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.
Evicting people from a flooded unit for non-payment serves no practical purpose whatever.
No, they aren't. They can chose to end the lease in order to repair the unit, and if the tenant refuses to leave the uninhabitable unit, they can evict then.
And almost every state, including landlord friendly Texas, has laws on the books about NOT collecting rent on an uninhabitable unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned B
Maybe courts would disagree with me, but a unit where the lower floor is flooded out is fully uninhabitable. If one has to swim to get to their bedrooms, that's not inhabitable. And even if the entrance were somehow on the upper floor, that much water typically means that all of the services...power, water, gas, etc are also non-functioning.
I agree with you, I meant one where there was damage but the water receded. So, you have remodeling going on downstairs and can't use the kitchen because its been taken down to the studs or something, but power is on and upstairs is dry. And I don't think courts would disagree with you that walking through standing isn't habitable.
Is it still flooded? Based on the news I was under the impression that at the end of last week the flooding had come down and people were returning home, the Huston airport was open almost a week ago. The area is pretty flat which is why it floods so bad, happened a few years ago too just not as bad, but that also means a quick clearing out of the water once the rains stop.
Some areas, yes, but I saw on the news just 2 days ago that some areas still had several feet of water in the houses, and they were still working to rescue anyone who might still be trapped. The areas where the water had receded somewhat showed things like the tops of cars that had been destroyed by the propellers of boats going over them. The water was still mostly covering the cars.
How would renter's insurance help? My renters insurance would pay for my hotel, but they wouldn't handle a landlord trying to come after me for rent in an uninhabitable unit.
The landlord or the tenant can cancel the lease if its drastically damaged (ie Flood, Hurricane, etc...) but even if they mutually agree to wait til its fixed, they can't collect rent on a unit the tenant can't stay in.
Jonov and others that commented on my post,
You already said it, renters insurance would provide a roof over your head should your rental become uninhabitable. After that, a lease is a legal contract signed by both parties. If it was that important, the tenant shouldn't have signed it without a clause stating the lease would be terminated if the premises became uninhabitable. I've never signed a lease without that clause.
I think you were referencing "constructive eviction" earlier in the thread. Does a natural disaster count as a constructive eviction? I haven't researched any case law on it. One would think so but I never assume anything with are deranged legal system.
Is it still flooded? Based on the news I was under the impression that at the end of last week the flooding had come down and people were returning home, the Huston airport was open almost a week ago. The area is pretty flat which is why it floods so bad, happened a few years ago too just not as bad, but that also means a quick clearing out of the water once the rains stop.
Portions of West Memorial just East of the Barker/Cypress reservoirs are still very flooded. About 1.5 square miles remain underwater and uninhabitable.
I've got a rental literally right on the edge that did not flood. The street flooded to within 5-6 feet of the house and crested....half the neighborhood flooded to the roof, the other half is fine....but the police forced a mandatory evacuation of everyone. The house is fine, but the renters are not able to enter the neighborhood to access the home at all, and have not been able to go back since last Tuesday. Its a mess....a big ugly mess. I am fortunate that there is no damage, but at the same time the renters can not use the house, even though it is completely habitable.
But to answer your question there are still about 2-3000 homes completely under water. Many of which are not in flood prone areas.
Victims of Hurricane Harvey have spoken out after landlords demanded rent from their flooded, uninhabitable homes.
I don't know any mortgage companies that are giving homeowners a break. Why should renters get one? At least they get a break and get to leave if it's uninhabitable.
Actually, when I lost everything in a wildfire, my mortgage company (GMAC) gave me a 90-day disaster forbearance, which meant everything regarding the loan came to a 90-day standstill. There were no extra fees, no penalties, no extra interest, just a 90-day halt to everything.
Believe me, at the end of 90 days, they came knocking. Everything picked up where it left off.
But yes, mortgage companies do give a bit of a break. But you have to ask for it.
The homes lost in these hurricanes won't be rebuilt in 90 days. It's going to take a lot more than that. Shoot, I didn't even get my insurance settlement on my loss for 7 months. In the meantime, people go broke and basically lose everything again, including their good credit. I've heard of people in Sandy and some tornadoes having to wait more than 2 years for insurance settlements. It's pathetic. During this time, they're expected to continue paying the mortgage AND paying living expenses to live somewhere else.
Last edited by MyNameIsBellaMia; 09-07-2017 at 01:41 PM..
Maybe courts would disagree with me, but a unit where the lower floor is flooded out is fully uninhabitable. If one has to swim to get to their bedrooms, that's not inhabitable. And even if the entrance were somehow on the upper floor, that much water typically means that all of the services...power, water, gas, etc are also non-functioning.
I would say it cannot be justified if the dwelling has sat soaking up contaminated water and there is going to be mold in the wet area if it gets warm. The contamination is bad for you and mold is sufficent reason to empty a whole building and force it to be fixed. And if there are no functioning services, they are likely to be ordered out as well.
So far as I know, its not legal to rent a dwelling that is not considered habitable. This in itself should stop the landlord from collecting anything past the day the storm hit.
I don't know what really happened and neither do any of us. The press likes to stir up drama and outrage and often ignores the truth. The press certainly likes to put a dramatic spin on things even if they start with a bit of the truth.
The law is that a landlord can't take possession of a house (or apartment ) back until all the tenant's goods ar out and the tenant has returned the keys. If the tenant refuses to remove his stuff and refuses to return the keys, the landlord only has one remedy and that is to go to court and get an eviction.
Repair on the flooded houses can't start until the tenants are out. If the tenants refuse to move, then there is no other option than to take them to court. The landlord can not legally go and throw the tenant's stuff out to the curb for the garbage collectors.
Since the article is about what some tenants are saying, nobody looked any deeper to see if it was true and not begging, to see if it was true that the house was damaged, because not all house were damaged, to see if it is true that the landlord was trying to get rent going forward and not trying to collect past due rent.
Maybe the landlord is a villain, maybe not, because all of the "in depth" reporting didn't bother to verify anything. How many landlords was it? I suspect it wasn't all of them, or a majority of them, or even more than a couple of them.
Y'all might start to consider that not everything you read in the press is 100% true. Develop a little healthy skepticism and stop believing everything you are told without a bit of research.
Victims of Hurricane Harvey have spoken out after landlords demanded rent from their flooded, uninhabitable homes.
As they piece their lives back together, buying new furniture and other belongings after replacing those lost and finding alternate accommodation, some have been slapped with fees from landlords, who demand rent for the flooded homes the victims had to flee.
That's messed up. The tenants should have the right to vacate the lease due to their residences being rendered uninhabitable through no fault of their own.
That's how we do it in NY. When I was burned out of my apartment 2 years ago I got back all of my security and the balance of the rent minus the amount for the days of that month I had been living in my place (10 days, so I got the rent back for the other 20 days of the month). I was going to stay on if the building was rebuilt (my lease wasn't up until August 2016, and the fire was April 2015), but ended up vacating when it became clear that the rebuild wasn't going to happen. I found my current place just as my lease on the old place was expiring, and asked for my $$ back from the landlord.
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.
