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.
Regarding my last reply, I just want to reiterate that I don't believe a landlord should inspect just to check on the tenants and property. It should be for a specified reason. In saying a lender should have the same rights to inspect as the landlord his tenant, I was simply illustrating what could happen if the law is created the way the landlords see it; ie, they are inspecting to protect their investment.
Adreana
Your point is really not valid. When you rent a place you sign a lease that stipulates how you have to maintain the place you are renting. You are limited in what modifications you can do to the rental. You pay a security deposit to protect against these things. You agree to let the owner have the right of entry in certain situations (including to inspect the state of the rental).
Those don't happen with a mortgage. And the comments about the bank really owning the house don't really mean much either. The fact that the homeowner had the right to sell the house is indication enough of who owns the house. Try and sell your rented apartment and see how that works out.
I think you are disagreeing based on terminology and technicality in the first instance. In the second I was referring to Banks that had foreclosed and taken possession when I referred to the bank as owner. The lender still is usually the one having the most to lose. Without the lender, usually there can't be a sale. What is to stop the lender from making inspections one of the conditions? I don't agree with it, as I said, I am just showing what can happen when you use the logic the landlords give for inspecting. And again, I am not against all inspections, but they need to specify the reason, not just to generally check when there is no reason to believe there is damage. Some of the landlords have even been saying they can go into closets, etc. All because of potential for bugs, damage to other tenants, etc. Why not have the tenants strip naked so you can make sure they have no bugs that can infest the place and others. In other words where does it all stop? There needs to be respect for privacy rights, the right to enjoyment of the premises when you pay for them. These things are being stripped away.
Adreana
Regarding my last reply, I just want to reiterate that I don't believe a landlord should inspect just to check on the tenants and property. It should be for a specified reason. In saying a lender should have the same rights to inspect as the landlord his tenant, I was simply illustrating what could happen if the law is created the way the landlords see it; ie, they are inspecting to protect their investment.
Adreana
What you believe is meaningless, you don't make the laws.
The property owner has the right to enter their property whenever they please for whatever reason they like as long as they give the proper notice required by state law.
Don't like it? Then become a property owner. (And remember, I'm a tenant not a landlord.)
BTW, the law is not "created the way the landlords see it", it simply IS the law and is seen the way lawmakers and, if necessary, the judicial system see it.
I think you are disagreeing based on terminology and technicality in the first instance. In the second I was referring to Banks that had foreclosed and taken possession when I referred to the bank as owner. The lender still is usually the one having the most to lose. Without the lender, usually there can't be a sale. What is to stop the lender from making inspections one of the conditions? I don't agree with it, as I said, I am just showing what can happen when you use the logic the landlords give for inspecting. And again, I am not against all inspections, but they need to specify the reason, not just to generally check when there is no reason to believe there is damage. Some of the landlords have even been saying they can go into closets, etc. All because of potential for bugs, damage to other tenants, etc. Why not have the tenants strip naked so you can make sure they have no bugs that can infest the place and others. In other words where does it all stop? There needs to be respect for privacy rights, the right to enjoyment of the premises when you pay for them. These things are being stripped away.
Adreana
Adreana
I'm disagreeing with your premise that somehow a LL is comparable to a bank. Your logic is deeply flawed and I'm guessing if it wasn't for this one instance in which you are emotionally attached you never would have come to the conclusions you are currently coming to.
I'm beginning to wonder what the OP is keeping in her aunt's rental that she doesn't want the landlord to see, frankly.
I went and read the current Texas lease agreement as promulgated by the Texas Real Estate Commission, written by their attorneys to comply with Texas law. The part regarding access states:
"Access: Before accessing the Property, Landlord or anyone authorized by Landlord will attempt to first contact Tenant, but may enter the Property at reasonable times without notice to make repairs or to show the Property to prospective tenants or buyers, inspectors, fire marshals, lenders, appraisers, or insurance agents. Additionally, Landlord or anyone authorized by Landlord may peacefully enter the Property at reasonable times without first attempting to contact Tenant and without notice to: (1) survey or review the Property’s condition and take photographs to document the condition; (2) make emergency repairs; (3) exercise a contractual or statutory lien; (4) leave written notices; or (5) seize nonexempt property if Tenant is in default."
I bolded the part that would apply to your aunt's situation. This is what the law states in Texas, and also what the tenant agrees to when signing the lease. Again, I recommend that you look at the lease that your aunt signed, and that you also see if you can find the similar form from your state's real estate commission website (don't know what state you're in and laws and practice and forms vary between states).
Andreana, you should really call the landlord of your aunts building and DEMAND they sit down and answer your questions. On second thought, don't call. Just go to his office or house. Demand to have your questions answered. Be firm!
Tell 'em like you're telling us.
After all, just who the heck are they to insist on being let in the apartment? Tell them how you and your aunt resent them barging in on you with only a weeks notice, violating your civil rights and your right to privacy. Make sure you bring up the indentured servant speech that you gave in your last thread. That will get 'em right in the gut, I promise you. I mean, jeeze.. just who do they think they are?
There is a huge difference. A landlord does not convey ownership rights in the property to his tenant. He retains his ownership rights - rights which include reasonable and periodic inspection of his property. A mortgagor, on the other hand has received a conveyance of the property from the mortgagee bestowing ownership and the attendant rights upon him.
Just because your group agrees with you doesn't make you right. Just because you try to ridicule me doesn't make your opinion right. Currently someone who is paying on a home only owns it as long as they can pay their loan, much like a renter who only has lease rights as long as they pay their rent. There is every reason, by the rationale of all of you for invading your renter's privacy; for the bank/mortgage company to want to inspect their investment and if landlords continue to lord it over their tenants with the ridiculous idea that they should be able to go into a person's home any time they want and the only proviso is that they give notice, then we may well see lenders do the same. You are arguing over terminology, but the reality is that the two situations are not dissimilar. You are just used to things being done a certain way, your way, so you are surprised and annoyed by these ideas. You think your renters love you for coming into their homes like this?
Adreana
Did you not see in my post on your other thread that I am a tenant?
I questioned the rights of landlords to inspect their tenants' apts. whenever and however they wished and got alot of angry replies from landlords who seem to feel all they needed to do was give notice and they had a right to go into tenant's homes whenever and look into whatever. Why shouldn't their mortgage companies have the same rights to look into the properties of those having a mortgage, and do the mortgage holders have such rights. After all, wouldn't the same rationales that the landlords are using hold true for the mortgage holders?
Adreanna
Mortgage companies should do the same, but it is up to them to do it or not. Landlords can decide to do it and many are doing it.
We just requested an inspection before a tenant was moving out, and they decided to leave at once....makes you think why...and no forwarding address after multiple request. They did ask for the security refund which we will sent them a letter for at the present/last address, but due to what we find out, there will not be a refund.
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.
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.
