Apartment lease ban on guns California
- Thread starter nicki
- Start date
- Status
Ergosphere
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 227
The cited case was over a $50 charge, which was ruled illegal.
Ed Ames
Member
That specific charge, for that specific business, was not sufficiently documented. Shrug. That's being a sloppy landlord. Another landlord, with a property manager who documented the expenses more completely, could charge $100 and a judge would find it equitable.
The general reality is that such terms are, when reasonable, completely enforceable. You can talk around it but your own citations agree with what I'm saying.
The general reality is that such terms are, when reasonable, completely enforceable. You can talk around it but your own citations agree with what I'm saying.
Deavis
Member
Bingo. Any unlimited protections some of you think the Constitution gives are a moot point. When you sign a contract you are willingly giving up some of your rights. That is the distinction, you willingly gave them up. Nobody forced you to do it, there is a BIG distiction. Same thing with HOA policies. You might own the house but you bought it and agreed to the covenants willingly, therefore you can't claim they infringe on your rights after you've accepted them. The government has power by us giving up our rights, again, same thing.
jaholder1971
Member
I'm beginning to think that some folks are libertarians because they're jealous of the way the government stomps on people and wishes they had that same power.
fireflyfather
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2006
- Messages
- 807
Long thread, not going to go into detail. Sorry if already covered.
Landlords have rights, but tenants do too. If, hypothetically, you, as a landlord had a clause in the lease agreement that violated a tenants rights, there would be a conflict of one person's rights vs another. Balance may not be the appropriate term here, but laws and courts govern whose rights prevail. It isn't an automatic trump of landloard over tenant because of "mere" ownership. Nor is the reverse true: I can't pee on the walls every night and expect to not pay for it, or eventually be evicted.
Actually, no, there ARE limits on who/what you can bar, even if you put it into the lease, depending on laws in your area, and federal laws. There's a difference between not honoring your word (keeping guns in a "no gun" lease property), and breaking lease terms that are rendered null/illegal by law(if the lease language is trumped by law to allow guns on property). The distinction here is one of ethics and law. That said, if you were to hypothetically break another law with your lease, say discrimination against a protected group, then I think we would ALL pretty much give you the metaphorical finger (obviously you are not doing this, so no direct attack on you here) and most folks would see no problem with that.
Technically, the way to do this would be to refuse to sign the lease as written, and IN WRITING demand a new version of the lease without that language, then sue the HELL out of you if you refused and local laws permitted.
Now, obviously carebear & the others would put in no such anti-gun clause, but that would be the tactic to use, methinks.
Landlords have rights, but tenants do too. If, hypothetically, you, as a landlord had a clause in the lease agreement that violated a tenants rights, there would be a conflict of one person's rights vs another. Balance may not be the appropriate term here, but laws and courts govern whose rights prevail. It isn't an automatic trump of landloard over tenant because of "mere" ownership. Nor is the reverse true: I can't pee on the walls every night and expect to not pay for it, or eventually be evicted.
Actually, no, there ARE limits on who/what you can bar, even if you put it into the lease, depending on laws in your area, and federal laws. There's a difference between not honoring your word (keeping guns in a "no gun" lease property), and breaking lease terms that are rendered null/illegal by law(if the lease language is trumped by law to allow guns on property). The distinction here is one of ethics and law. That said, if you were to hypothetically break another law with your lease, say discrimination against a protected group, then I think we would ALL pretty much give you the metaphorical finger (obviously you are not doing this, so no direct attack on you here) and most folks would see no problem with that.
Technically, the way to do this would be to refuse to sign the lease as written, and IN WRITING demand a new version of the lease without that language, then sue the HELL out of you if you refused and local laws permitted.
Now, obviously carebear & the others would put in no such anti-gun clause, but that would be the tactic to use, methinks.
NASCAR_MAN
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 179
Lease...Schmease. People are not going to give up thier rights to self-protection no matter what a lease says...they'll still keep guns.
Now...we can all be honest about this and not put anything in a lease that would hint at prohibiting guns, or...we can just fake it: sign the lease, shake hands and lie in each other's faces.
So...you want a lease agreements based on truth...or do you want to keep lying to each other?
Now...we can all be honest about this and not put anything in a lease that would hint at prohibiting guns, or...we can just fake it: sign the lease, shake hands and lie in each other's faces.
So...you want a lease agreements based on truth...or do you want to keep lying to each other?
If you're referring to me, you couldn't be more wrong. You are not stomping on anyone's rights if they voluntarily sign a contract to do or not do certain things in return for use of the property. That's totally different from a government edict that applies to you when you had no chance to say, "no thanks."
If I was a landlord, would I put a no gun clause in the lease? I might, depending on the circumstances. One reason might be simple CYA, not wanting the legal hassle of possible lawsuits if a doofus in one unit gets drunk, plays with his guns, and sends a round into a kid in the adjoining unit.
K
Sure, that's totally probable. But, that's a separate issue from the question asked by the OP, which is about the legality of no-gun clauses in leases.
I, myself, might be tempted to do that as part of a risk/benefit calculation of doing so. Is it wrong and unethical? Yes. And, I should be prepared to accept the consequences, e.g., eviction, if caught.
K
NASCAR_MAN
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 179
Kentak wrote:
Sure, that's totally probable. But, that's a separate issue from the question asked by the OP, which is about the legality of no-gun clauses in leases.
I, myself, might be tempted to do that as part of a risk/benefit calculation of doing so. Is it wrong and unethical? Yes. And, I should be prepared to accept the consequences, e.g., eviction, if caught.
============================
So...now you are saying it is unethical to defend your life.
NASCAR
Sure, that's totally probable. But, that's a separate issue from the question asked by the OP, which is about the legality of no-gun clauses in leases.
I, myself, might be tempted to do that as part of a risk/benefit calculation of doing so. Is it wrong and unethical? Yes. And, I should be prepared to accept the consequences, e.g., eviction, if caught.
============================
So...now you are saying it is unethical to defend your life.
NASCAR
Ed Ames
Member
It is unethical to agree to pay someone X and then renig on that agreement. If you don't want to pay then don't promise to pay. You shouldn't be trading off your rights anyway.
I wouldn't require (or sign) a lease that limited my ability to arm myself. Every time I've signed a lease I've looked for such limitations and if I'd found them I wouldn't have signed. As for putting it in a lease I was offering... one of the best (especially considering the source but that's another story) bits of contract advice I've ever received was, "Don't put terms in a contract that you wouldn't agree to." I wouldn't agree to that term so I won't be including it in any lease (or employment contract, etc) I write.
That said... there are people who will agree to those terms, and others who will require them, and if you agree to them you are ethically and legally bound to honor your agreement. If you sign a contract in bad faith (knowing you intend to breach it) you are opening yourself up to more than just eviction. If you post here saying "I'd just sign the lease and ignore the terms" that demonstrates bad faith and can leave you vulnerable to penalties, interest, legal fees, etc.
All that talk about liquidated damages not being OK suddenly goes out the window because you signed the contract in bad faith.
I wouldn't require (or sign) a lease that limited my ability to arm myself. Every time I've signed a lease I've looked for such limitations and if I'd found them I wouldn't have signed. As for putting it in a lease I was offering... one of the best (especially considering the source but that's another story) bits of contract advice I've ever received was, "Don't put terms in a contract that you wouldn't agree to." I wouldn't agree to that term so I won't be including it in any lease (or employment contract, etc) I write.
That said... there are people who will agree to those terms, and others who will require them, and if you agree to them you are ethically and legally bound to honor your agreement. If you sign a contract in bad faith (knowing you intend to breach it) you are opening yourself up to more than just eviction. If you post here saying "I'd just sign the lease and ignore the terms" that demonstrates bad faith and can leave you vulnerable to penalties, interest, legal fees, etc.
All that talk about liquidated damages not being OK suddenly goes out the window because you signed the contract in bad faith.
If I were a landlord, I think that legal firearm ownership would be mandatory in my lease agreements. I'm sure the apartment complex would be a much safer place with legal firearm owners present at all times. The Govt has even saved me the money of paying for my own background checks on tenants, by NICS and CCW application processes.
GuyWithQuestions
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 451
If the government steps in to interfer with a private contract?
Before you read this, keep in mind I'd never rent or lease an area that's a gun-free zone!
If two independent parties sign a two-way agreement (contract), where what both sides do is completely conditional on what the other party does, and the government later steps in to interfer saying that it's unfair after the stupid party found out what they're getting into, isn't that a violation of rights? Should the government be allowed to void private contracts, even when it doesn't require someone to do something that's illegal (like rob a bank)? When a landlord signs a contract with a tenant, him receiving rent and the terms/conditions of the tenant are conditional on if the landlord leases the property to him and follows certain promises that the landlord says that he'll do in the contract (for example maintenance). When the tenant signs the contract, him being able to rent (own the use of) the property is completely conditional on if he pays his rent and follows the terms and conditions that are in the contract. Isn't the purpose of a contract to provide legal protection to both sides before getting into an agreement that could be risky if one went against what he said he would?
Just like the saying "What one man's garbage is another man's treasure", what one sees as "a rip off" another sees as a "good deal". If two independent parties out of their own free will and choice enter into a two-way agreement where what one does is completely conditional on what the other one does, who is the government to interfere with every private transaction that occurs? If I was actually a property owner and had an extra house on my property, let's say someone else was to ask if they could rent that extra house from me so that they could have a place to stay? I say sure, but that they didn't have to pay money as rent, they just had to agree that they wouldn't wear pink while inside that smaller house or while on the property grounds itself. We both agree with this two-way deal that's conditional on what the other one does. We sign the contract. If a week later I change my mind, can I kick him off even though I signed that contract with him? If in a week he thinks that it's stupid that he can't wear pink and then wears pink, would I still legally be required to let him own the use of that smaller house for the time period that was specified? What one sees as "a rip off", another sees "as a good deal". I don't understand why the government should step on peoples' toes so much and control what they eat, drink, what they say, etc.
In the amendments to the Constitution, it says that prohibition is not Constitutional, but since some people will pay more to be in an apartment without smoking or drinking, some landlords will have contracts that they can't smoke or drink as a condition if they are leased the apartment (leasing is conditional on their side of the contract). That happens even though it's perfectly legal to smoke and drink at your own place of residence. Similarly, there are paranoid individuals out there who want a gun-free zone apartment complex and are willing to find those areas. What I personally think is "a rip off deal", not being able to carry my guns, is "an excellent deal" to paranoid people Just because I don't like their values, doesn't mean I'm going to restrict them from finding those privately owned resorts or havens for themselves :banghead:
Before you read this, keep in mind I'd never rent or lease an area that's a gun-free zone!
If two independent parties sign a two-way agreement (contract), where what both sides do is completely conditional on what the other party does, and the government later steps in to interfer saying that it's unfair after the stupid party found out what they're getting into, isn't that a violation of rights? Should the government be allowed to void private contracts, even when it doesn't require someone to do something that's illegal (like rob a bank)? When a landlord signs a contract with a tenant, him receiving rent and the terms/conditions of the tenant are conditional on if the landlord leases the property to him and follows certain promises that the landlord says that he'll do in the contract (for example maintenance). When the tenant signs the contract, him being able to rent (own the use of) the property is completely conditional on if he pays his rent and follows the terms and conditions that are in the contract. Isn't the purpose of a contract to provide legal protection to both sides before getting into an agreement that could be risky if one went against what he said he would?
Just like the saying "What one man's garbage is another man's treasure", what one sees as "a rip off" another sees as a "good deal". If two independent parties out of their own free will and choice enter into a two-way agreement where what one does is completely conditional on what the other one does, who is the government to interfere with every private transaction that occurs? If I was actually a property owner and had an extra house on my property, let's say someone else was to ask if they could rent that extra house from me so that they could have a place to stay? I say sure, but that they didn't have to pay money as rent, they just had to agree that they wouldn't wear pink while inside that smaller house or while on the property grounds itself. We both agree with this two-way deal that's conditional on what the other one does. We sign the contract. If a week later I change my mind, can I kick him off even though I signed that contract with him? If in a week he thinks that it's stupid that he can't wear pink and then wears pink, would I still legally be required to let him own the use of that smaller house for the time period that was specified? What one sees as "a rip off", another sees "as a good deal". I don't understand why the government should step on peoples' toes so much and control what they eat, drink, what they say, etc.
In the amendments to the Constitution, it says that prohibition is not Constitutional, but since some people will pay more to be in an apartment without smoking or drinking, some landlords will have contracts that they can't smoke or drink as a condition if they are leased the apartment (leasing is conditional on their side of the contract). That happens even though it's perfectly legal to smoke and drink at your own place of residence. Similarly, there are paranoid individuals out there who want a gun-free zone apartment complex and are willing to find those areas. What I personally think is "a rip off deal", not being able to carry my guns, is "an excellent deal" to paranoid people
Just because I don't like their values, doesn't mean I'm going to restrict them from finding those privately owned resorts or havens for themselves :banghead:GuyWithQuestions
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 451
What my state's .gov said when I emailed them about firearms/apartments/contracts
On utahcourts.gov, it says that landlords in the state of Utah have some restrictions. Since renting means that the tenant owns the use to the property, the landlord legally can't go in whenever he wants to because he gave up that right when he rented/leased it out, and that there has to be a 24 hour notice when it's necessary for maintenance and that the tenant can control when he comes inside. On that .gov website, it also says that both landlord and tenants are obligated to abide by their terms of the contract.
I also emailed someone from the Utah Department of Public Safety and asked them what are the laws as far as firearms in rented apartments. This is what I asked:
This was his response:
So it sounds like in the criminal courts they can't do anything, neither can the police do anything if the landlord call police, but that the landlord can get you in civil court for breach of contract. Keep in mind that Utah is the state where legally a public school cannot tell students with permits that they can't carry onto school property. I carry mine onto campus at the University all the time. We're talking about human rights here!
On utahcourts.gov, it says that landlords in the state of Utah have some restrictions. Since renting means that the tenant owns the use to the property, the landlord legally can't go in whenever he wants to because he gave up that right when he rented/leased it out, and that there has to be a 24 hour notice when it's necessary for maintenance and that the tenant can control when he comes inside. On that .gov website, it also says that both landlord and tenants are obligated to abide by their terms of the contract.
I also emailed someone from the Utah Department of Public Safety and asked them what are the laws as far as firearms in rented apartments. This is what I asked:
This was his response:
So it sounds like in the criminal courts they can't do anything, neither can the police do anything if the landlord call police, but that the landlord can get you in civil court for breach of contract. Keep in mind that Utah is the state where legally a public school cannot tell students with permits that they can't carry onto school property. I carry mine onto campus at the University all the time. We're talking about human rights here!
PX15
Member
FWIW:
I'm an old retired dude, and own my own property and home anyway, but when I was younger just like most other young folks there was a time when financial circumstances required my wife and I rent apartments and places to live.
Most of those places had clauses where you couldn't keep pets, although the mania against having guns had not surfaced yet.
My wife and I signed everyone of those lease agreements with a smile on our faces and our two mutts in the back seat of our car in the parking lot.
We had no intention of harming the apartments, (didn't care to lose the substantial damage deposit for one thing), and we wouldn't allow our pets to mess up anything either. IF we, or our pets, had somehow damaged something we would have paid to have it fixed, that's just the way it worked, then..
Additionally I always had a firearm, and IF the lease agreement had prohibited guns I would have still cheerfully signed the agreement, with my handgun(s) out of sight.
Common sense dictated that IF I ever had to use my firearms in self defense the last concern I would have would be the potential for my landlord to be po'ed, or he would have had me evicted.
The landlord put all sorts of stuff in the lease to cover his/her butt, I knew I would maintain his property in excellent condition, I would pay my rent on time, and be a good rented for him/her. I made the "judgement call" about what was in the lease that would affect me, and then signed or declined to sign based on MY best interest, not that of the landlord.
I prefer the old "tried by twelve vs carried by six" theory..
It's the same truth that honest folks don't steal, and crooks will sign, or say anything, and still steal....
Dissenting opinions cheerfully ignored.
JP
I'm an old retired dude, and own my own property and home anyway, but when I was younger just like most other young folks there was a time when financial circumstances required my wife and I rent apartments and places to live.
Most of those places had clauses where you couldn't keep pets, although the mania against having guns had not surfaced yet.
My wife and I signed everyone of those lease agreements with a smile on our faces and our two mutts in the back seat of our car in the parking lot.
We had no intention of harming the apartments, (didn't care to lose the substantial damage deposit for one thing), and we wouldn't allow our pets to mess up anything either. IF we, or our pets, had somehow damaged something we would have paid to have it fixed, that's just the way it worked, then..
Additionally I always had a firearm, and IF the lease agreement had prohibited guns I would have still cheerfully signed the agreement, with my handgun(s) out of sight.
Common sense dictated that IF I ever had to use my firearms in self defense the last concern I would have would be the potential for my landlord to be po'ed, or he would have had me evicted.
The landlord put all sorts of stuff in the lease to cover his/her butt, I knew I would maintain his property in excellent condition, I would pay my rent on time, and be a good rented for him/her. I made the "judgement call" about what was in the lease that would affect me, and then signed or declined to sign based on MY best interest, not that of the landlord.
I prefer the old "tried by twelve vs carried by six" theory..
It's the same truth that honest folks don't steal, and crooks will sign, or say anything, and still steal....
Dissenting opinions cheerfully ignored.
JP
jaholder1971
Member
Bottom Line: You're pro RKBA for yourself yet have no problems with others being denied theirs if you feel like writing it into their lease. Hypocrisy.
GuyWithQuestions
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 451
Just contact the California government itself!
nicki,
Just do what I did. I went to a .gov website that is the official page for concealed firearm permits for my state (Utah) which is under the Department of Public Safety. Then I emailed them saying that I found such and such code saying that anyone can possess a loaded firearm at their place of residence, even a temporary residence like a camp or hotel room, and that I found code somewhere else that a landlord cannot tell a tenant not to have firearms on the property (California laws may be different than Utah's, though). I got a response back saying that landlords cannot tell a tenant not to have firearms, and that the only way they can is if it's in the contract. Then after that, there's no criminal penalties to it, it's only a civil matter where the landlord has to go after you for violating a contract that you had made with them.
The .gov website for California firearms that I found at handgunlaw.us is http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/ It looks like it's under the Office of the Attorney General, instead of Public Safety, like my state's firearm .gov site is. I'd go to "Contact Us" and ask them (1) what are the laws if you're a tenant and want to have a firearm at your place of residence; (2) you heard that there's some things that a landlord is restricted from placing in a contract and if a no firearms policy is included in that, or not. That'll answer your questions much better than this thread will
nicki,
Just do what I did. I went to a .gov website that is the official page for concealed firearm permits for my state (Utah) which is under the Department of Public Safety. Then I emailed them saying that I found such and such code saying that anyone can possess a loaded firearm at their place of residence, even a temporary residence like a camp or hotel room, and that I found code somewhere else that a landlord cannot tell a tenant not to have firearms on the property (California laws may be different than Utah's, though). I got a response back saying that landlords cannot tell a tenant not to have firearms, and that the only way they can is if it's in the contract. Then after that, there's no criminal penalties to it, it's only a civil matter where the landlord has to go after you for violating a contract that you had made with them.
The .gov website for California firearms that I found at handgunlaw.us is http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/ It looks like it's under the Office of the Attorney General, instead of Public Safety, like my state's firearm .gov site is. I'd go to "Contact Us" and ask them (1) what are the laws if you're a tenant and want to have a firearm at your place of residence; (2) you heard that there's some things that a landlord is restricted from placing in a contract and if a no firearms policy is included in that, or not. That'll answer your questions much better than this thread will
alan
Member
Seems to me that I read somewhere the followiong.
That a contract that contains provisions that are violations of either the law or constitutional rights is null and void, otherwise unenforceable.
Of course, given that I'm not licensed to practice law, the foregoing is simply my opinion, supported by my recollection, which might be faulty.
That a contract that contains provisions that are violations of either the law or constitutional rights is null and void, otherwise unenforceable.
Of course, given that I'm not licensed to practice law, the foregoing is simply my opinion, supported by my recollection, which might be faulty.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
where'd you read it?
this was the part that guy with questions got that covers it
"if a landlord placed it in a contract the only way he can enforce it is through civil court for violation of contact" and thats how evictions are handled they are civil matters.
the law says you gotta give notice to evict someone yet when we wrote leases for sober houses we evficted hundreds of people with an hour or less notice and were backed up by the cops and courts. i did feel bad about the guy who i put out when it was 20 degrees and snowing. he whined and moaned on the porch for 2 hours till we called the cops. he shoulda thought about that clause in the lease before he smoked that rock
this was the part that guy with questions got that covers it
"if a landlord placed it in a contract the only way he can enforce it is through civil court for violation of contact" and thats how evictions are handled they are civil matters.
the law says you gotta give notice to evict someone yet when we wrote leases for sober houses we evficted hundreds of people with an hour or less notice and were backed up by the cops and courts. i did feel bad about the guy who i put out when it was 20 degrees and snowing. he whined and moaned on the porch for 2 hours till we called the cops. he shoulda thought about that clause in the lease before he smoked that rock
TwitchALot
Member
mekender said:
Let's suppose for a moment the Bill of Rights applies to individuals.
If anything, YOU are violating their right to be secure in their possessions. Namely, their residence (or property). Since when did you have a right to be in someone's home, business, or other private property?
The First Amendment allows you to peaceably assemble. Assume the Bill of Rights restricts the right of individuals (strange as it may be). Can I peaceably assemble in your home with my family when I want to?
I don't think the the government has any authority to force people to hire or rent based on race, religion, sex. That's the way it is, but that doesn't mean it's right, so that's a moot point.
Incorrect. YOU are the guest, and I am letting you live there- under MY terms. If you do not obey the terms of the contract, not only are you a liar (especially if you purposely decide beforehand you are not going to obey the terms of the contract), you are not a lawful occupant (you shouldn't be, anyway). If I stipulate you can live in my apartment if you follow my rules, and you do not follow those rules, you do not have my permission to live there. You are trespassing, among other things.
HK said:
Since incorporation, this has changed, and rightfully so.
har said:
I would have a problem with it. Which is why I would let the company know that they lost my business because of their policy and rent from their competition.
geek said:
You most certainly can waive your rights as a matter of contract, just as you can waive your right to a trial by jury. You cannot agree to sign away your next child into slavery because you have no right to do so, not because it is impossible to sign away rights. You do not have a right to someone else's life.
ArmedBear said:
So because it's the law, it's right? Limiting someone's rights because they choose to exercise it a certain way is a rather dangerous line of reasoning. No one should be forced to give up certain rights because he decides to use his property in a certain way.
GuyWithQuestions
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 451
Legally a landlord is not the boss, but a co-equal; tenant has to follow contract
If someone's renting/leasing property from a landlord, the landlord can't boss them around, because the lease contract is a two-way conditional agreement where the tenant says, "If I pay this certain amount of rent and abide by these terms and conditions, you'll lease this property to me for this certain amount of time and provide these certain services." The landlord can't make up rules that weren't in the contract. Also, legally, although the landlord still "owns the property", the landlord no longer "owns the use of the property". Leasing means that you transfer your ownership of "the use of the property" over to someone else, the tenant. It's not the landlord's place of residence. On my state's .gov website at utahcourts.gov, it says that as such, a landlord can't just go into the tenants rented space whenever the landlord wishes, because "After a landlord rents a property, he or she gives up the right to enter the property at any time." I've seen quite a few other sources say that if the landlord does, he/she can be prosecuted for trespassing on private property. My state's .gov website says that if the landlord is required to do maintenance, he/she has to provide at least 24 hour notice beforehand for non-emergencies. The tenant can also tell the landlord when it is not reasonable to come in, in these situations. However, it also says on the .gov website that both the tenant and landlord have a responsibility to abide by the terms of the lease agreement, and also says "Read and discuss your lease with the landlord before you sign it, because you must abide by all its provisions." When you read about what a contract is from other sources, a contract says what one party does is "conditional" upon what the other party does, a two-way conditional promise. If the contract says a certain amount of rent is needed, if the tenant doesn't pay, he can't just say, "Well this is my place of residence so I can do whatever I want, even if I didn't pay rent!" Rent is not the only thing that's in the two-way promise (contract), there's also certain terms and conditions that the tenant agreed to before hand, just like the landlord agreed to leasing and providing certain services that are in the contract beforehand. Both the tenant and landlord out of their own free will and choice agreed to the contract. If not, why did the tenant sign it? Why did the landlord hand the contract to the tenant if he didn't agree?
I don't understand why landlords say, "This is my property, so I can do whatever I want whenever I want"? I also don't understand why tenants say, "I can go against any term or condition in the lease agreement, because it's my place of residence"?
If someone's renting/leasing property from a landlord, the landlord can't boss them around, because the lease contract is a two-way conditional agreement where the tenant says, "If I pay this certain amount of rent and abide by these terms and conditions, you'll lease this property to me for this certain amount of time and provide these certain services." The landlord can't make up rules that weren't in the contract. Also, legally, although the landlord still "owns the property", the landlord no longer "owns the use of the property". Leasing means that you transfer your ownership of "the use of the property" over to someone else, the tenant. It's not the landlord's place of residence. On my state's .gov website at utahcourts.gov, it says that as such, a landlord can't just go into the tenants rented space whenever the landlord wishes, because "After a landlord rents a property, he or she gives up the right to enter the property at any time." I've seen quite a few other sources say that if the landlord does, he/she can be prosecuted for trespassing on private property. My state's .gov website says that if the landlord is required to do maintenance, he/she has to provide at least 24 hour notice beforehand for non-emergencies. The tenant can also tell the landlord when it is not reasonable to come in, in these situations. However, it also says on the .gov website that both the tenant and landlord have a responsibility to abide by the terms of the lease agreement, and also says "Read and discuss your lease with the landlord before you sign it, because you must abide by all its provisions." When you read about what a contract is from other sources, a contract says what one party does is "conditional" upon what the other party does, a two-way conditional promise. If the contract says a certain amount of rent is needed, if the tenant doesn't pay, he can't just say, "Well this is my place of residence so I can do whatever I want, even if I didn't pay rent!" Rent is not the only thing that's in the two-way promise (contract), there's also certain terms and conditions that the tenant agreed to before hand, just like the landlord agreed to leasing and providing certain services that are in the contract beforehand. Both the tenant and landlord out of their own free will and choice agreed to the contract. If not, why did the tenant sign it? Why did the landlord hand the contract to the tenant if he didn't agree?
I don't understand why landlords say, "This is my property, so I can do whatever I want whenever I want"? I also don't understand why tenants say, "I can go against any term or condition in the lease agreement, because it's my place of residence"?
alan
Member
My wife and I moved out of a rented apartment at the end of a lease. There were some "issues" about the place as we had left it, the owner claiming unspecified "damages", there were none.
She also claimed that the apartment stunk of cigar smoke. In those days I smoked a couple of large cigar every day. Even more interesting was the fact that when we first met the "landlord", to see the apartment, I was smoking a big black cigar. Never could understand why she was surprised at the smell of cigars indoors.
Additionally, her lawyer loudly announced that the small black cat we had had for many years, including the time we lived in this particular apartment, was a violation of our lease.
Interestingly, the original lease, which I had kept a copy of, clearly stated that the apartment would be occupied by two adults, and one small black cat named Midnite. I advised the landlord's lawyer that he had a liar for a client, and not a particularly smart one either, adding that I supposed it might be all right for the landlord to lie to a tenant, but lying to her lawyer was kind of dumb.
The landlord tried to retain a good part of our security deposit, in compensation for damage she claimed we had done. Pennsylvania law requires a specific listing of any damages claimed by the landlord, no such listing was provided, so we filed suit in Magistrates Court. We won, the landlord ending up paying our filing fees in addition to returning our security deposit.
We kept some firearms in the apartment, however there was never anything said about such things. Some tenants are problematic, but then so are some landlords.
She also claimed that the apartment stunk of cigar smoke. In those days I smoked a couple of large cigar every day. Even more interesting was the fact that when we first met the "landlord", to see the apartment, I was smoking a big black cigar. Never could understand why she was surprised at the smell of cigars indoors.
Additionally, her lawyer loudly announced that the small black cat we had had for many years, including the time we lived in this particular apartment, was a violation of our lease.
Interestingly, the original lease, which I had kept a copy of, clearly stated that the apartment would be occupied by two adults, and one small black cat named Midnite. I advised the landlord's lawyer that he had a liar for a client, and not a particularly smart one either, adding that I supposed it might be all right for the landlord to lie to a tenant, but lying to her lawyer was kind of dumb.
The landlord tried to retain a good part of our security deposit, in compensation for damage she claimed we had done. Pennsylvania law requires a specific listing of any damages claimed by the landlord, no such listing was provided, so we filed suit in Magistrates Court. We won, the landlord ending up paying our filing fees in addition to returning our security deposit.
We kept some firearms in the apartment, however there was never anything said about such things. Some tenants are problematic, but then so are some landlords.
- Status
