U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 01-24-2008, 12:34 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
1,368 posts, read 4,424,210 times
Reputation: 505
Default Landlords and Tenant property after eviction

I have a question for landlords and tenants alike.

Currently, the laws in WA (and I assume elsewhere) is that when the tenant defaults on rent, and thus their lease and is summarily evicted, that their property is still their own and that the landlord must make 'reasonable effort' to store that property and be available for the tenant to retrieve it.


Personally, if someone has defaulted on rent, I believe the landlord has the right to attempt to sell the property if not immediately, shortly after the eviction in an effort to recoup losses. It just makes sense to me.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2008, 12:41 AM
 
56,260 posts, read 28,150,847 times
Reputation: 7082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek View Post
I have a question for landlords and tenants alike.

Currently, the laws in WA (and I assume elsewhere) is that when the tenant defaults on rent, and thus their lease and is summarily evicted, that their property is still their own and that the landlord must make 'reasonable effort' to store that property and be available for the tenant to retrieve it.

Personally, if someone has defaulted on rent, I believe the landlord has the right to attempt to sell the property if not immediately, shortly after the eviction in an effort to recoup losses. It just makes sense to me.
Usually the landlords have to store the property for 30 days, prior to selling. The law is the way it is, so that landlords do not have the incentive to evict.

If the law was changed to what you propose, perhapse you owe $1000 in rent, and you are like me, owned $30,000 in computer equipment. The landlord would profit from evicting me.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2008, 12:58 AM
 
13,802 posts, read 25,240,737 times
Reputation: 8009
The laws vary from State to State... follow the law as it is in your State.

Many States require the Owner store the property for a prescribed period of time. Charges must be reasonable and incurred. You cannot charge the tenant full rent for a unit if the items left behind would only occupy a room.

Typically, if the property value is below a certain threshold, the owner may dispose of the property, keep it or sell it after waiting the required number of days.

If the property is above the threshold amount, the owner must publish and conduct a sale. The proceeds of the sale are distributed as prescribed by applicable law.

Personally, I will bend over backwards to see to it that tenants have all their items when vacating... to the point where I have even gone to U-Haul and paid the daily fee to make it happen.

I don't want or need the problems associated with holding a former tenant's items. Renting property is a business and the sooner I can clear the property the sooner I can re-rent.

Lawsuits waste time, even if groundless.... One man's junk is an other's treasure.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2008, 01:23 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
1,368 posts, read 4,424,210 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Usually the landlords have to store the property for 30 days, prior to selling. The law is the way it is, so that landlords do not have the incentive to evict.

If the law was changed to what you propose, perhapse you owe $1000 in rent, and you are like me, owned $30,000 in computer equipment. The landlord would profit from evicting me.
Same here pgh, and I'm not saying that the landlord should necessarilly 'profit' off it, just to recoup their losses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
The laws vary from State to State... follow the law as it is in your State.

Many States require the Owner store the property for a prescribed period of time. Charges must be reasonable and incurred. You cannot charge the tenant full rent for a unit if the items left behind would only occupy a room.

Typically, if the property value is below a certain threshold, the owner may dispose of the property, keep it or sell it after waiting the required number of days.

If the property is above the threshold amount, the owner must publish and conduct a sale. The proceeds of the sale are distributed as prescribed by applicable law.

Personally, I will bend over backwards to see to it that tenants have all their items when vacating... to the point where I have even gone to U-Haul and paid the daily fee to make it happen.

I don't want or need the problems associated with holding a former tenant's items. Renting property is a business and the sooner I can clear the property the sooner I can re-rent.

Lawsuits waste time, even if groundless.... One man's junk is an other's treasure.
Ultra, I agree entirely and thats how the laws are set up, and that taking up space in the unit is just silly. But, why is it that they're still entitled to their stuff and that you as the landlord have to accept more costs associated with it?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2008, 01:35 AM
 
13,802 posts, read 25,240,737 times
Reputation: 8009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek View Post
Ultra, I agree entirely and thats how the laws are set up, and that taking up space in the unit is just silly. But, why is it that they're still entitled to their stuff and that you as the landlord have to accept more costs associated with it?
I have wondered the same question myself...

The best answer I've heard is that Tenant's rights have evolved over the last 50 years to address egregious acts that have been perpetrated on Tenants.

It only takes a couple of Headline Stories to prompt law makers to respond and the electorate consists of many more renters than landlords.

Business has no vote... only influence through trade associations and lobbyist...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2008, 01:40 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
1,368 posts, read 4,424,210 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
I have wondered the same question myself...

The best answer I've heard is that Tenant's rights have evolved over the last 50 years to address egregious acts that have been perpetrated on Tenants.

It only takes a couple of Headline Stories to prompt law makers to respond and the electorate consists of many more renters than landlords.

Business has no vote... only influence through trade associations and lobbyist...
Those damn scummy landlords. I know that you can eventually sell the property, but I want to say its like a year or something ridiculous in WA.

And of course, anyone who defaults on rent is probably going to a) take their valuables with them, and b) not have a lot of valuable property anyway.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top