LL evicting tenant, but my vending machine is inside!

LL evicting tenant, but my vending machine is inside!

Oceanside, CA · Member since 2015 · 14 posts · 6 votes

Hey Biggerpockets,

I have a service contract with a tenant, who was served an abatement warrant. For those unfamiliar with abatement warrants, the city puts it's own locks on the property for a period of time to stop the activity. This abatement warrant ends tomorrow (10/1), and the landlord has an eviction hearing sometime around the 7th-9th. Poor guy is pulling his hair out because his tenant isn't paying.

Here's the catch, I'm a third party with a service contract at the property and have no agreements with the landlord. My machine is locked inside because of the abatement warrant. I've called the landlord today to ask if I can get my machine tomorrow and show him a contract between the tenant and myself stating that the machine on site is mine, and the tenant has no claim to it. The landlord said that I have to wait until the eviction process is over. 

I went through this exact scenario at another location, and it was no problem to pick up my vending machine. The landlord sounds like he wants to hold me financial hostage telling me there might be a fee for him boarding up the property to protect my machine. It sounds like because the tenant isn't paying him, he wants to take my machine.

As a parallel, a landlord doesn't have a claim to a third party's POS system leased to the tenant right?

This sounds really illegal to me... landlord thoughts?

0Reply
30 views

7 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Nicole A.Pro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Baltimore County Maryland and Tampa Florida · Member since 2013 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    10y

    If I understand, today the property won't be locked up? Could you go there today?

    The landlord might be protecting himself because he's unfamiliar with this agreement, he doesn't want to believe you and then get in trouble for allowing someone to come take the tenant's things (not saying you're lying, just giving an idea of his thinking).

    If the landlord does indeed try to take your machine, just go to court. But otherwise, be on the lookout for eviction day. Stay as neutral as possible. Getting mad at him won't help.

    Also, I'm confused why is your agreement with the tenants and not with the owners of the properties that you're placing your machines? You said "vending machine" in the title, so I'm thinking like a soda/candy machine? Or just a piece of equipment you left?

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    10y

    First, I suggest you modify your machine lease providing access to the premises and retrieval of equipment with the consent of the leasee in the agreement.

    Next, the landlord can't go in until the eviction, until then the tenant still has their rights. He might proceed from abandonment but if property is in there, the tenant can claim the LL ripped him off.

    Not sure you can prove the tenant has no interest in your machine either, pretty much you say they say. We can't tell as we don't know what machine it is, the lease terms, or claims that could arise or your lien or title matters.

    The LL is covering their tail as a bailee, they are responsible for what's inside. Might just wait it out and take up your lease default with your customer. Sorry :) 

  • Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2015 · 191 posts · 75 votes
    10y

    The machine seems to be a POS, or point of sale, like a cash register.  The vending machine mentioned was about another property.  Perhaps this is a commercial tenant?

    Nonetheless, the landlord is probably following protocol and I wouldn't fault him.  Patience is a virtue.  The machine will go to it's rightful owner eventually.

  • Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2015 · 191 posts · 75 votes
    10y

    Oops, I just saw that the title says "vending" machine.  Oh well...

  • Oceanside, CA · Member since 2015 · 14 posts · 6 votes
    10y

    I'm going to post what I find here so other landlords can handle conversion, trespass of chattel and abandonment of property disputes they have with dead-beat tenants in California. By posting the information, I'm hoping to keep fellow BP landlords out of seriously-hot tenant-friendly legal water. 

    If you're a residential landlord and the tenant or any other property owners left behind property after vacating the premises, see CA Civil Codes 1980 - 1991 before you even think about moving, disposing or keeping their property. You're obligated to hold it for a period of time. You can't keep it, hold it or sell to make up for unpaid rents, fees or damages. Follow the procedure in the code for "safe harbor"

    If you're a commercial landlord and the tenant or any other property owners left behind property after vacating the premises,  see CA Civil Code 1993 - 1993.09. Special note, if there are chairs left behind with a sticker on the bottom that says "XYZ Chair company," you're obligated to contact the chair company to investigate if it's their property. On a good note, if you give it to them and the tenant claims the chairs are owned by tenant, you're not held liable for giving it to XYZ Chairs. As the landlord, you give it to whoever said it was theirs first-- and that's that.

    With respect to my issue with a landlord that hasn't yet evicted the tenant, is the only key holder to the property (tenant gave up keys) and won't allow me to enter and retrieve my property, there may be grounds for conversion or trespass to chattel. In short, when a landlord is exerting control or dominion over another owner's property, the landlord is interfering with the owner's right to the owner's property.

    In a nutshell, trespass to chattel is the "little brother" of conversion. It's for people that want their property back and money lost by not having ownership of it. Conversion is money sought for the entire value of the item and money lost by not having ownership of it. If you won't allow a tenant, lien holder or owner to retrieve their property, they have pretty good grounds for a suit.

    I'm making note now that this information I find is with respect to California (tenant friendly state). A lot of these laws seem to be the same or very similar in other states, so check your area. Additionally, taking legal advice from a person you don't know on the internet isn't really wise. At best, I'll be pointing you in the right direction for your reading.

    Further Reads / Links:

    Is this property abandoned?

    Dealing with RESIDENTIAL property abandonment

    Dealing with COMMERCIAL property abandonment

    Sue for Trespass to Chattel or Conversion?

    Conversion Explained

    Jury's Instructions: Conversion?

    Jury's Instructions: Trespass to Chattel?

  • Rental Property Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2015 · 401 posts · 221 votes
    10y
    Since the eviction hasn't happened yet, why don't you talked to the tenant (whom you have a contract with) and gain access
  • Joel OwensBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Broker · Canton, GA · Member since 2010 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
    10y

    "With respect to my issue with a landlord that hasn't yet evicted the tenant, is the only key holder to the property (tenant gave up keys) and won't allow me to enter and retrieve my property, there may be grounds for conversion or trespass to chattel."

    KEY WORD used is MAY. Not absolute and open to interpretation. If anyone talks to an attorney one word in law or a contract can mean a world of difference.

    If an attorney isn't willing to stand by a legal opinion in writing on your situation on what action to take then you really do not have anything.

    No legal advice given.   

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.