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 a ridiculous statement, through and through. You must live in an apartment, right?
Before I bought my home, I leased for a year. Good thing I keep copies of my records, here's a direct statement from my Lease Agreement back then- Its very standard form, used by most if not all Property Management Companies:
"In the event the landscaping is not being maintained by a contractor TENANT shall maintain lawns, shrubs, and trees. TENANT shall water all lawns, shrubs, and trees, mow the lawns on a regular basis, trim the trees and fertilize all lawns, shrubs, and trees. If TENANT fails to maintain the landscaping in a satisfactory manner
LANDLORD may have the landscaping maintained by a Landscaping Contractor and charge TENANT with the actual cost. Said costs shall immediately become additional rent."
So you can go right ahead and tell your Landlord where to stick it.
I wouldn't make it difficult for the OP- Go ahead and cut the tree back, or have someone do it.
I'd put in a "Cmon Man!" as well, but its not worth the energy.!
Just because a slumlord includes it in the lease doesn't mean it makes it enforceable. I've lived in numerous rental properties and never forked over a dime for the property owner's landscaping.
At any rate, there is a legal precipice at play here where "reasonable upkeep" must be done by the renter. Generally, this entails keeping the place "broom clean" and not intentionally destroying the property. Now, I haven't even gone to court over such an issue, and I'm not going to waste my time just now on lexis-nexis, but I'm sure something like "mowing the lawn" is probably considered reasonable maintenance for a tenant. Potentially multi-thousand dollar tree pruning is very unlikely to fall anywhere under the tenant's responsibility any more than it is their responsibility to fix the landlord's broken air conditioner.
So sure, in your lease, tenant must keep water on to irrigation, seems pretty reasonable to me. If irrigation lines break in the ground? Definitely not the tenant's problem. I think even fertilization is questionable. The tenant can't really be held liable for maintaining your prize petunias. If its that big a deal the landlord, then the landlord should hire a landscaper and include it in the rent.
I doubt the clause about enforcement of landscaping costs as additional rent is enforceable. They're either included in the rent or they're not. The landlord can't decide later they're going to penalize the tenant by charging them for a landscaper.
You seem to have some real misconceptions about what a landlord is actually responsible for under law. It is the landlord's responsibility to maintain the property in the same condition it was received by the tenant
through the duration of the lease, not the other way around. The tenant can even call the landlord to change a lightbulb if the fixture was attached to the property when they leased it and the landlord DOES have to comply.
Your personal observation is insufficient to refute that tenants in SFH rentals quite often have responsibilities to maintain a certain standard in landscaping and other maintenance which is legally binding because it is in the lease agreement that the tenant signed. Completely enforceable.
The tenant is responsible for the agreed upon elements in the lease agreement, which will often include maintenance tasks and at-fault repair and maintenance. The agreement, by definition, assigns "stuff" and delineates responsibility between the parties named in the agreement.
I do believe the OP has an argument about his responsibility for a tree encroaching another property, but as already mentioned upthread, the terms of the lease are the start point for any contention of the issue. Personally, I would NOT allow one of my tenants to honcho this task because it involves too many parties to be left up to the least vested interest (tenant) to solve--nothing against the OP. But that is just me, and only one very narrow perspective.
Do us all a favor and link any case where a tenant has been held responsible for landscaping in any court of law. You won't find one unless the tenant literally destroyed the landscaping on purpose.
Scroll back to the top and you'll see that the OP had another relevant issue- He was notified by HOA. Nevada has one of the most powerful HOA enforcement standards in the US , and they will almost always prevail in anything that's disputed. I looked for and found a non-HOA property when we bought, although in their best sense, an Association serves a very good purpose in keeping slacker residents up to speed.
HOA enforcement can lead up to and including foreclosure. My leased property was under a HOA. I had a beef with them once, and was not even allowed to state my case- They deal with the owner only, who wanted no part of a battle with them.
If he's smart IMO, the OP should simply get out there and have the tree trimmed, before they MAKE him have the tree trimmed and charge him for it.
Tenant has ZERO responsibility to read or even respond to notices from the HOA and I mean like absolutely NONE.
The tenant is not party to the contract the owner has with the HOA. That's really all there is to it.
If I were a landlord, the last thing I'd want was a tenant doing a half-assed job of trimming my trees with the possibility of harming the tree. And I'm pretty sure an unhappy tenant would do a half-assed job....just enough to get the HOA and the next-door neighbor off his back.
To me, the lease stipulation that the tenant is responsible for maintenance of landscaping would mean mowing, edging, raking leaves, etc. Tree-trimming? Nope.
Exactly. You, and every other reasonable person isn't going to expect the tenant to hire a tree trimmer. A court isn't going to expect this, either. There is no doubt that if there even is a tree-trimming problem the owner is liable for, its the landlord's problem.
That's probably 90% or more of all single family home leases in the US. Trees are landscaping and landscaping maintenance is covered in nearly all leases. If the OPs lease says landscape maintenance is the tenants responsibility then the tenant needs to take care of it.
If I have to handle it I would charge it back to the tenant plus any fees the HOA charges.
Get ready to get taken to court, then. It is absolutely NOT the tenant's responsibility to trim trees.
Tenant has ZERO responsibility to read or even respond to notices from the HOA and I mean like absolutely NONE.
The tenant is not party to the contract the owner has with the HOA. That's really all there is to it.
Untrue. Standard LVR lease has a clause requiring the tenant to conform to the HOA requirements and providing that any violation caused by the tenant will be paid by the LL and then added to the rent. Virtually standard in Las Vegas leases.
Untrue. Standard LVR lease has a clause requiring the tenant to conform to the HOA requirements and providing that any violation caused by the tenant will be paid by the LL and then added to the rent. Virtually standard in Las Vegas leases.
That clause requires that the tenant initial it.
I am aware of what's in the GLVAR lease. That doesn't make it legal or enforceable. Initialing a clause does NOTHING legally, BTW. The only time it would, is if there is a strikeout. A single signature at the end is all that's needed to execute a contract.
The landlord CANNOT "add" anything to the rent once the contract is signed. No judge will uphold such a clause. Its not legal for residential leases. Why doesn't the landlord just state that all housing expenses+ 30% are attributable to the tenant so that the tenant can just basically buy the property without actually being able to own it?
What you're talking about is an adverse contract. The whole point of renting is that the tenant is not responsible for property maintenance of any kind. Otherwise, there is literally ZERO incentive to rent anything, ever. Seriously, the landlord can't hold the tenant responsible for any property maintenance above and beyond normal wear and tear. It will NEVER fly in court. Its simply not the tenant's responsibility. If the landlord will stick in the lease that the tenant is responsible for trimming trees and bushes they may as well stick in there that the tenant should change the water heater if it breaks and the roof if it leaks. Ridiculous. No court will uphold such clauses. Simply ain't gonna happen.
I've seen all kinds of ridiculous crap here like "tenant is responsible for installing or replacing screens" - LOL, NO THEY'RE NOT. Again, the tenant does not own the landlord's property and has basically zero responsibility for maintenance and upkeep beyond "broom clean" and where a yard is concerned, free of clutter and mowed - if that was agreed to from the outset. That's about it.
The landlord can put the CC&R's in the lease and instruct that the tenant must comply. However, they cannot force the tenant to pay for property maintenance and if they don't abide by CC&R's the landlord is still liable for all costs as well that the landlord's sole remedy is to evict the tenant.
I am aware of what's in the GLVAR lease. That doesn't make it legal or enforceable. Initialing a clause does NOTHING legally, BTW. The only time it would, is if there is a strikeout. A single signature at the end is all that's needed to execute a contract.
The landlord CANNOT "add" anything to the rent once the contract is signed. No judge will uphold such a clause. Its not legal for residential leases. Why doesn't the landlord just state that all housing expenses+ 30% are attributable to the tenant so that the tenant can just basically buy the property without actually being able to own it?
What you're talking about is an adverse contract. The whole point of renting is that the tenant is not responsible for property maintenance of any kind. Otherwise, there is literally ZERO incentive to rent anything, ever. Seriously, the landlord can't hold the tenant responsible for any property maintenance above and beyond normal wear and tear. It will NEVER fly in court. Its simply not the tenant's responsibility. If the landlord will stick in the lease that the tenant is responsible for trimming trees and bushes they may as well stick in there that the tenant should change the water heater if it breaks and the roof if it leaks. Ridiculous. No court will uphold such clauses. Simply ain't gonna happen.
I've seen all kinds of ridiculous crap here like "tenant is responsible for installing or replacing screens" - LOL, NO THEY'RE NOT. Again, the tenant does not own the landlord's property and has basically zero responsibility for maintenance and upkeep beyond "broom clean" and where a yard is concerned, free of clutter and mowed - if that was agreed to from the outset. That's about it.
The landlord can put the CC&R's in the lease and instruct that the tenant must comply. However, they cannot force the tenant to pay for property maintenance and if they don't abide by CC&R's the landlord is still liable for all costs as well that the landlord's sole remedy is to evict the tenant.
Commercial is a different story.
Still trying to win arguments by stacking the BS higher and deeper.
And of course it may well turn out that a tenant unwilling to honor such a clause ends up evicted and loses a big hunk or all of the security deposit. As a practical matter is often the only rational way out for a landlord. It is not the only way for a LL but it is often the only rational way.
And the tenant always needs to remember that such an eviction will make renting many places impossible for years.
The initial is just a notice by the tenant that he knows the clause is in the lease. A decade or so ago there used to be big arguments about the tenant being unaware of the clause. That now is pretty well gone away.
The clause itself is certainly legal and enforceable if practically by eviction. That lease and its language has been fought over and refined by multiple lawyers over decades. Certainly one clause or the other could be found inappropriate in some specific circumstances. But at this time it is unlikely that any clause will be found illegal.
I received a letter from the HOA that a tree is encroaching onto the neighbors property. I spoke with a rep from the HOA who told me the property owner is responsible for pruning the tree. Today I got an email from the rental agent instructing me to prune the tree and take photos to show it was done. Now...I fix small things without bothering the owner like a toilet that won't flush or a screen door that won't close, but I don't know the first thing about tree pruning and I don't have the tools to do it. Am I as a renter responsible for something like this?
I rent a house and yes we are responsible for keeping up with the yard work. Your responsibility!
I rent a house and yes we are responsible for keeping up with the yard work. Your responsibility!
Be careful. Trimming a tree encroaching on a neighbors property is a very tricky proposition. In fact you may not be allowed to do it if it cannot be work-ably done on your property.
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.
