Certified Public Accountant · Chattanooga, TN · Member since 2008 · 279 posts · 151 votes
How about this landlord, Doyle Miller, letting the media go through the San Bernardino terrorists house today? This guy is just asking for a lawsuit. He must not be a Bigger Pockets member or he'd know better.
Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes
10y
I was watching that unfold on the news and couldn't believe the reporters were let in there. Initially, it wasn't clear who allowed them in. Surprised a landlord would be that stupid. I have no sympathy for the suspects/terrorists, but as you mentioned there was another person living there so the landlord had no right to allow third parties in there. Plus, why even take on the risk/liability that comes with doing such a thing? That's just crazy to me.
Certified Public Accountant · Chattanooga, TN · Member since 2008 · 279 posts · 151 votes
10y
The mother was a resident of the house and so was the child. They are still alive. I'd assume they were paid up on there rent and there was no formal eviction process in place. I'm not familiar with California law, but it is known to be tenant liberal. Allowing reporters and bystanders into the house (some taking items from the property for souvenirs), is not how I would handle things.
My guess is this landlord will live to regret making that decision.
Investor · Princeton, TX · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
10y
Well, I doubt the mother would bring a claim. While she might not get criminally prosecuted, in civil court you can imagine what some of the counter claims might be. She probably does not want the landlord's lawyers asking how she could have possibly not known what they were doing in the home she was living in.
How about this landlord, Doyle Miller, letting the media go through the San Bernardino terrorists house today? This guy is just asking for a lawsuit. He must not be a Bigger Pockets member or he'd know better.
The mother was a resident of the house and so was the child. They are still alive. I'd assume they were paid up on there rent and there was no formal eviction process in place. I'm not familiar with California law, but it is known to be tenant liberal. Allowing reporters and bystanders into the house (some taking items from the property for souvenirs), is not how I would handle things.
My guess is this landlord will live to regret making that decision.
After the police shredded the place? Probably a million and 1 lease violations with this wacko.
Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes
10y
I was watching that unfold on the news and couldn't believe the reporters were let in there. Initially, it wasn't clear who allowed them in. Surprised a landlord would be that stupid. I have no sympathy for the suspects/terrorists, but as you mentioned there was another person living there so the landlord had no right to allow third parties in there. Plus, why even take on the risk/liability that comes with doing such a thing? That's just crazy to me.
The mother was a resident of the house and so was the child. They are still alive. I'd assume they were paid up on there rent and there was no formal eviction process in place. I'm not familiar with California law, but it is known to be tenant liberal. Allowing reporters and bystanders into the house (some taking items from the property for souvenirs), is not how I would handle things.
My guess is this landlord will live to regret making that decision.
After the police shredded the place? Probably a million and 1 lease violations with this wacko.
To the contrary. The police did not shred the place. Law enforcement may have broken down some doors to gain quick entry and left things in disarray, but from what I can see in the video, the structure is intact and the place appears to have been well taken care of by the occupants. The floor coverings probably will need to be replaced after the presence of so many police and reporters being there.
It is the landlord's duty to secure the premises after a death and/or abandonment, then to follow landlord-tenant law for the disposition. It appears the landlord did not do this and could be held accountable.
To the contrary. The police did not shred the place. Law enforcement may have broken down some doors to gain quick entry and left things in disarray, but from what I can see in the video, the structure is intact and the place appears to have been well taken care of by the occupants. The floor coverings probably will need to be replaced after the presence of so many police and reporters being there.
It is the landlord's duty to secure the premises after a death and/or abandonment, then to follow landlord-tenant law for the disposition. It appears the landlord did not do this and could be held accountable.
I couldn't agree more @Marcia Maynard. This landlord made a boneheaded unforced error in the game of real estate investing. Landlords work so hard to build our portfolios, get good tenants, make sure everything we do is within the rules so we can build wealth through years of hard work. Then to go and document such a boneheaded move on national TV so any attorney looking to make a case against a landlord can see is not smart.
Contractor · Fort Worth, TX · Member since 2015 · 379 posts · 740 votes
10y
You guys are spending waaaay too much time worrying about the letter of the law.
They were building frickin' pipe bombs in the place. Even in California, ain't no judge or jury supporting a claim that their tenant rights were infringed.
Manhattan, NY · Member since 2015 · 109 posts · 27 votes
10y
Agreed with @Michael Hayworth, no one is going to mind the home of a terrorist being unlawfully broken into and shown to the public. I think we can all agree this is a "special" case.
Agreed with @Michael Hayworth, no one is going to mind the home of a terrorist being unlawfully broken into and shown to the public. I think we can all agree this is a "special" case.
This is a precedent that should not be set. Regardless of the tenants' actions, breaking the law is unprofessional and not advisable.
Agreed with @Michael Hayworth, no one is going to mind the home of a terrorist being unlawfully broken into and shown to the public. I think we can all agree this is a "special" case.
This is a precedent that should not be set. Regardless of the tenants' actions, breaking the law is unprofessional and not advisable.
Yeah, good look with that. We're so over-lawed in this country that the average American commits three Federal felonies a day.
Add on state and local and I'm probably easily at 10. Maybe you're a better person than me and only commit 5.
Breaking one of our 10 zillion random laws is not necessarily unprofessional. And I'm thoroughly unconcerned about tenant rights for terrorists who killed 14 people and abandoned their newborn baby.
Manhattan, NY · Member since 2015 · 109 posts · 27 votes
10y
@David M. You must be joking... At this point in the case against him and his family you cannot blame the landlord for their actions. Breaking the law is something I am not too fond of, but when common sense makes more sense than the law, then maybe it's meant to be broken.
Rialto, CA · Member since 2013 · 22 posts · 1 vote
10y
Reading about this really gets me teary eyed. I live in Rialto and I wasn't too far from where the shootout occured. If the mother lived there and the FBI finished doing what ever they did at that crime scene why would the landlord allow media to go in there unless the mother gave them the ok, Is that legal for the landlord to do something like that?
@David M. You must be joking... At this point in the case against him and his family you cannot blame the landlord for their actions. Breaking the law is something I am not too fond of, but when common sense makes more sense than the law, then maybe it's meant to be broken.
No, I'm not joking, actually. I can blame the landlord; how does letting the media in do anything productive? Letting the police in is obviously legal and the right thing to do. The media? No. How is it common sense to let them in?
Investor · Washington, DC · Member since 2014 · 60 posts · 26 votes
10y
Regardless of what the circumstances were it just didn't feel right to be doing that. Would you do that to your tenant?--of course even if your tenant didn't kill anyone! I was really shocked when the live videos were rolling and the landlord letting the media have full access to this property and dig around.
Manhattan, NY · Member since 2015 · 109 posts · 27 votes
10y
@David M. You have to look at this picture from a different angle. Letting media into homes of terrorists aid in the fight against them. Sure this landlord most likely didn't have that intention when he let them in, but it does work. Terrorist work their whole lives to stay in the shadows, stay hidden. Once their whole world is revealed on public television, other will see how they live, where they live, what kind of people they can be. It opens the eyes of the public, and that is why I wouldn't mind allowing that to happen. Public awareness is one of the biggest pluses when it come to the war on terror.
@David M. You have to look at this picture from a different angle. Letting media into homes of terrorists aid in the fight against them. Sure this landlord most likely didn't have that intention when he let them in, but it does work. Terrorist work their whole lives to stay in the shadows, stay hidden. Once their whole world is revealed on public television, other will see how they live, where they live, what kind of people they can be. It opens the eyes of the public, and that is why I wouldn't mind allowing that to happen. Public awareness is one of the biggest pluses when it come to the war on terror.
I'm going to look at it from the angle that it's not my job to decide whose rights get infringed upon when it comes to "the war on terror." I'm not that presumptuous.