Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
my building is co-op, the man on the 3rd floor died (John) in the summer, he had 2 other men there taking are of him, in return for them to live somewhere, anyway John had died and the daughter told the LL I'm done here do what ever you have to.
the 2 men are still there in a RS apartment at 400.00 a month as it was capped as john was a senior.
the LL is trying to get then out as they are not the actual leased tenants but "guests"
they have been here for over 2 years though, i know them and are nice enough.
however they have been back and forth to court,and the judge is more on thier said. the LL is having a hard time removing them.
What I dont understand is, the apartment was leased to John & his wife from way back in the stone age, and to me, my logic tells me, when he died the apartment lease become null and void and these two men have to go.
I also thought about the electric, if it is under Johns name wouldnt the daughter be able to shut it off, therefore the men cant get electric because techniacally it isnt thier apartment.
So far they have not been paying rent, at all, and now the last court session they said they would.
I know the LL's are smart and this isnt anything they havent faced before, but said that this is a slow process and most likely the 2 men will be here till the new year.
What part of this is "not thier apartment" is the judge not getting????the LL did not rent to them? T dont understand why they are allowed to still stay?
The man died, they have to go, its that simple.
As a shareholder in the building, I also want them out. These 2 men don't get a 2 bedroom in the front for 400 dollars a month, it isnt fair. It isnt thier apartment.
One is an alcoholic and the other is another man that is competely off his rockers, (im thinking war) both are seniors also, and I think that has something to do with the judge.
The daughter had the gas shut off while they were all there for fear of a fire. Thank God for that much.
What else can the LL do?
You dont want to be heartless, but my logic tells me, just because you were there taking care of this man, doesnt mean you get to stay forever in a RS apartment, thats not fair to the LL and the other shareholders.
nothing really, as they dont bother me, live under me over one.
i talk to them, they are pleasant enough.
im more afraid of fire above anything else.
since like I said, one is a alcoholic and the other is "off" we dont want a fire, out of carelessness.
and it isnt thier apartment. the apartment wasnt rented to them, that should be enough.
the alcohoic, the niece doesn't want him, as she has called the LL to ask if he could stay, and the LL obviously said not for 400.00 he cant, and I agree,not fair.
Im a shareholder and i want the building to make money so my maintenace stays low, I like all the other tenants paying market rate rents, and why shouldnt I. thes 2 men doent belong here anymore, the apartment isnt thiers.
let them pay market rate, not the RS rent the original tenant was paying, thats not fair, do you think?
Last edited by nightcrawler; 03-29-2019 at 12:05 PM..
What a turn off: Two fully grown men who cannot pay normal rent and have to share a $400 apartment!
ofcourse it is a turn off, and unacceptable to say the least, ofcourse.
they had no where else to live (dont know exactly where they came from) and they were friends of John so when he was getting ill the daughter had to work, and she allowed them to stay there in turn for taking care of her father. Thats how they got there in the first place.
This would strike me as a fairly standard issue holdover case. They're not relatives. And since their are two of them, the original tenant couldn't have declared both as domestic partners. The LL should be able to win this one.
This would strike me as a fairly standard issue holdover case. They're not relatives. And since their are two of them, the original tenant couldn't have declared both as domestic partners. The LL should be able to win this one.
oh no, they are not a couple.
both had come at seperate times.
I hope the LL does win, as he should, and as an co-op owner, I want him to,
I want the apt renovated and rented out for market rate rents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.