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.
Would you give more information, please? Is the LL threatening to evict now and actually refuse to do repairs? Does your daughter and her family create problems? What does your lease say?
Here's a real estate attorney's website with FAQs on SC landlord-tenant law:
I rented a large 3 bedroom townhouse. Wanting additional room just in case one of my children, needed a place to stay and for guests. I am the only person in this home, and my daughter will be moving in 5 months across state to go to Medical School, she is married and has 2 children. I told her she could stay with me as I have plenty of room. My landlord was fine with them staying with me, until he asked me the age of the children 1 and 2. Now he tells me no. Is this legal? My contract does state I am the only one on the lease. Can he keep my family from living with me? This is in Washington State
I rented a large 3 bedroom townhouse. Wanting additional room just in case one of my children, needed a place to stay and for guests. I am the only person in this home, and my daughter will be moving in 5 months across state to go to Medical School, she is married and has 2 children. I told her she could stay with me as I have plenty of room. My landlord was fine with them staying with me, until he asked me the age of the children 1 and 2. Now he tells me no. Is this legal? My contract does state I am the only one on the lease. Can he keep my family from living with me? This is in Washington State
No. I think it's covered under RCW 49.60.222.
The landlord probably could have avoided issues had he said no (played dumb) to immediate occupancy without the formal process of vetting the new occupants, but once they gave permission, revoking it based on the ages of the occupants, doomed them to a violation
The landlord probably could have avoided issues had he said no (played dumb) to immediate occupancy without the formal process of vetting the new occupants, but once they gave permission, revoking it based on the ages of the occupants, doomed them to a violation
was the permission given in writing?
If not, I was told once that a written contract/lease can only be modified in writing.
Having him verbally give permission and then revoking it has no consequences because (technically) permission never was given.
If not, I was told once that a written contract/lease can only be modified in writing.
Having him verbally give permission and then revoking it has no consequences because (technically) permission never was given.
Not having it in writing can certainly hamper a complaint or lawsuit. But, the landlord can not deny occupancy based on them being children. The landlord has the right to refuse the occupancy while they do their administrative duties to give approval or outright deny due to some restriction in the lease. Where they went wrong is just saying the children would not be welcome. The phrase is the violation. Now, the tenant will need to document it and that is another issue, but just saying it appears to be a violation of state 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.
