I always try to give advance notice, I don't have to when it comes to inspections.
And, as for posting as a tenant, I think it was okay because it gave you some honest answers from a tenant's persepctive. You also came clean when the mission was accomplished.
Get the books, learn from your mistakes (which we've all made!) and move on. Guessing you won't do this again any time soon!
I am a tenant who lives in a complex where NO dogs have EVER been allowed. In my time here I have seen people who have been evicted for having dogs against their lease provisions and people who had to get rid of their dogs to avoid eviction. ALL BUT MY NEIGHBOR, who is apparently "doing someone" in the management company. The tenant is and was wrong. If the neighbor was complaining about the noise that the dog, that the tenant shouldn't have had, was making, the landlord had the right to look into this issue. I am constantly annoyed by the yapping, 3 legged chihuaha that my idiot neighbor has.
I follow rules when they are laid down, so I sent my dog, who I love very much and who I had for 6 years, to live with my mother when i moved here so you can imagine my anger at the fact that I have to listen to a barking dog when I had to get RID of MY OWN dog to live here.
A Lease is a contract and when they signed it, they agreed to ALL aspects including NOT having a dog...
>>My lease doesn't say anything about notice just that I may enter the premises during reasonable hours for the following purposes: to inspect to see if the tenant is complying with this agreement...<<
If this is what your lease specifically states, seems to me you have the right to enter 'during reasonable hours... to inspect to see if the tenant is complying with this agreement..."
Were I going to eviction court I'd present the lease clause as proof I had such a right to enter, and then point out that such a breach (bad smells and annoying barking) could affect the habitability of the premises as well as the rights of my other tenants, and so needed immediate attention.
From what I read, small claims courts differ greatly. It might pay you to sit in on several sessions to see how things work. Where I live the sessions seem pretty fair without too much bias toward either tenant or landlord. Just don't try any BS and come prepared with whatever documents you think you may need.
Of course, if I was losing sleep over this I'd hire an attorney and chalk up the fee as one more tuition payment. (And in my case I've sure paid my share of tuition!)
I feel for you, but how do you know that the tenant doesn't have special arrangements other then doing someone built into their lease?
As far as Anna goes, this situation is not any different then spending years as a cop. You always have a legal reason for a search, whether it's a car or house before you search. I have never had to perjured myself on the stand, simply because I covered my butt with creative report writing which can go a long way when making an arrest. There is a thing called reasonable suspicion or in the case of a vehicle, furtive movements. With all of the loop holes in our legal system, only a fool would not learn how to use those loop holes to their advantage to get a job done.
Mike said it best. "You only get the justice that you can afford"
I appreciate the opinions. My tenant has moved out--the judge told her she had to be out by the end of the March or she would be evicted. He seemed very sympathetic to my case, especially when I showed him photographs of damage to the outside of the house. She tried to press the illegal entry' issue but the judge would have none of it.
Now, my unit is absolutely filthy and every stitch of carpet will have to be removed because it is way beyond cleaning. She had removed drapery and pulled bracklets out of the wall leaving a huge hole above the window. The trim on a beautiful bevelled glass oak door (antique) is torn off and the towel bar on the bathroom is bent. The refrigerator was so toally disgusting with dried food it took hours to clean.
I am considering taking her to small claims court because she has a steady job and I think considering the damage she has done, should compensate me financially for the lost rent and the hours of time and labor and materials it will take to get the apartment back to the condition it was in when she rented it.
My question is: I purchased the house in Oct 2006 and the previous owners had thoroughly cleaned and repainted it before putting it on the market. The carpeting was older, but a very good quality wool, and in fine condition. I have heard that because it was older than 7 years, I am not able to charge her for the damage. Anyone know the rule on this? My state is Michigan.
I appreciate the opinions. My tenant has moved out--the judge told her she had to be out by the end of the March or she would be evicted. He seemed very sympathetic to my case, especially when I showed him photographs of damage to the outside of the house. She tried to press the illegal entry' issue but the judge would have none of it.
Now, my unit is absolutely filthy and every stitch of carpet will have to be removed because it is way beyond cleaning. She had removed drapery and pulled bracklets out of the wall leaving a huge hole above the window. The trim on a beautiful bevelled glass oak door (antique) is torn off and the towel bar on the bathroom is bent. The refrigerator was so toally disgusting with dried food it took hours to clean.
I am considering taking her to small claims court because she has a steady job and I think considering the damage she has done, should compensate me financially for the lost rent and the hours of time and labor and materials it will take to get the apartment back to the condition it was in when she rented it.
My question is: I purchased the house in Oct 2006 and the previous owners had thoroughly cleaned and repainted it before putting it on the market. The carpeting was older, but a very good quality wool, and in fine condition. I have heard that because it was older than 7 years, I am not able to charge her for the damage. Anyone know the rule on this? My state is Michigan.
Next time, don't look for legal advise in forums! Spend the money and get the best advise from an attorney. Just my opinion.