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.
*dismissed WITH prejudice is what happened to me. That's the terminology used to when the case is in my favor.
Yep I typed the wrong word, but you understood what I was saying (well maybe not) but who gives a rats ass? You are so combative right now and it makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soso694
And if you call refusing to do bed bug treatments and letting tenants live in that condition for the simple fact that you want them out to remodel their unit, needy (Mind you I communicated with them for months to do this before calling the city building inspector), then you dont deserve to be a landlord and you are the anal landlord I'm talking about in this post. Also, plenty of online applications dont allow room for comment and I've only ever seen the one "Have you ever been evicted" question.
Taken completely out of context sure I called you needy even though that isn't what I wrote at all. What I said was if I were you I wouldn't mention that you called code enforcement, or really anything other than they took you to court and the case was dismissed, because it does nothing to help you explain the situation. What it does tell a potential landlord is that you may be a difficult tenant, may as tell a potential employer you call in sick a few times a year because your kids get sick it is as harmful and as unnecessary.
You really need to take a couple days off this whole ordeal or something because the hostility is completely unwarranted. If you have never seen a question that asks if you have ever been evicted then what are you even going on about in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by soso694
What exactly do you find puzzling?[/b]
I answered that question in the same sentence, read it.
I might be one of the anal landlords you are referring to also, as I have stated several times that I won't rent to someone who has an eviction suit filed against them.
Unfortunately, I have made an exception to this rule for someone who, like you, had sued a former landlord. They had a long story about how terrible the landlord was, a long list of all the illegal things the landlord had done. I, stupidly, did not do enough research of my own. When we finally ended up asking them to move out (note: we did not evict them, we just gave them a notice of non-renewal once their lease was month to month), they sued us. We hadn't done a single thing wrong (other than renting to them in the first place), so they lost after about 10 minutes of discussion. We later found out that they had sued and lost against their last 3 landlords. I heard that they sued the landlord after us as well.
I've been there, tried to be the nice guy, and been burned.
So now, I always look at the official online court records. If those showed that you didn't have a history of suing multiple landlords, and that the one time you did sue, you won outright, then I would agree to rent to you. In your case, if the court records say "dismissed with prejudice" that usually means that you moved out prior to the court hearing. It doesn't tell anything about the circumstances. 99% of the time, "dismissed with prejudice" means the tenant was the one in the wrong.
I'm sorry that this happened to you, but in 15 years of working property management, I've seen many applications from people with evictions on their history, and I can't recall a single one who just said "yeah, I screwed up". Every single one of them had a story about how it wasn't their fault, or how their landlord was an evil person. Some of them, like you, are probably right, but there is no way for a landlord to tell which are which, so in order to "treat everyone the same" and not open yourself up for discrimination lawsuits, you have to have a set of rules you stick to.
Bottom line, I'd see if you could get that case changed to "dismissed without prejudice". Otherwise, all I would see, looking at the public record, is one more in a long line of people who got an eviction filed, but moved out prior to getting to court. There would be nothing to substantiate your story. I'm sorry if that makes me the bad guy, but its the truth. Unfortunately, that is the society we live in today. Everyone has an excuse, so when someone comes along who really did have a problem, they just get lost in the mix. Blame all the liar applicants who have jaded the landlords, not the landlords who are just trying to protect their investments.
Look at it this way. Say you had $100k in a 401k. You were shopping for a financial adviser to manage it for you. One of them had been sued by a prior client for mishandling funds, insisted the guy had wrongly sued him, but the court records disagreed with that. 3 other choices had clean records. Which one would you choose?
I might be one of the anal landlords you are referring to also, as I have stated several times that I won't rent to someone who has an eviction suit filed against them.
Bottom line, I'd see if you could get that case changed to "dismissed without prejudice". Otherwise, all I would see, looking at the public record, is one more in a long line of people who got an eviction filed, but moved out prior to getting to court. There would be nothing to substantiate your story. I'm sorry if that makes me the bad guy, but its the truth. Unfortunately, that is the society we live in today. Everyone has an excuse, so when someone comes along who really did have a problem, they just get lost in the mix. Blame all the liar applicants who have jaded the landlords, not the landlords who are just trying to protect their investments.
?
Some would say having the case dismissed without prejudice is worse because that means the judge required you to move in order for the case to be dismissed which indicates you're probably at fault. Dismissed with prejudice applies to both those who won their eviction suits (and could still be living in the apartment) and those who moved out prior to the hearing date, or even those suits that were not filed properly. It bars the plaintiff from bringing up the matter again, so I don't see how the other is better. I think the fact that a payment to me was ordered and signed by the judge should be convincing enough, if not, I have a letter with the PMC's lawyer acknowledgement attesting to my suitability and a copy of their motion to seal the case, which is not something you would do for someone who is at fault in a situation. You're telling me, even with that you'd reject an application?
I get that you've been burned in the past and I understand completely why you feel that way and why you'd want to protect your investment, but I can't respect landlords who do that type of screening process. There are a billion other ways to gauge a tenant's suitability. Anyone can file a lawsuit with a payment of ~$160, which is nothing to PMCs. I'd understand if you allowed commentary and asked for proof or documentation along with the application, but to flat out reject based on a filing alone without at least asking for supporting documentation is wrong to me. A tenant sued you for no reason, you wouldn't want your credibility as a landlord to be judged based on that? So why do it to someone else?
To answer your question, if I saw the courts disagreed and he has no other problems, then I'd ask for supporting documentation and would judge them equally. Public court records don't tell the whole story, so ask for that documentation. Society sucks and unfortunately, many tenants lie, but as a landlord, you do hold some accountability. There are other ways of screening that really wont take up much of your time so you dont have to contribute to that flawed system.
Today, I just had an eviction case dismissed with prejudice and the landlord even paid me $1000. (For those who swear I'm at fault, this means the case went in my favor). The landlord's lawyer and my lawyer even motioned to have the case sealed to protect me (this was denied as the law disfavors sealings of public records). I was in a retaliatory eviction situation where the PMC bought the property from the old landlord I signed the lease with and underwent major remodeling efforts on the building while we were living there. Of the 12 people that were orignally in our building, only 2 people remain now because of illegal pressure tactics and harassment to force us to move out so they could remodel our units. I reported them to the building inspector for their misconduct regarding bed bug treatments, and they were cited 19 code violations. 2 days later, they gave me a notice to quit on the grounds that "I wasn't complying to treatment" (I had pictures proving my apartment was prepped) and they lied and said the guy below me complained of bed bugs that I helped spread due to my "noncompliance" (the guy below me was my witness that he never complained about this and never had bed bugs). Basically I had a very solid case and was prepared to counter-sue for retaliation. The PMC realized this, agreed to dismiss the case and pay me $1,015 and I moved out voluntarily to end the toxic relationship.
During this ordeal, I've been searching all over the internet for advice and came across this forum. However, all I've seen on here is a bunch of anal, self righteous, pretentious people on here who keep saying "As a landlord, I wouldn't even consider your application even if it was just an eviction filing" or "that means i had to drag you to court to get you to leave" You people do realize that anybody can file a lawsuit right? You people do realize that a lot of those "filings" were made in error or the tenant may not have been at fault. You people DO realize, that some of these tenants actually WIN their suits, meaning that there was NO grounds for an eviction right? It is absolutely disgusting that there are people out there who will take the time to sniff out a DISMISSED eviction suit and not their actual credit report WHICH TELLS YOU IF THE PERSON WAS ACTUALLY EVICTED. It angers me to the core that there are people out there who will punish *me*, whose never even gotten so much as a traffic ticket, for something that I had no fault in. For those of you who screen tenants in this manner, you don't deserve to be landlords and I hope more laws are passed to protect tenants like me and seal dismissed evictions because clearly this is being abused.
This forum is essentially controlled by landlords, property managers and realtors. They are very quick to complain about tenants and offer advice for ways to screw them over. There is no industry quite like real estate when it comes to the display of open contempt for their customers and the defense of their fellow scumbags.
To answer your question, if I saw the courts disagreed and he has no other problems, then I'd ask for supporting documentation and would judge them equally. Public court records don't tell the whole story, so ask for that documentation. Society sucks and unfortunately, many tenants lie, but as a landlord, you do hold some accountability. There are other ways of screening that really wont take up much of your time so you dont have to contribute to that flawed system.
The problem with that is a 2 year old can photoshop "documentation" these days. If it isn't directly from an official source, it isn't trustworthy.
Quote:
Some would say having the case dismissed without prejudice is worse because that means the judge required you to move in order for the case to be dismissed which indicates you're probably at fault. Dismissed with prejudice applies to both those who won their eviction suits (and could still be living in the apartment) and those who moved out prior to the hearing date, or even those suits that were not filed properly.
Maybe this is a case of "different areas, different terminologies". In my area, the only "dismissed without prejudice" I've seen were those found to be "no fault". The "without prejudice" part means it isn't held against them. If the judge orders you to move, in my area, that is a finding in favor of the plaintiff, not a dismissal.
Different areas do not use these terms differently. The law is the law, and with or without prejudice does not mean guilty or not guilty.
"In the formal legal world a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court.
A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It's not dismissed forever. The person whose case it is can try again."
Different areas do not use these terms differently. The law is the law, and with or without prejudice does not mean guilty or not guilty.
"In the formal legal world a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court.
A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It's not dismissed forever. The person whose case it is can try again."
Exactly. And it bothers me that a landlord/apartment manager responsible for screening tenants wouldn't even know the difference between the two.
The problem with that is a 2 year old can photoshop "documentation" these days. If it isn't directly from an official source, it isn't trustworthy.
Maybe this is a case of "different areas, different terminologies". In my area, the only "dismissed without prejudice" I've seen were those found to be "no fault". The "without prejudice" part means it isn't held against them. If the judge orders you to move, in my area, that is a finding in favor of the plaintiff, not a dismissal.
My documentation are court orders signed by the judge and easily verifiable for those who bother to check as well as letter of suitability admitting it never should have went to court signed by both my lawyer and the landlord's lawyer with their contact info who brought the case against me in the first place. I know you want to defend your screening method, but there simply is no good reason for it.
And like the poster before me said, the terminology doesn't change. And the judge ordering you to move by a certain date to have the case dismissed (dismissal without prejudice) isn't the same as an eviction.
With prejudice = prejudice against the plaintiff
without prejudice = no prejudice against the plaintiff (aka the plaintiff has reason, meaning the tenant could be at fault)
I'm not trying to be harsh or come off as attacking, but it's bothersome and I hope I can convince some LL that's reading this to reconsider their actions.
If the case was dismissed, you do not have an eviction on your record, so your rant about landlords discriminating against you because you have an eviction on your record is rather meaningless.
Incidentily, and veering slightly off topic even though you were the one who brought it up, I don't give a bat's butt whether or not you respect me. Although, I do have it right there in my written criteria that I can reject applicants who are disrespectful and argumentitive. Mostly because it foreshodows that they will be difficult and unpleasant to work with. I need to have tenant cooperation in order to do repairs so I try to avoid tenants who can't cooperate without arguing , even when it is to their advantage.
If the case was dismissed, you do not have an eviction on your record, so your rant about landlords discriminating against you because you have an eviction on your record is rather meaningless.
Incidentily, and veering slightly off topic even though you were the one who brought it up, I don't give a bat's butt whether or not you respect me. Although, I do have it right there in my written criteria that I can reject applicants who are disrespectful and argumentitive. Mostly because it foreshodows that they will be difficult and unpleasant to work with. I need to have tenant cooperation in order to do repairs so I try to avoid tenants who can't cooperate without arguing , even when it is to their advantage.
I know I dont have an eviction on my record. my post is aimed towards those who discriminate based on a simple suit filing which my situation falls under, which isn't fair. If that's not you, then you're fine.
I agree about not being argumentative. I'm not that kind of tenant.
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.
