Arizona tenant habitual late payer - 5 day notice to pay rent or quit?

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by AZ Manager

That's actually interesting since in the rule itself it says "If the plaintiff is entitled to rent incurred after the judgment has been entered, then the plaintiff may seek that amount in a separate civil action." I know when I have been granted eviction I get a judgment for the entire month the eviction is happening plus any back rent and late fees. I've gone back for other damages later and got those judgments awarded too but I showed a full accounting including the prior judgment, I'm OCD about my record keeping and it pays off sometimes.

Slightly off topic: Even here in AZ where the process is fast and easy for a LL it is still a huge pain in the ass and is why I will never take someone with a past eviction.

Absolutely you should get those things, but that is not the same as getting rent for future months after they have been kicked off the property or forcing them to pay a professional pool man to clean a pool they legally no longer have access to or interest in. There is a reason landlords hesitate to evict; it almost always involves some additional monetary loss for them.

I do think some places make evictions far too difficult, but there really do need to be some disincentives to discourage landlords from automatically and immediately evicting instead of trying to work with the tenants. Most landlords try to be reasonable but there are some heartless folks out there who get in the business. Sonetimes there is a fine line between good business practices and cruelty. Common sense and decency ought to lead a person to realize that making a person, who doesn't have enough money to put a roof over their head, pay for utilities they are not allowed to use, let alone luxuries such as pool maintenance service and groundskeepers, is unreasonable. If that same landlord has their property foreclosed on for failing to make their mortgage payments they are not expected to continue to cut the grass, pay for utilities, or maintain the property in any way after the bank seizes the property and kicks them out, no matter how much they still owe the lender.

Perhaps this is as good of a time as any to remind people that karma can be a she-dog and unless you have a really nice cushion that person in financial quicksand could one day be you, so you might want to treat people in a way that you would like to be treated. Yes, you have to take a hardline sometimes because you aren't a charity but you should always operate in a way that most objective, disinterested parties would say is fair. Most people would say making an evicted tenant pay for pool upkeep after they aren't allowed on the property anymore isn't fair.

[br1n]

if you can easily find a new/better tenant i would just let the current tenant break the lease and leave without a fee. not worth the hassle of chasing down rent every month until the end of this lease.

[AZ Manager]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

Absolutely you should get those things, but that is not the same as getting rent for future months after they have been kicked off the property or forcing them to pay a professional pool man to clean a pool they legally no longer have access to or interest in. There is a reason landlords hesitate to evict; it almost always involves some additional monetary loss for them.

I do think some places make evictions far too difficult, but there really do need to be some disincentives to discourage landlords from automatically and immediately evicting instead of trying to work with the tenants. Most landlords try to be reasonable but there are some heartless folks out there who get in the business. Sonetimes there is a fine line between good business practices and cruelty. Common sense and decency ought to lead a person to realize that making a person, who doesn't have enough money to put a roof over their head, pay for utilities they are not allowed to use, let alone luxuries such as pool maintenance service and groundskeepers, is unreasonable. If that same landlord has their property foreclosed on for failing to make their mortgage payments they are not expected to continue to cut the grass, pay for utilities, or maintain the property in any way after the bank seizes the property and kicks them out, no matter how much they still owe the lender.

Perhaps this is as good of a time as any to remind people that karma can be a she-dog and unless you have a really nice cushion that person in financial quicksand could one day be you, so you might want to treat people in a way that you would like to be treated. Yes, you have to take a hardline sometimes because you aren't a charity but you should always operate in a way that most objective, disinterested parties would say is fair. Most people would say making an evicted tenant pay for pool upkeep after they aren't allowed on the property anymore isn't fair.

Just to be clear here I wasn't commenting on the OPs nonsense. I believe all the extras he is trying to claim would never fly and he may well learn that one day. I just thought it was an actual interesting point Rabrrita brought up, much more interesting than the rest of this thread.

[Ultrarunner]

Closed upon Original Poster request...