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.
Many lease clauses that are inserted are contrary to the Law and therefore unenforceable. Even if you sign the lease you haven't given up any rights. And no, the landlord can't evict you upon discovering your pot plants. I wouldn't lose sleep over this and sign the lease.
I have evicted for less...
So dont say it is unenforceable.
I evicted once without even seen any criminal activity, I just thought they were doing something illegal. if you word your lease exactly like that, you can evict a person.
Would somebody please define "criminal activity"?
You all presume that this means something like murder or assault yet "criminal activity" can be defined as anything that is "a breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction."
That means if you've rolled through a stop sign or didn't wash your hands after you urinated and returned to your job as a sou chef you could be evicted. There would be zero chance of a housing court judge considering this clause in an eviction proceeding.
Not to mention OP's point about due process.
You have really no idea...
Look, i have a tenant once, that were selling drugs in front of my building. I never had any evidence of it..
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. then he ask me what is your suspicion. I said he stands in front of the building for hours and plenty of cars stops for a few second and leave.
I said unless he knows everybody that stops or he is dealing..
The judge then said I have enough suspicion...
So I guess you are wrong...
Due process was done, not for criminal court, that you are talking about but due process for eviction.
Like I said before "criminal activity" or as you say "illegal activities" has too broad a definition to be enforceable. By your standard, or your lease only a "suspicion" of illegal activity is needed, not actual nor circumstantial. Legally "suspicion" has no definition. If you actually got an eviction order from the Court it would of been easy to dismiss and show the papers were defective if the tenant simply files an order to show cause which would of brought this judges order to trial allowing the tenant to question you under oath and the constitutionality of such a clause (which you cannot sign away) not to mention a decision based on real evidence and not the hand job you administered to the first judge.
Last edited by modsquad81; 05-26-2011 at 09:48 AM..
I get that LL's would like to be able to initiate the eviction process on this (extremely vague) basis and I get that some tenants will agree to the clause and even fold (likely for other reasons altogether) when faced with such an event happening and some confrontation with a LL... but the eviction process still includes rights to a Court proceeding as well.
So... can ANYONE cite a case where a LL has prevailed when the tenant objected to this tough guy crap?
I'm not aware of any.
Like I said before "criminal activity" or as you say "illegal activities" has too broad a definition to be enforceable. By your standard, or your lease only a "suspicion" of illegal activity is needed, not actual nor circumstantial. Legally "suspicion" has no definition. If you actually got an eviction order from the Court it would of been easy to dismiss and show the papers were defective if the tenant simply files an order to show cause which would of brought this judges order to trial allowing the tenant to question you under oath not to mention a decision based on real evidence and not the hand job you administered to the first judge.
I have evicted for less...
So dont say it is unenforceable.
I evicted once without even seen any criminal activity, I just thought they were doing something illegal. if you word your lease exactly like that, you can evict a person.
This is going to come down to a locality issue, I believe.
A judge may very well find such a clause to be burdensome, oppressive, and over-reaching. For example, the law doesn't say that the alleged criminal activity must occur during the time of the lease. By a strict interpretation of that lease, if my friend Sally comes over to visit, and twenty years ago she filed her taxes one day late, then the landlord could evict me.
The clause doesn't establish a timeframe; it doesn't say that the criminal act must happen within the life of the lease.
The clause doesn't establish a locale; it doesn't say that the criminal act must happen on or near the property.
The clause puts an unrealistic burden on the tenant; the tenant must perform a full criminal background check (at cost) on each and every person who may someday enter their apartment.
The clause is invasive; it denies someone their basic rights to privacy (for example, a guest who did commit a criminal act 10 years ago, but whose record has since been cleared by ARD or expunged).
Here in Pennsylvania, such a clause may also expose the landlord to substantial civil litigation. the PA Landlord-Tenant Act states that the clause would have to be enforced uniformly, no matter what. So what happens if Sally, the local Avon rep who filed her taxes one day late two years ago, proceeds to visit five tenants of the property -- and only one gets evicted from her visit?
Additionally, if I found that the landlord was running a criminal background check on ME because I was a guest of a friend who lived in the complex, I would flip. The landlord has no right to perform a background check on me without my consent. That landlord would be facing SUBSTANTIAL civil liability!
Point is, it doesn't sound like an enforceable clause. It sounds like a lease drawn up by a first-time or uneducated landlord. However, none of what we have to say matters -- the judge's final opinion is the only one that matters.
This is going to come down to a locality issue, I believe.
It could be, each state is different.
this was in NYC.
Quote:
A judge may very well find such a clause to be burdensome, oppressive, and over-reaching. For example, the law doesn't say that the alleged criminal activity must occur during the time of the lease. By a strict interpretation of that lease, if my friend Sally comes over to visit, and twenty years ago she filed her taxes one day late, then the landlord could evict me.
Well of course the judge will not agree,, it must be part of the contract lease.. No lease goes back in time, is an agreement for the time it state in the lease...
You are signing a contract for the time stated in the lease...
Quote:
The clause doesn't establish a timeframe; it doesn't say that the criminal act must happen within the life of the lease.
I dont think it needs a time frame, because the agreement states that it start on X date and it ends on Y date.
Quote:
The clause doesn't establish a locale; it doesn't say that the criminal act must happen on or near the property.
Well I dont think my lease say locale either, not specifically.
Quote:
The clause puts an unrealistic burden on the tenant; the tenant must perform a full criminal background check (at cost) on each and every person who may someday enter their apartment.
there is a problem with this one. the clause is for that specific reason, that even if you are not convicted or never did, if the LL finds out you are doing illegal things, even if the police doesnt know about it, you can take action. This is why my lawyer put it in, and background check doesnt mean innocent.
Quote:
The clause is invasive; it denies someone their basic rights to privacy (for example, a guest who did commit a criminal act 10 years ago, but whose record has since been cleared by ARD or expunged).
is not pass but only during the lease time frame...
Like all leases are.
Quote:
Here in Pennsylvania, such a clause may also expose the landlord to substantial civil litigation. the PA Landlord-Tenant Act states that the clause would have to be enforced uniformly, no matter what. So what happens if Sally, the local Avon rep who filed her taxes one day late two years ago, proceeds to visit five tenants of the property -- and only one gets evicted from her visit?
Breaking the law is not a criminal act, not all illegal acts are criminal
Quote:
Additionally, if I found that the landlord was running a criminal background check on ME because I was a guest of a friend who lived in the complex, I would flip. The landlord has no right to perform a background check on me without my consent. That landlord would be facing SUBSTANTIAL civil liability!
Who was talking about background check?? this never came until now..
Quote:
Point is, it doesn't sound like an enforceable clause. It sounds like a lease drawn up by a first-time or uneducated landlord. However, none of what we have to say matters -- the judge's final opinion is the only one that matters.
how can it not be, if I enforced it in court...
How can it not be if it was done my a lawyer that is dedicated to realestate law.
And how come is not, if a lot of people here said they have similar clause in theirs lease...
It is purely legal, and is normal in lease.
But you are over reaching that is actually the clause, bending the word criminal for every illegal act, and doing background check when it was not mentioned and by going beyond the time frame of the lease..
Lease usually start by saying this terms start and ends on this times, that includes all of the clause in the lease are bond to this time frame.
Well of course the judge will not agree,, it must be part of the contract lease.. No lease goes back in time, is an agreement for the time it state in the lease... You are signing a contract for the time stated in the lease... I dont think it needs a time frame, because the agreement states that it start on X date and it ends on Y date.
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri
Breaking the law is not a criminal act, not all illegal acts are criminal
But all criminal acts are illegal, which is presumably why the lease says "criminal activity" and not "breaking the law".
Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri
Who was talking about background check?? this never came until now..
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri
how can it not be, if I enforced it in court...How can it not be if it was done my a lawyer that is dedicated to realestate law.And how come is not, if a lot of people here said they have similar clause in theirs lease...It is purely legal, and is normal in lease.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri
But you are over reaching
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.
In some states it is a requirement of law to maintain a crime and criminal free place. There was a thread about evictions and such and when we were looking at their state law there was whole sections on evictions for criminal activity and for criminals. The LL can evict if the renter lets certain types of people with criminal history come around. So you need to read your state laws to find out if the condition is BS or mandatory under the law.
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.
