Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-26-2011, 01:39 PM
 
593 posts, read 1,311,805 times
Reputation: 192

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
focusing on your specific first hand experience...

Did your tenant OBJECT to being evicted under this clause?
yes,
the judge asked them why did you sign it if you didnt agree to it...
they said "We didnt read it", the judge said nothing more on the subject.

Quote:
Specifically... did they appear in Court and protest to a Judge?
both of them were there(a couple), and I brought 1 tenant to testify on their behavior.
Quote:
And... were there ANY other cause factors when you did this eviction?
Nope...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2011, 01:52 PM
 
593 posts, read 1,311,805 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by floor9 View Post
This may be exactly why the clause may be found unenforceable. There's the potential for a disagreement between what one party understands the clause to be (set within the terms of the lease) and what the clause actually states (no timeframe).
the clause it is, because it is withing the time frame of the lease...
If the contract state that all clause are within this time frame, then that means this clause is within the timeframe..
Seriously you think just because of time frame issue it would be valid?
come on...
when have you seen a contract that state a time frame on each clause??? never... each clause is based on the time frame of the contract...




Quote:
But all criminal acts are illegal, which is presumably why the lease says "criminal activity" and not "breaking the law".
So, what is the problem, if the lease like mine say criminal activity, it doesnt say breaking the law... is say if I suspect any criminal activity, not if I suspect any law being broken.



Quote:
That's the problem. Without a timeframe, the tenant's only hope for compliance is to perform a background check on every guest. The landlord must also do the same, in order to ensure equal enforcement.
You I decided to call my lawyer, and thanks god he is not giong to charge me for this ridiculous question as he put it...
All clause under a lease are bond by the time frame of the lease, and using the time frame against the clause is ridiculous. Also he told me that he has gone to court 100 times for the same clause and it works almost always... As long the LL really has a concern about criminal activity..



Quote:
Remember: 50% of lawyers graduated in the bottom half of their class. And since I don't know the entire set of circumstances surrounding your case, and since I don't know the laws in your area, and since other clauses are "similar" (for example, clearly prohibiting criminal activity on the property and not just "at all"), and since I don't know how skilled your defendants were, I can't possibly answer that.
Remember that 50% of the lawyers graduate in the top half... so what...
Do a search online or leases samples, almost all of them have it...
Why would that be???
No clause need to have a time frame when the time frame is already been set by the lease itself, so the time frame defense has nothing to do with this lease.



Quote:
Settle down, ace. I'm not over-reaching anything. I stated my opinion; I think that if this wording came up in my jurisdiction, a tenant could successfully argue against it.

Just because it's in writing doesn't make it enforceable.
i am ok,, I am sorry if it sounds mad or over heated, is not my intent.
I guess it depends on the evidence that the LL has,, I have a witness and my opinion that the tenant was dealing drug, but not hard evidence..
We only had circumstantial evidence, which is plenty for this type of court, not criminal court but enough for landlord/ tenant court.
circumstantial evidence is enough for small claims court also...
Some criminal have been put away with only circumstantial evidence...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2011, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Downtown Harrisburg
1,434 posts, read 3,909,353 times
Reputation: 1017
Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri View Post
You I decided to call my lawyer, and thanks god he is not giong to charge me for this ridiculous question as he put it... All clause under a lease are bond by the time frame of the lease, and using the time frame against the clause is ridiculous. Also he told me that he has gone to court 100 times for the same clause and it works almost always... As long the LL really has a concern about criminal activity..
Tell your lawyer to look into the concept of "least sophisticated consumer" and nebulous wording. Contracts get butchered and dismantled all the time for inappropriate and/or overbearing clauses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri View Post
I guess it depends on the evidence that the LL has,, I have a witness and my opinion that the tenant was dealing drug, but not hard evidence..We only had circumstantial evidence, which is plenty for this type of court, not criminal court but enough for landlord/ tenant court.circumstantial evidence is enough for small claims court also...Some criminal have been put away with only circumstantial evidence...
One of the differences between civil and criminal proceedings is the burden of proof. In the face of a reasonable defense, circumstantial evidence is usually shot down. Since the burden of proof lies with the complainant (in this case, you), a landlord seeking to evict a tenant with "Well, I didn't see that tenant's guest break into the car, but he probably did it" is probably going to lose to a defendant who says "no I didn't."

So as a landlord, if you feel that you can evict a tenant with a circumstantial accusation of criminal activity, then feel free to do so. And if you have a lawyer advising you that this is the way to do things, well, then I'm sure you're making him very happy as a client.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2011, 03:05 PM
 
593 posts, read 1,311,805 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by floor9 View Post
Tell your lawyer to look into the concept of "least sophisticated consumer" and nebulous wording. Contracts get butchered and dismantled all the time for inappropriate and/or overbearing clauses.
Well, I am not calling him again,, I am sure he will charge me for the next call especially if it is about the same subject.. and is not worth the money for this forum.. sorry..
But he did say he has gone hundreds of times with the same clause and has worked almost all of them..
Also least sophisticated consumer?? doesnt that have to do with credit, loans and credit cards??
this has nothing to do with credit, loans or not payment on the lease.


Quote:
One of the differences between civil and criminal proceedings is the burden of proof. In the face of a reasonable defense, circumstantial evidence is usually shot down. Since the burden of proof lies with the complainant (in this case, you), a landlord seeking to evict a tenant with "Well, I didn't see that tenant's guest break into the car, but he probably did it" is probably going to lose to a defendant who says "no I didn't."
this is correct, but when a person doesnt have a job, is not receiving any income (legally) and still paying for the apartment, and me as a witness saying the acts in front of the place, also another tenant saying the same was plenty for the judge to come to a conclusion.. The tenant, testified that he was day and night in front of the building and plenty of cars was passing and stopping in front of the building to talk to him..
I testified about the increase in traffic to my building night and day when he was out in front of the building.

Quote:
So as a landlord, if you feel that you can evict a tenant with a circumstantial accusation of criminal activity, then feel free to do so. And if you have a lawyer advising you that this is the way to do things, well, then I'm sure you're making him very happy as a client.
that depends on the type of circumstantial evidence you have...
I have evicted 4 people, only one with this clause, all other for non payment.. all 4 were successful.
Again, if I didnt have enough circumstantial evidence my lawyer (which is a friend of mine) would advise me to wait and get more evidence.
also just to add, I have been 2 times to small claims (nothing to do with me, but tenant vs tenant), both won because of circumstantial evidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2011, 03:47 PM
 
979 posts, read 4,441,792 times
Reputation: 519
infiri, you've gone from claiming you were able to evict with no evidence just a suspicion.

Quote:
But my lease stated that if the LL had ANY suspicion that the tenant was doing illegal activities that would be a grounds for eviction..
So the judge ask me what evidence you have, I said I dont, i just have a suspicion, which I said is the only thing I need base on the lease
To:

Quote:
I guess it depends on the evidence that the LL has,, I have a witness and my opinion that the tenant was dealing drug, but not hard evidence..
We only had circumstantial evidence, which is plenty for this type of court, not criminal court but enough for landlord/ tenant court.
plus a so called witness.

This kind of "drift" is what makes arguing legal issues so maddening. Unless you can site an actual case, yours or another similar one, my suspicion is that you're making it up as you go along.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2011, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Northwest Indiana
815 posts, read 2,985,765 times
Reputation: 1072
Some of the towns and cities in my area are REQUIRING that landlords add a clause like the OP's. They want the landlord to evict people from rentals that have been the source of many police calls, even if its the tenant's visitors. If they don't have a clause like that many LL's can't or won't evict, so they are making that clause mandatory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2011, 04:03 PM
 
593 posts, read 1,311,805 times
Reputation: 192
You know, with my time being here,, I found out that when people dont have nothing more to say, but really dont want to give up, the fastest way to win the debate is just call the other person a liar..
Once that is said, I already know, you just have nothing more to say, which is evidence by the lack of debate on this post...
Hey no problem.....
Keep thinking the clause is useless.. I am a pure liar, I make it up.. is all fake, whatever makes you feel good...
you are right...


Quote:
Originally Posted by modsquad81 View Post
infiri, you've gone from claiming you were able to evict
with no evidence just a suspicion.
There was no evidence, just the suspicion.. that is what I and my tenant (at the time) testified. Of their behavior, that is not evidence, that is suspicion..
Unless you see a difference...



Quote:
plus a so called witness.
Sorry for not explaining the whole case to you... What else do you want to know about the case.. that way I dont leave anything out...

Quote:
This kind of "drift" is what makes arguing legal issues so maddening. Unless you can site an actual case, yours or another similar one, my suspicion is that you're making it up as you go along.
Just in case you dont understand, suspicion can be and sometimes is circumstantial evidence.

We told the judge that he broke the lease because of his behavior cause me to have suspicion of criminal activity...
then we presented the case, of our SUSPICION, which is the same as circumstantial evidence (in this case),
Because of this clause I could get the tenant out... because of his behavior and my suspicion...
There was really no evidence of him selling drug... maybe he wasn't, that was his defense, but the judge rules clearly state in favor because of his behavior and said that my suspicion was a valid one.


I would love to post the link from public record, but come on, do you really think I am going to do that, so that you know where I live my name and everything.

Any other question?
also I have no idea how to look for other cases that has to do with that particular subject, since clerk records are only by name, number, but not subject or key word.

Last edited by infiri; 05-26-2011 at 04:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2011, 04:05 PM
 
593 posts, read 1,311,805 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by richb View Post
Some of the towns and cities in my area are REQUIRING that landlords add a clause like the OP's. They want the landlord to evict people from rentals that have been the source of many police calls, even if its the tenant's visitors. If they don't have a clause like that many LL's can't or won't evict, so they are making that clause mandatory.
are you serious,, it cant be....
There are plenty of people here saying that the clause is illegal or it cant be used in court, that cities requires them, NAH....
You must be joking..
Are you???
Impossible...
I guess my lawyer knew what he was doing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2011, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Downtown Harrisburg
1,434 posts, read 3,909,353 times
Reputation: 1017
Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri View Post
You know, with my time being here,, I found out that when people dont have nothing more to say, but really dont want to give up, the fastest way to win the debate is just call the other person a liar..
Dude, relax. We're pointing out that you started off claiming you evicted a tenant with nothing but circumstantial evidence, then slowly revised your story to mention the fact that you had a witness.

A witness != circumstantial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri View Post
There are plenty of people here saying that the clause is illegal or it cant be used in court, that cities requires them, NAH....
Nobody is saying that a clause prohibiting criminal activity is illegal; we're saying that this particular wording is probably too nebulous to enforce against a good defense.

Based on your increasingly frustrated response, it's starting to look more and more like you are, in fact, probably making this up as you go along.

At any rate, you've successfully threadjacked this topic to be all about you. Congratulations. Your Internet Lawyer certificate is in the mail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2011, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Coachella Valley, California
15,639 posts, read 40,930,838 times
Reputation: 13467
Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri View Post
It is completely legal.
Due process is for criminal court.. not for a LL to take you to court for eviction..
Due process - both procedural and substantive - applies in both the criminal AND the civil setting.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 $104,000 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.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top