All Forum Posts by: Anna Sagatelova

@Wesley W. Sure, but that's because landlords wield more power than tenants, all other things being equal. Thus, it is the tenant that needs protection from the unscrupulous greedy landlords.

What laws like this fail to acknowledge and address is that it binds the hands of law abiding landlords that do provide a clean safe place to live, and also that bad tenants exist. You have tenants at all ends of the income spectrum who blatantly take advantage of legitimate protections to avoid paying rent and avoid any consequences, and that needs to be accounted for and addressed.

However, this public perception of landlords why it is all of our job, no matter what state you are in, to provide a great example of how landlords should operate and behave. We must be on the front lines of changing this perception that all or the majority of landlords are greedy slumlords. Crapping on tenant protection laws being named "tenant protection" doesn't send the right message. At their core, these laws have sprung up because of well documented repugnant living conditions that some landlords do condone, and tenants who can't afford a way out.

I do think many parts of the Act make sense - for example, take Section 227(D); why should a landlord be able to discriminate against VICTIMS of domestic violence? Victims already have so few safe places to turn, they should have the opportunity, if they qualify on other criteria, to rent a new safe home.

All this said, it does drive me bananas when I see another article that says "so and so is being evicted for the second time in a year... so sad... they could not find another place to rent in time" - that never mention that the tenant did not pay rent. 

We won't get anywhere until people start reporting a balanced story.

Amen @Bob Collett!

Thanks Wesley, that section 227(F) is OUTRAGEOUS. The rest of the Act more or less makes sense, though some of the time periods are excessive. 

I hope landlords are fighting this clause!

@Account Closed PM me, I have another rec for you as well.

This sort of thing, especially as you reuse the locks over and over, definitely sounds like normal wear and tear.

 Very true. In my market that is still a minority of cases. 

 I do want to learn more about those severe screening restrictions, I know a lot of crazy ideas get proposed but never make it. Being told that you can't disqualify an applicant on the basis of legitimate past eviction judgments is wild - there must be some kind of qualifying language there. For example, it makes sense that you shouldn't be able to blanket disqualify someone who has the filing on their record, because any landlord can file illegally or without good cause, and even if the case gets dismissed and was always baseless, it still stays on the applicant's record. But straight out no eviction criteria allowed in screening a tenant? I can't imagine how that would pass. If anyone has more information, I would love to read up on this and educate myself.

 I mean that the collection of back rent is enforceable in court, once landlords can file again. Sure, it's likely that they can't afford to catch up on their own, but they can be incentivized to get on a payment plan and/or at least start paying rent now. Most people don't want a huge judgment on their record - unless this really is someone who truly has "nothing to lose" as someone else mentioned above. In which case... back to our point about screening.

This sounds terrible, but I actually just tried researching these points and couldn't find anything that says past evictions are off the table and other things you mentioned. Can you please point me in the right direction? 

I wouldn't bother with letters if small claims court is open in your area. It is usually fast and cheap to file this kind of thing pro se. You would be filing for June rent amount.

You said that they renewed, when does that lease term end? Why would 30 days notice be at play if they had a valid lease term? 

Whatever your situation, don't delay in listing your property for rent again. If it's not truly spotless, get it cleaned, photographed, and posted.

I think using the term "discount" puts you at a disadvantage. Usually a discount is not something that is paid back. You could offer her forbearance on $100 of her monthly rent amount with clear stipulations about when that money would come due.

I recommend consulting with a broker or attorney to draft up a very simple contract, and staying away from the word "discount" anywhere, even texts/emails with tenant.