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.
What if it contains “subject to HOA approval” that’s why the free legal sources cited pages ago would be great resources for the vanishing OP.
Because in many states, actual or case law voids such condition once the contract has actually commenced. In the case of the OP, once the tenant occupied and took up residency, "subject to" no longer is valid.
Because in many states, actual or case law voids such condition once the contract has actually commenced. In the case of the OP, once the tenant occupied and took up residency, "subject to" no longer is valid.
And until anyone sees a signed lease, its all speculation anyway.
And until anyone sees a signed lease, its all speculation anyway.
That wasn't the point or close to what you had asked. You just seem to be going around in circles here. But nonetheless please do enlighten us because I am actually very curious; what do you think the lease could possibly include (that would be legal and enforceable of course) that might work against the OP if, as they stated, they signed for a 3 month term, it was signed by all parties, OP paid all money due and they have moved in and have not violated any of the terms within the lease?
The realtor is trying to get you to voluntarily move to cover up their mistake. They are liable....You are the injured party imo.....The owner told you to stay put.....that is what I would do.
I also would personally contact your states realty board....(link below) and share what this realtor has done, and is trying to do to you.....I think you have a valid complaint.....and that you will be protected from the realty office errors. You entered into a lease contract in good faith....the realtor is the one who is at fault. You can provide copies of the lease as well as all these communications trying to get you to move....The realtor is at fault....stay put.
You should also contact any office that works with VETS and find out if they can intercede in this.
I am sorry that this is happening to you. Thank you for your service!!
Because in many states, actual or case law voids such condition once the contract has actually commenced. In the case of the OP, once the tenant occupied and took up residency, "subject to" no longer is valid.
Also according to the OP the HOA does not have a rule against renting to a tenant for 3 months or allowing them to do so. The rule they have is that the LL can not rent the condo out for the rest of the year. As per the OPs story it's the RE agent who made the mistake and is bullying her and the LL's mistake was to hire a worthless RE agent as her property manager. the tenant would not be breaking any HOA rules and neither would the LL so there is not need to even involve them. If further harassed the tenant could even reach out to the HOA and if there are any decent people on it they would realize that she did nothing wrong and has a right to live there according to the lease.
I have repeated a time or 2 now in my posts something in the line of "that if what the OP says is true and/or if we have all of the facts" for clarification on what I have said, which means that if the OP missed telling us something that they would clarify otherwise I will stick with what I have said until they do.
Or, are what you trying to say is that the OP's lease may have possibly stated that it was a 3 month term lease however somewhere else in the lease it also stated that the HOA requires only annual leases, or something along that line? If so, then that would be rather ambiguous don't you think?
I wasn't suggesting OP was lying but by definition we do not have all the facts if facts includes seeing the actual lease language, which IMO it has to. Of course I do not know that there is some clause in there that says the renter has to abide by the HOA rules, nor do I know if a clause like that would be construed to include any HOA limits on rental duration. But without seeing the lease and without being familiar with local laws, I can't say that there aren't other facts that could affect the OP's status.
I wasn't suggesting OP was lying but by definition we do not have all the facts if facts includes seeing the actual lease language, which IMO it has to. Of course I do not know that there is some clause in there that says the renter has to abide by the HOA rules, nor do I know if a clause like that would be construed to include any HOA limits on rental duration. But without seeing the lease and without being familiar with local laws, I can't say that there aren't other facts that could affect the OP's status.
And no one else said anywhere that there might not be other "facts". There can, and most likely are, always other "facts" with anything ever posted on C-D that we never know or hear about. You base your answers on what you are given and respond accordingly. How else can you possibly do it? LOL
And I will pose the same question to you as I did in post #93:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn-fused
I am actually very curious; what do you think the lease could possibly include (that would be legal and enforceable of course) that might work against the OP if, as they stated, they signed for a 3 month term, it was signed by all parties, OP paid all money due and they have moved in and have not violated any of the terms within the lease?
Because if there was another clause regarding "abiding by HOA rules/regulations, etc, etc, etc" then I would think that the OP would have been provided a copy of those rules/regs, read them and had to sign accordingly. But, if anything conflicted with the lease agreement that was also signed and the OP already moved in, it would most likely end up being ambiguous so I highly doubt that a judge would still ever allow any eviction to go through. And, if they never were provided a copy of the HOA rules/regs then an eviction would also be thrown out because the OP was never provided the rules to see if there were any conflicts and no judge is ever going to expect the OP to be a mind reader.
But perhaps I am wrong and or missing something here, so please enlighten me.
And no one else said anywhere that there might not be other "facts". There can, and most likely are, always other "facts" with anything ever posted on C-D that we never know or hear about. You base your answers on what you are given and respond accordingly. How else can you possibly do it? LOL
And I will pose the same question to you as I did in post #93:
Because if there was another clause regarding "abiding by HOA rules/regulations, etc, etc, etc" then I would think that the OP would have been provided a copy of those rules/regs, read them and had to sign accordingly. But, if anything conflicted with the lease agreement that was also signed and the OP already moved in, it would most likely end up being ambiguous so I highly doubt that a judge would still ever allow any eviction to go through. And, if they never were provided a copy of the HOA rules/regs then an eviction would also be thrown out because the OP was never provided the rules to see if there were any conflicts and no judge is ever going to expect the OP to be a mind reader.
But perhaps I am wrong and or missing something here, so please enlighten me.
OK - here's where the disconnect lies, I think.
Neither emm74 nor I are saying that there is a VALID cause for eviction. What was advocated was a consultation with free or low price legal resource to assist in crafting a response that would be based in the actual law, not on some HOA language and a (possibly) totally non-conforming lease.
My point was that there are plenty of idiots out there, this REA and LL certainly sound like they should be included in this. It's very possible that they could THINK they were in the right and file for eviction. Yes, the case would get dismissed or tossed quickly, HOWEVER, there would be a court record showing the OP as a defendant in an eviction hearing.
In a tight housing market, that possibly negative mark COULD lead to a future prospective LL to move to the next prospect.
A penny pinched now, could lead to a pound lost later. My whole point was to get some backup to fight the issue now, before anything like this came about.
Hope that clears it up.
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.
There are plenty of others who might get some good food for thought out of it. 
If so, then that would be rather ambiguous don't you think?
