Laws on landord notice for entering their tenants apartment? (lawsuit, landlords, clause)

[darkfrog22]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

If the clause in question was so onerous to you, the time to question it would have been when you read the contract before you signed it. That's the bottom line. You're now trying to foist your own irresponsibility in not reading something before you signed it onto your landlord and claiming HE is the bad guy for showing the rental at reasonable hours (again, 5:15 p.m. is not unreasonable) because now you don't like the consequences of something you agreed to in writing.

That's really the bottom line.

That's not the bottom line, as pointed out in all of the reference links I kindly provided for you. This is not a matter of onerous, as the clause makes no reference or specific and explicit implications of onerous behavior on their part. I did not sign a single document that says explicitly that they can come in without notice. I had a reasonable mindset when I signed the contract, and so I did not interpret the clause in such a way that would be against my interests. This is a matter of interpretation and abuse of an ambiguous clause. Because you choose not to acknowledge this does not make your stance any more "the bottom line" than you thought it was originally. I will even give you a highlighted key phrase from the references I kindly provided for you that addresses this very point you just made:

"... an ambiguous term will be construed against the party that imposed its inclusion in the contract – or, more accurately, against the interests of the party who imposed it.[1] The interpretation will therefore favor the party that did not insist on its inclusion. The rule applies only if, and to the extent that, the clause was included at the unilateral insistence of one party without having been subject to negotiation by the counter-party..."

1.) I did not insist on the ambiguous inclusion - they did. The ambiguous term opens to the interpretation that they can come at any hour without notice is against my interests as well as all of my other absurd examples of what the term allows for. No human can possibly conceive all of the possible interpretations of an ambiguous clause.

2.) I had no option for negotiation in the clause. It was a "take it or leave it" contract (see my other reference, oh wait nevermind). It was unilaterally insisted upon by the lessor.

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Oh, as for ignoring things, I note that you somehow managed to ignore that you are amazed that anonymous people on the internet are taking the landlord's side while at the same time expecting those same anonymous people to take your side and that would be perfectly understandable and not amazing at all. Ponder the meaning of that for a moment.

How do I ignore that I am amazed? I am the one who said I was amazed. I do not expect you to take my side, but rather to use reason and common knowledge to ascertain the situation, which would lead you to not take the bully's side. Blankly repeating "you signed it, deal with it" is obviously in contradiction with law and other references, and so I kindly must tell you I have not ignored anything, but rather refuted it.

[darkfrog22]

Originally Posted by NY Annie

OP, you need a consult with an attorney. Unless, as I stated previously, you know how to research case law. Rather than getting up in TexLady's face, you need to DO something about your situation.

You are right, I do need to but I will not be any better in my situation if I do, rather than emotional satisfaction at the cost of financial expenses. I really was hoping someone could give me a concrete law or precedent that would swiftly invalidate my landord's copy-paste lease clause, but it is not that simple I see. I have found through research that I would be able to fight this, but again I don't have time or money to waste on something I will be done with in 2 weeks.

And, I was not up in this person's face. I'm sorry if that is how it appears and apologize if it is taken personally, that is not my intent. I am defending my stance on this subject and expect serious replies, not ones that choose to ignore what I actually have said.

[PacificFlights]

Darkfrog22, donl;t get yourself hung up on legal issues way over your and our heads especially when on the surface it seems to support what you are saying but in reality amounts to butkus.

lets take it step by step-
1. In your state there are NO LAWS written to curb the entry rights of landlords. As such a landlord has the legal right to enter that property within reason.

2. In your state they did not write into the laws what is "within rwason" so it comes down to what the courts are saying.

3. In your state, the state supreme court ruled that the courts can interpret the and apply their wisdom to determining what is reasonable, but will not overrule anything written in leases that the parties agreed to unless challeneged.

4. The courts will apply a common law understanding of reasonable entry as outlined in the commerical code (unless otherwised stated and agreed to by both parties).

SO what does all that mean. It measn that if you agreed to terms of entry in the lease, that is what the terms of entry are. You agreed to it so you are bound by what you agreed to abide by. When yuo signed the lease, you accepted that the LL can enter exactly as they wrote int he lease and the court will not interfere with your agreement. That means basically what everyone is saying, you agreed and if you didn't like it, you shouldn't have agreed to it. I fully understand what you are saying but you also have to accept that your own ignorance on this is what is causing the problems.
BUT!!!!
that does not mean you are not without recourse, becsue as mentioned in #3 above, you have the right to challenege in court, the entry of the landord as being unrasonable. Basically your askingt he vcourt to reveiew the landlrods actions and determione if (even with a signed agreement otherwise) it has exceeded any reasonable or rational standard for entry. The court will reveiew it and determine if the LL needs to modify their entry and under what conditions. What it will not do is sanction the landlord because they are operating within their legal rights that you agreed to so you will have to pay for the court cost and maybe get some limits placed on the landlord.

Now, I hate to kick you when your down but had there been nothing in the lease, the generally accepted principle of 24 hour notice except in a emergency and during reasonable business hours M-F 8am to 6 pm and Sat 9am - 5 pm would have applied under the common law and prior rulings.

However, since you agree to something else, your only option is to ask the court to apply the common law commerical code definition despite you agreeing in writing otherwise. Its a humbling experience from what I;ve been reading because you basiaclly asking the court to rule you stupid and not fully understood what you siged.

[TexasHorseLady]

OP, the thing you were being asked to ponder was not your own amazement, but your LACK of amazement that you are asking the very same anonymous people to side with you without even hearing the landlord's side of things that you are amazed would side with the landlord on the evidence given.

In other words, you want the anonymous people to ONLY side with you and are amazed that they read what you wrote and point out that your landlord has a point. That doesn't sound like someone looking for honest opinions, but someone trying to bolster their own opinion and not liking it when other independent third parties decline to play the game but respond honestly to what you posted.

See an attorney. Perhaps they can explain it better than we can. (Though PacificFlights did an admirable job in post #23.)

[darkfrog22]

First, I don't know how you can say this is over our heads. I understand English, and reading what I reference is not "butkis" unless you can show me how it is.

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

lets take it step by step-
1. In your state there are NO LAWS written to curb the entry rights of landlords. As such a landlord has the legal right to enter that property within reason.

Keywords: within reason. 2 hours short notice to show an apartment to a stranger every day is not reasonable.

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

2. In your state they did not write into the laws what is "within rwason" so it comes down to what the courts are saying.

Of course. My opinion is that the courts will say their interpretation of the clause is not reasonable, but that is only touching the surface. There is still a whole lot to say about my actual contractual obligations on an ambiguous clause that is non-negotiable.

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

3. In your state, the state supreme court ruled that the courts can interpret the and apply their wisdom to determining what is reasonable, but will not overrule anything written in leases that the parties agreed to unless challeneged.

And of course they will not overrule unless challenged. I would have to challenge the lease, and that has been the premise I am going on with how the contract is being abused. My original intent was not to challenge the contractual interpretation or obligations on its own, but to find a law that contradicts the clause. After finding out no law exists, I would then challenge the actual writing in the contract that I believe is ambiguous and interpreted against my interests.

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

4. The courts will apply a common law understanding of reasonable entry as outlined in the commerical code (unless otherwised stated and agreed to by both parties).

I don't know what the commercial code is.

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

that does not mean you are not without recourse, becsue as mentioned in #3 above, you have the right to challenege in court, the entry of the landord as being unrasonable. Basically your askingt he vcourt to reveiew the landlrods actions and determione if (even with a signed agreement otherwise) it has exceeded any reasonable or rational standard for entry. The court will reveiew it and determine if the LL needs to modify their entry and under what conditions. What it will not do is sanction the landlord because they are operating within their legal rights that you agreed to so you will have to pay for the court cost and maybe get some limits placed on the landlord.

This has been my premise when discussing the ambiguity of the clause and that they have abused it.

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

Now, I hate to kick you when your down but had there been nothing in the lease, the generally accepted principle of 24 hour notice except in a emergency and during reasonable business hours M-F 8am to 6 pm and Sat 9am - 5 pm would have applied under the common law and prior rulings.

However, since you agree to something else, your only option is to ask the court to apply the common law commerical code definition despite you agreeing in writing otherwise. Its a humbling experience from what I;ve been reading because you basiaclly asking the court to rule you stupid and not fully understood what you siged.

I still do not agree, and my references do not either. Please explain to me, in all of your reasoning, how I could possibly account for all of the interpretations that are against my interest in a vaguely written clause. Furthermore, this contract was not negotiable, and falls under the definition of a contract of adhesion. I had no leverage or power to negotiate this.

[darkfrog22]

Also, if there is any confusion on the actual lease clause, this is what she sent me:

"The Lessor and any person authorized by the Lessor shall have the right to come into the apartment at any time to inspect, repair, or alter the premises, or any reason we see fit all without the interference of any kind by the Lessee or any occupant of the apartment, and with or without the consent of the Lessee. "

Now please . . read that, and then tell me how many illegal or unreasonable activities you can come up that fall within what this clause permits ("any reason we see fit" "without the consent of the Lessee"), and then tell me that "you signed it, deal with it" still holds. Honestly, in pure English, word by word, that implies they can come into the apartment and film me without consent, walk in while I'm with my girlfriend, or rip expensive paintings off the wall, and you are telling me this is valid because I signed it, even though I had no leverage to negotiate?

[SouthernBelleInUtah]

Why on earth are you wasting time arguing with posters instead of consulting your local laws or an attorney?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[PacificFlights]

Originally Posted by darkfrog22

I still do not agree, and my references do not either. Please explain to me, in all of your reasoning, how I could possibly account for all of the interpretations that are against my interest in a vaguely written clause. Furthermore, this contract was not negotiable, and falls under the definition of a contract of adhesion. I had no leverage or power to negotiate this.

If you want to stand on a point, Fine the lease was stuoid its against good order, yadda, yadda yadda, blah blah blah and you are ever so right in all your thinking and application of whatever you feel it correct.... Does that make you feel any better? HOWEVER, in the end, your still standing behind the eight ball because until you have a court rule the lease terms you sigend and agreed to regarding entry is void or must be changed to reflect reasonable entry, your stuck with what the leases says and what the landlord is going to continue doing.

You can stand up and say that 10W40 is a better grade of lubricant over KY, but your still getting the hard dry shaft and thats not going to change no maytter what studies you fling around about lubricant viscosity. So, stop talking about how right you are on what lubricant is better and get the dang lubricant already!!!!!!!!!

[darkfrog22]

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

If you want to stand on a point, Fine the lease was stuoid its against good order, yadda, yadda yadda, blah blah blah and you are ever so right in all your thinking and application of whatever you feel it correct.... Does that make you feel any better? HOWEVER, in the end, your still standing behind the eight ball because until you have a court rule the lease terms you sigend and agreed to regarding entry is void or must be changed to reflect reasonable entry, your stuck with what the leases says and what the landlord is going to continue doing.

You can stand up and say that 10W40 is a better grade of lubricant over KY, but your still getting the hard dry shaft and thats not going to change no maytter what studies you fling around about lubricant viscosity. So, stop talking about how right you are on what lubricant is better and get the dang lubricant already!!!!!!!!!

Yes it does make me feel better.

[PacificFlights]

Originally Posted by darkfrog22

Yes it does make me feel better.

Being feed the BS story of agreeing with you or you getting the dry shaft ????

I think its the last......
(enough with this fool)