Sounds like this 80-year old has been staying in the apartment for 20 years. She has been undergoing cancer treatment and was in a care facility for six months. A caretaker who didn't live at the apartment was paying the rent. Apparently a couple of checks bounced.
Sounds like the caretaker tried to pay the bounced checks but the payments were not accepted.
After reading the story share your thoughts. Should the court allow this eviction? What do you think about the landlord's motivation?
Real Estate Investor · OH · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
They might lose in the land of socialism, but I wouldn't lose this in Ohio (where we still have some common sense). What are landlords supposed to do? Allow everyone that has a problem to stay for free? If so, I would be out of business. Low income tenants can whine up a storm about their constant (self-inflicted) problems. If everyone that has a problem gets to live for free, every landlord in the country would be out of business!
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
16y
Good story Charles, glad to see you post it here. I doubt the landlord will not fair well having knowledge of the circumstances and not attempting to deal in good faith. As the judge mentioned, payment will probably be offered and acceptance then required and it will start all over again. That's my guess! Bill
Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Thanks Bill for your input. It does look like this landlord had ulterior motives. it seems this was his last rent controlled unit and she had lived their for 20 years. I think as the facts come out the judge will be less than happy.
Real Estate Investor · OH · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
ABSOLUTELY - I WOULD EVICT HER! The facts are that she didn't pay the rent and that is the perfect excuse to evict her from this socialist rent controlled unit!!!
Better yet, evict this socialist judge and deport him to Cuba where he can spend all day with his socialist comrades!!! Judges are supposed to follow the law, not base their judgments on sympathy.
Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Unfortunately I think that it is situations like this that leave a bad taste in the public's mouth. Regardless of the exact facts, I think the landlord will loose in this current situation.
Real Estate Investor · OH · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
They might lose in the land of socialism, but I wouldn't lose this in Ohio (where we still have some common sense). What are landlords supposed to do? Allow everyone that has a problem to stay for free? If so, I would be out of business. Low income tenants can whine up a storm about their constant (self-inflicted) problems. If everyone that has a problem gets to live for free, every landlord in the country would be out of business!
Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
It doesn't sound like this landlord was concerned about collecting the rent in fact the rent was made good. It seems he was looking at a opportunity to evict and thereby collect higher rents from a future tenant.
As landlord, I have to look at it as a business. Businesses have to be aware of PR as well. It seems to me that it is better to fight the fight another day. The landlord can collect the full rent and I'm sure fees and take more reasonable care when processing a future eviction.
Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
As a landlord, I want to work above board. I may want to evict a tenant, but if my lease or law doesn't allow it, then I need to find a legitimate way. The article suggests that this landlord didn't bother to let the tenant know the checks had bounced. It seems that that the landlord was setting the tenant up to fail.
In my opinion if a rent check bounced, I would be going through the notice and eviction process right away. In this case it seems that the landlord waited and then didn't honor the money brought in my the tenants caregiver which would full pay the rent.
Collecting rent doesn't seem to be the main issue here, it seems more likely that the landlord was looking for an excuse to evict and wasn't going to let anything stand in the way of that.
Hard to know the facts for certain, but this was my read on the article. As a landlord I want to treat every tenant the same, serve notices timely and be prepared to evict treating everyone equally. This case sounds more like the landlord was trying to underhandedly setup the tenant to be evicted.
If that is how the public paints what was done, there is no telling what a legislator might try to draft into law that effects every other landlord out there.
Lender · Fort Pierce, FL · Member since 2009 · 825 posts · 486 votes
16y
Charles, I agree with abiding by the terms of the lease - which binds both parties. I also agree with abiding by the laws governing landlords/tenants.
What if this is not the first instance that this tenant or her caregiver has missed paying on the rents. At the previous occurences, the landlord notified the tenant of the missing payments and the tenant waited to pay until the last day before eviction?
What would you do when the next tenant in ill health misses rent payments?
I would think that this particular tenant who has been through treatments before would establish sound procedures for having some proxy pay all of her bills while she is incapcitated. That is her responsibility.
Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Kevin, I would agree if the facts are as you stated. As a landlord, I can't afford to be a charity and I wouldn't be in business long if I allowed every sob story to put off payments.
The facts seem to be different in this case. I understand that the caregiver has been faithfully taking care of the rent for the tenant and had helped in the past as well with out incident. It sounds like something may have happened and the caregiver bounced a couple of checks. It also sounds as if the landlord would not except payment when the caregiver went to him to honor the bounced checks. It also sounds like there was a delay in them telling her about the bounced checks.
This to me suggests that perhaps the landlord was trying to manipulate the situation rather than being concerned about collecting the rent.
Lender · Fort Pierce, FL · Member since 2009 · 825 posts · 486 votes
16y
The article states that the caregiver picked up the notice of the hearing the day after the hearing then pleaded with the court for an exception. I don't know the facts but it sounds like the caregiver picked up the mail every two weeks ... at best. Why not forward the mail to the caregiver's address?
I'd be curious if all the other bills were also paid late or with bad checks or was it just the rent.
I read this as both sides trying to manipulate the system and a judge who rules by his emotions rather than strict interpretation of the law.
Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Kevin it does seem like both sides are milking the system. It is also hard to know the exact facts because an article could be slanted either way.
I think it highly likely in this circumstance that the landlord will have to start all over if they want to eventually evict this tenant. How landlords go about the eviction process can have an impact on other landlords as well.
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
16y
Well, we have heard from the reasonable and fair to the totally asinine!
The way I read it was that the tenants caregiver wrote a bad check. 1st penalty, $25.00 plus costs of clearing the worthless draft. Second offense, same financial amounts, and notice that personal checks will no longer be accepted. I didn't see anything about any trickery by the tenant or the caregiver, just a bad check. Any reasonable person who is npot a totl AH would not declare default in the payment of the lease from a bad check if the check was paid as demanded, never heard of a Nazzi judge doing anything to the contrary either.
Where the shister stuff comes in is clear, the landlord wants the property back to relet the unit.
It does not matter how old a tenant is, how sick they are, how many kids are barefoot, if their dog died or if the boa ate their cat, rent is due when it's due. If it's not paid there is a period to cure the default.
So, no, I would want my money, not the unit back. The AH landlord may not get it rented in time to make up the loss in the difference in the old rent and the new market rate. The building was under a subsidized program when the owner got it or owned it when it went into effect and the landlord accepted the arrangement, if he didn't like it, he could have sold the place. So I see this strictly out of greed on the landlord's part. I see that the tenant is totally without fault, except on replying on a party that may not have so responsible and that the fault lies with someone not a party to the lease at all. The landlord refused payment, since a check bounced, but also to perpetuate the default to build the case for the eviction.
I know tenants can't be too different in my area from other areas, at least in the low/mod rent range. If tenants here were treated as some landlords here let on, as to how tuff and hard nosed they are, they would have a pile of ashes to rent! I know of sleeze ball landlords that have had windows busted out to the point they can't insure their properties or their homes! What goes around comes around! Yes, having rental properties is a business and should be treated as one. But any business person who conducts thier business stictly in ways to take advanatge of people at the drop of a hat, to take advanatge of any situation, to screw someone over because they have the small print in a contract, needs some other lessons in life, and a real good butt kick'n in court to boot!
Follow up if you can Charles, my money is on the tenant, even if Dick Cheney is the judge and the jury is polled from some far right wing drunken militia group! LOL
Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
I agree with your assessment based on the facts that are given in the article it seems that this landlord was trying to pull a fast one. This is the sort of thing that gives landlords a bad name and even worse could get some action from a legislature trying to win votes.
It does seem that the tenant was doing her part to insure that the rent was paid by having the caretaker pay the rent. Now the caretaker may or may not have known the checks would bounce, but it looks as though she was willing to make them good as soon she was aware. If anything the caregiver may have been a little negligent.
Real Estate Investor · OH · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Well, that was a ridiculous post by Financial Examiner. It is the TENANT'S RESPONSIBILITY to get the rent to the landlord on time and in full! A bounced check is NOT payment - it's a worthless piece of paper. It is NOT the landlord's responsibility to chase the landlord all over the planet (including the hospital or other places) to get the rent. This tenant bounced checks at least TWICE and the last check bounced was for 2 months rent!!! This landlord went a LOT farther than I would have without evicting the tenant.
It's sad that the tenant has cancer. However, I'd like to see ANY tenant that doesn't have a problem. Regardless of the problems, a tenant is responsible to PAY THE RENT!!! If they don't pay the rent, they should be promptly evicted.
The fact that the landlord wants to get rid of his last rent-controlled tenant is completely understandable. The tenant obliged him by failing to pay the rent and thereby gave him a legitimate excuse to evict her.
Lender · Fort Pierce, FL · Member since 2009 · 825 posts · 486 votes
16y
This is my last comment.
This is the third occurrence of cancer for this woman. Did she not learn that she could have months of rehab away from her apartment AND that the rent is still due at the first of every month? Did the doctors not alert her to the potential of many months away from her home? Did she not think "Who will pay my bills?"
She should have forwarded her mail to the caregiver or to the rehab center ... especially after the first month in the center and double especially after the first bounced check.
If I were the landlord, I would have been more proactive after the first bounced check and let both the tenant and the caregiver know that I would proceed with eviction at the first opportunity at the next late payment or bounced check. I would have gone so far as to have the tenant sign a statement that I made her aware of my intentions and that she intends to pay the rent on time and in full on the due date.
Charles, you are very correct. No landlord will stay in business very long if they accepted sob stories instead of cash.
I think that Mike is also correct "I'd like to see ANY tenant that doesn't have a problem."
Lender · Fort Pierce, FL · Member since 2009 · 825 posts · 486 votes
16y
Bev,
You are soooo right. I apologize for thinking only of money.
Hey, I cut my finger. I guess I don't have to pay any bills now.
My point, which Bev actually emphasizes, is that she has been down this road before (cancer treatments twice). She should have taken steps to take care of all future possibilities when she knew that she would need further treatments.
But I guess as long as some one has a severe enough ailment, that person is relieved of responsibilities. I'm sure that is what the tenant told the hospital and the doctors and nurses and everyone else treating her. "I have cancer. Treat me but I don't have to pay."
I have compassion for her and others in her position. It stops at my wallet. If you disagree, get a doctor ... any doctor ... to treat you for free.
Bev, I've got this great idea. Why don't YOU pay it forward by paying for this woman's rent every month. She hasn't paid 3 months out of 4, so you wouldn't have to pay her rent every month, just 75% of the time.
Her landlord doesn't want to adopt her and pay her living expenses, but there is no reason that you can't.
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
16y
Bev, to many in the landlord business, there is big difference between their dog and a tenant, unless the dog can't hunt, then they are about the same. LOL
I agree with the business angles voiced by everyone, it's the conduct and motive displayed. Like I said, a penalty for the bad checks should be sufficient and demanding cash instead of another check. This should have been nothing more than that.