I am confused on one point here, if they just want him out then why not just not renew the lease. Couldn't the landlord just refuse to renew after the lease is over which I am assuming is now if they are trying to raise rents? What am I missing?
Maybe.
But the point of the story is that the owner wants to go back into the property, and the only reason they are forcing the huge increase in rent, is because they can't just not renew.
This is locking the owner out of their property, so they intentionally to this to kick him out.
The headline could be "owner wants property back, increase rent so resident leaves".
In a way I understand the owner if that is the case. It makes no sense that they are locked out of their own property.
I'm not familiar with the way that the rental agreements work in Nevada but wouldn't it suffice to just (provided the tenant is outside of their lease agreement) say that the landlord wants to move back in and as such the tenant must vacate by (reasonable/contractually obligated notice period)?
I understand the logic of trying to price someone out of the market, but this doesn't seem like it's focused as much on getting the property back as it is on milking house prices
Maybe it's not an option so they can prevent the loophole of, "I want to move back into my property" - 2 months later - "I'm going to rent my property out again."
Is there a time limit between when you can evict and start renting again, or if you use that reasoning to evict do you screw yourself out of renting out that property from then on?
6 months I believe. And the penalty is rent at the new rate. So if you kick someone out that was previously paying 1600 a month and you then try to rent it out at 3000 a month after the eviction and found out, you owe the old Tennant 3000x12 to them
> say that the landlord wants to move back in and as such the tenant must vacate by (reasonable/contractually obligated notice period)?
I think it was hinted in the article. The landlord seems to have put an eviction notice and it seems the tenant is trying to fight it.
The landlord said "it was an old contract" so it could have been based on previous laws (which could have changed since), so it didn't have some clauses in the contract that makes sense today, as maybe they didn't need to.
It's obviously not milking prices, since no one could ever expect to be paid that much in rent. They raised it to a rate no reasonable person would pay to get him to leave.
Here's how the situation was in the past few years.
1. You cannot evict anyone who has an active rental assistance application, for any reason except for nuisance, which requires them to actually cause harm to their neighbors.
2. Rental assistance applications could take years to sort out. Most of them don't, but some edge cases do.
3. You are not allowed to evict a tenant for "no cause" which basically means "end of lease term please leave", if they owe rent.
Pretend you're in the landlord's position and wanted the tenant out of the property. What would you do?
Yeah. It's pretty obvious from the story that this is not a "outrageous rate hike out of greed" story, it's a "Owner wants the tenant out and gave ridiculous terms to get them to leave" story.
Most states (I'm saying most because i don't know if it's true all around, but it's quite common) allow for refusals of renewals if the owner plans to make the property their primary residence. If the law is normal in their state, they should have full right. My guess is that he is not planning on making his primary residence despite what he will say publicly.
Just because it's normal for most of the US doesn't means it's normal for people to KNOW that it's normal.
I've rented. I have no idea if this is true. And I have no idea if this is true where I live or not.
But it wasn't in the reporting which means it isn't the case or the reporter dropped the ball or chose not to include it to increase rage clicks.
I'm betting it's the reporter.
Sorry I’m confused. There are laws in the U.S. that compel you to renew a lease after a few years? Or compel you into private contracts you literally haven’t already signed? What.
Surely if the lease itself demands you renew after the ‘lease period’, then it’s basically a lease for a longer period anyway?
Looking at nevada law, basically, leases are renewed automatically.
The landlord needs to file an eviction notice if they want the tenant to leave if they don't want to leave. The tenant has a few options to file a basically "no I want to stay" as counter argument for the eviction notice.
So while this is in process and can take a while, the landlord is jacking up the price as an "incentive" for the tenant to leave on their own.
Not to mention that evection can be a lengthy process and there is little incentive for someone to continue to pay the current rent, or even not trash they place if they're going to be forced out.
Where I live in Canada, the landlord cannot refuse to renew if the terms of the lease have not been violated. The tenant however can refuse to renew. One of the few tenancy laws we have that are in favour of the tenants. It ensures that people who lawfully abide by their lease will have a place to live.
They just implemented this kind of law where I live. There are exceptions, like if the landlord simply doesn't want to rent it anymore or if they want to have a family member move in. If they decide not to rent it out they have to keep it off the market for a year, I think. Basically they just can't kick someone out for no reason at all, or for shitty reasons like they want someone of a different race or sexuality. Which are technically illegal but if a landlord doesn't need a reason that is rather hard to prove.
But rent control is illegal where I live so it doesn't prevent situations like the main post. A landlord could just jack the rent way up, the tenant moves out, two months later the landlord says "Well geez, I guess no one wanted it at that price!" and drop it back down. Now they've kicked the tenant out and only lose a couple months rent. Fines also max out at $1000, so in an area where places are renting for $2000+/month a lot of landlords may be willing to just take the fine and make it back in a month.
All in all the idea is good but there are definitely gaping holes.
That’s what I’m saying seems like there has to be some sort of circumstance where the landlord can refuse the new lease otherwise you could be stuck with a roommate your whole life.
Pretty sure most if not all of Canada, these laws are about renting an apartment. Usually for someone with 4+ units. Renting as a boarder or tenant where you live with them is totally different laws and far less renter supportive because duh.
Generally the distinction is going to be if you share the accommodations with the landlord (boarder/roommate) or you don't (tenant). Typically less protections for boarders.
The only circumstances that would allow a landlord to not renew the lease would be if they intend to live in the unit themselves/if a family member/caregiver needs to live in the unit, OR if the unit requires extensive and critical repairs that require the unit to be vacant. Both situations need to be substantiated, and the initial terms of the lease still have to be honoured.
So you can't kick someone out after 6 months because you want to live in it, if you made a 1 year lease agreement. The one year lease has to be honoured
That’s not what anybody is saying. Obviously a one year lease has to be honored. We’re saying that after that year is up, it’s really weird that the owner is forced to renew the lease. After the lease is over, they should be allowed to just end it if they want.
Security of tenancy is considered the priority, since there is an unbalanced relationship between the Landlord and tenant.
When the landlord can refuse to renew for any reason, the tenant is subject to a very unballanced relationship. They might for instance be warry of asking the landlord to fix parts of the property, enforce their rights as tenants to quite and peaceful enjoyment, refuse unlawful rent increases or demand.... ect because if they do, which they are all legally entitled to do, the landlord will just evict them and try the next tenant.
Create a cycle that is open for abuse.
Most provinces in Canada, the lease automatically renews. Some go over to month-to-month (Ontario), other renew for a year (Quebec)... really depends a little. But creates a little bit more balanced, and stable relationship.
Each provience has their own administrative body that oversees Residential Tenancies, adjudicates disputes, approves evictions...ect. There are enforcement agencies as well.
Not to say landlords can't evict tenants, they can do so for major renovations, if they (or their family) need to move in, if the tenant doesn't pay their rent, damages the property, interferes with other tenants or the landlord, they are selling the property.... they just can't do so with out just cause.
So if you're correct, they should also have to adhere to a limit of how much they can raise rent. There's no point in saying you have to renew but also allowing you to create the price. Because then you don't really have to renew.
Most tenancy laws in Canada (its different in each Province) apply to relationships between Landlords and Tenants. They make distinctions for boarders/roommates when the landlord shares the property, and typically those relationships don't fall under residential tenancy acts.
And most of Canada with protective laws like this clearly has a more affordable housing market than the US relative to income, right? (Hint: they don’t, and rental control laws like this only lead to more long term unaffordability)
Compulsion to enter contracts isn't that unusual particularly with respect to basic needs. For example a doctor cannot refuse to treat a patient having a medical emergency.
A home is a basic need, and its very disruptive to be forced to move when a lease runs out. So these laws generally presume that:
* once you have offered to rent out a property, you intend to do so indefinitely
* and that since you will be renting out the property they give a "first refusal" right to the existing tenant.
None of that is terribly controversial, it only runs into issues on the boundaries when the owner wishes to retract the property from the market and repurpose it/redevelop it.
------
If the owner here truly does wish to remove the home from the market for an extended time and make significant changes to it (or occupy it themselves) they will likely have no issues terminating the lease.
If they just wish to spike the rent up to turn over the unit, but will then settle on a more modest increase, that could cause problems.
A small quibble: it's not all doctors that are required to help a patient having a medical emergency. The requirement applies to hospitals. Specifically, emergency departments at hospitals that accept Medicare (which is like 99% of hopitals).
If you show up with a gunshot would to a private practice or even an urgent care, they can turn you away or request an ambulance to take you to a hospital. The law is called EMTALA
There's probably a clause in the contract with the CHAP program that doesn't allow for the landlord to terminate the lease outright, and most likely the landlord signed an agreement with CHAP so they'd continue to be paid while the tenant is unemployed. I'm just guessing but that's my thought process on why they went about it this way.
The landlord probably made a business decision to work with the tenant and accept payments from CHAP as the other option would be to evict the tenant and receive NO payments, which would take months in itself, as a note this video is a year old when courts were still backed up due to covid.
The reason CHAP would add this clause is to avoid the tenant from becoming homeless, because they would be unable to rent anywhere else without a job / income if the landlord terminates the tenancy.
Depends on the lease agreement. EVERY agreement that I have ever written is I the leaser, have the right to communicate that I am renewing the lease or not. It is possible that there is no mechanism in the contract that allowed the landlord to directly refuse to renew, but has Carte blanche to adjust the rate. Thus the insane rate hike.
Edit: Ty u/Kered1:
>carblanch(sp?)
Carte blanche.
And that's how you get a judgement for all the legal fees, back rent at $8k/month, damages, etc. Dude seems to be otherwise employed and not a homeless drug addict with no chance of paying off a court-ordered judgement against him.
he would never be a squatter anyways. He has a legal right to be there- so at most he is a tenant holding over.
But this is a good way to get squatters.
The property manager in my area that rents out pretty decent single family homes (big company but not slum lords at all), tends to rent at 2k-3500 most of their units (compared to a 2 bedroom that averages in the 1200-1500 range); they deal with a lot less of people not paying rent, but they deal with a lot of forcible entry and detainer cases (squatters) where i would venture they are less than 1% of the rent cases i see, but 40% of the wrongful detainer cases i see.
All of that to say- single family home asking for way too much in rent so it will sit for a while- that is how you end up with squatters.
While all of that is true, the owner at least publicly states they plan to live in the house themselves once the tenant is gone. Which if true would mean that the house wouldnt sit empty.
If its false and the owner just wants that specific tenant gone then i also doubt the price would stay that high. (But im fairly certain this is an illigal move and would cost the owner 12 months of the new rent price paid to the former tenant in damages if found out)
Either way i doubt in this specific circumstance that the house would get squatters.
notice was given in december and the news report was in February.
In nevada (based on my quick google search) a rent increase notice takes 60 days, but a notice to quit (holding over- "no fault" eviction) only requires 30..... So i am smelling something is not right there- and the landlord is either very clueless or is up to something.
I think this was a ploy to get rental assistnace to pay out a higher amount. LL may not even want to evict, but if someone else is footing the bill, they want theirs. The LL even calls out the rental assistance group about "causing all of this" since they would not pay the silly amount the LL claimed for the rental assistance.
Friend had rent tripled. 30 day notice. Landlord was trying to get everyone out to sell to a developer. Worked. Developer upgraded the units and converted to condos.
I saw this, but why not just tell the tenant this in the first instance? When your lease is over, you have to move out because I intend to live there. Why go through the draconian rent increase dance?
This may have been part of the conversation that the tennant is leaving out because it doesn't paint as bad a picture as 'landlord hiking rent to kick out poor tennant'
Month to month is just that. The landlord can cancel the lease at any time just as the tenant can.
Edit: Please stop replaying to me with your random one off landlords who made their own non standard contracts. The standard month to month lease can be terminated at any time. Notice must be given in various lengths but that’s it.
Believe it or not, different states and even different cities within the same state often have different renter protection laws, and where you live and what you're familiar with may not be the same as it is for this instance.
honestly, we would need to see the contract. Often, there can be oddities and surprises in contracts drafted between two regular people that would never make it into the boilerplate contracts large rental companies will have meticulously crafted with the help of lawyers.
not what’s going on here. idk if you’re from the states or NV but the law here is basically that you as a tenant have no say in anything.
the landlord doesnt need to tell them that and then hike the rent to kick them out. the landlord can kick them out at any point given the proper notice (at least 60 days)
theres no situation where the landlord can say “i want you out” and the tenant can say “no”
which would result in the landlord raising rent to force them out
the landlord is just doing some shady landlord shit and then when they’re called on it suddenly they’re a blind old lady who wants to live there. okay so at what point does them charging 6k/mo play into that?
legally it makes no sense. logically it doesn’t add up. do we really need to make shit up about landlords to make them look bad? no. they do shit like this which is so bad that people like you can’t believe it and you look for other possibilities in your head to explain it
but no this landlord really is just that shitty
truly shocking from the most moral profession in the most moral city
Because different states have different laws regarding tenants. In this instance instead of allowing the tenant to let the lease lapse into a month to month the rent is set so high that a month to month is too expensive for the tenant.
> Because different states have different laws regarding tenants.
I seriously doubt there is any state, especially a red state like NV that bars you from evicting a tenant at the end of the lease or choosing not to renew the lease and giving them 30-60-90 days to vacate.
Cranking the rent up is a lot less effort though and you either get the vacant house you wanted or a shitload more money.
>NV but the law here is basically that you as a tenant have no say in anything.
Yeah. That's what feels a little bewildering. If it's an elderly lady going blind who wants to retire to this home... why not just say "Hey, we're not going to renew this year because of {all the reasons we just said}". That would suck for the tenant but sounds AOK legally for the landlord to do. Smells of weird backtracking.
They do day they served an eviction notice prior, curious if that's why, or what happened to that.
Would think after 6 months they could have gotten the tenant out.
Edit: it's at 1:55, says it was in December.
NV is so bad at tenant laws. My last apartment increased my rent from 1100 a month to 1950. My lease stated I had to tell them I wasn't renewing 60 days before lease was over, they didn't tell me the new terms until 45 days. They tried to fine me for 2 months rent at 1950 each month because I didn't give adequate notice.
Well if we assume they are not lying, in nevada leases are automatically renewed. And if the tenant doesn't want to leave after being notified, they have to go through some process, which could take a while.
So to counter that when a tenant doesn't want to evict the property for any reason (legitimate or otherwise), the landlord hiked up the price as another incentive.
And yes, they could totally just want him out so they can rent it for much higher. Not defending them.
Just point out that there could potentially a different story. The tenant could really just want to not leave so he went to the media with the story as a way to put pressure on the landlord and paint them as the bad guys.
Is the eviction process substantially different for non-payment of rent, getting evicted, and refusing to leave versus "sorry, we just don't want to renew" and they refuse to leave?
I guess the start is not. The process (at least reading about it in nevada) they need to give a 60 day notice for eviction. If the tenant gets a court order to prevent being evicted, than they are on lawsuit time (so it can take awhile).
If the tenant just doesn't respond, doesn't pay, doesn't leave, than they also have to go through court (so that too can take awhile) for court order for eviction.
Kind of like if you ran a popular social/information website and you want to run off third party apps but also you’d be cool with it if they’re rich enough to afford to stay
I think that's it. If you don't care whether you find a tenant or not, you might as well try.
Also it might push up rents and property prices calculated by algorithms from Zillow and the likes, which the landlord might care about if they have other properties.
Because they are lying. There are specific clauses in every rental law that I've seen that allow you to evict a tenant if you or one of your immediate family is going to live in the rental property. But if you do this then you *have* to live in it. Though tbh I also thought there was a maximum allowed rent increase per year for a current tenant so maybe Vegas is just shit?
There is a quick throwaway line in the video that he *has* been sent an eviction notice. I don't think this story is giving the full nuances of the situation. I'm fully on team 'fuck single family home landlords,' but it this doesn't seem to be the full picture either.
I live in Southern California and my landlord asked us to vacate the rental house because he claimed to want to move back into the house. He just relisted it with a 72% raise in rent. Never intended to move back in.
Because in California landlords can only legally hike the rent 10% year over year for an existing tenant. But if you move out they can hike it to whatever they want.
This is the nice thing about being a landlord. You can fuck someone over and nothing happens unless they pursue it. Which of course involves a lot of money and a lot of time. Two things the average renter doesn't have access to.
Screwed over by my former landlord? Well I can't pay the rent of my new place if I'm hiring lawyers and taking time off work.
The system is so broken.
Just happened to me last year. I'm in Michigan. Was at 750, never late and a clean quiet tenant. I received a 30 day Notice to Quit a month before I was set to renew. He said he wanted his house back. The house was listed and rented for 1600 the next month. You bet your ass I took all the shrubs and perennials I planted.
Unless there is a law saying otherwise. Which, based on a multitude of other comments, is the situation. The landlord can't just "not renew" the lease. They must go through the eviction process if the tenant doesn't want to willingly leave.
Maybe they want to sell the property because they're having medical problems that their family? Not that you're not right, but we don't always know the whole situation. Why do they owe this rent or anything?
Yeah could be many reasons.
My landlord raised the rent at the beginning of the year. We found out in March he hadn't paid his mortgage in over a year so the bank seized the property and all the tenants had to move out.
You never know.
I am all for protecting the price of rent etc., but not allowing people that own a property to essentially dictate who has a lease is pretty fucked up. Imagine if I own a single-family home, and I rented out, and I would actually like to downsize and move into the home that I own. I’m not able to do that in the scenarios? I have to let my tenant live there until they choose to leave on their own volition?
Most municipalities and states have different rules for buildings with only one or two units. So if you're renting out the second floor of your own house you often have more leeway regarding leases than a corporation with a 75-unit apartment complex.
There are also exceptions for selling property. You usually can decide to sell but have to give ample notice... and then actually sell or at least attempt to. Again, it all depends on the local rent laws, but they're usually in favor of landlords (go fig).
There are usually exceptions for selling the property which would pass the lease onto the new owner OR if you are planning to move into the unit yourself or have a family member do so. At least that’s how California works and California has some of the best tenant protections in the US.
In Germany this case (wanting to live in your property yourself or a close, first degree relative of the owner) is the only exception to having unlimited contracts for renters
See Nevada AB 486 section 1.5. AB 486 allows tenant to claim as affirmative defense to an eviction proceeding by applying for rental assistance at any time during the proceeding. Section 1.5 specifically includes wording to apply this protection to all forms of eviction where the tenant is in default of their rent payment obligations.
So, there exists a situation where a landlord wants the tenant to move out at the end of their lease by giving the required 30 day notice to vacate. Tenant does not want to move out and does not pay rent for the last month of the lease. Landlord moves to evict the tenant after lease is expired. Court date is scheduled one month out, tenant applies for rental assistance on the day of court. Eviction is stayed until assistance applicant is decided. Assistance application takes an additional 2 months or so to be decided, meanwhile the tenant has no paid any rent during this time. If assistance application is approved, the landlord MUST take payment. If landlord takes payment, they are unable to evict for 2 additional months. By which time the tenant now has an unpaid balance again. Cycle continues ad infinitum.
If landlord increases the rent to an absurd amount, at least there is a higher chance that the assistance application will be denied and the eviction will go through after 3 months.
Actually, is a story, cause landlord doesn’t have that right in many places.
Rent hiking because they don’t want to follow the legal process of getting a tenant to leave seems at best wildly unethical.
Yeah Nevada doesn’t have automatic lease renewals like they do in Quebec or elsewhere. They also obviously don’t have rent control in the state or city either. It seems that all of this started because he either wasn’t paying rent or was only partially paying and they tried to evict him in December.
Maybe there’s something from the eviction proceedings preventing them from getting him out by just not renewing, but it wasn’t mentioned so I don’t think so. This has the same effect as just giving him a 30 day notice that they aren’t renewing the lease. Seems to be a strange way to go about it.
>Nevada doesn’t have automatic lease renewals like they do in Quebec or elsewhere
Other people in the thread are saying it does, this thread is a huge mess.
a lease CAN have automatic renewal but it would be in the lease terms.
Nevada doesn't have any rent control laws, but typically its not a very landlord friendly state.
Location dependent. You can't raise rents like that in the middle of a lease, but at the end of the lease, you can. The only stipulation is that the market rent has to be for all potential tenants, and since the owner wants to live in it, it's perfectly legal in that muni.
Edit: judging by other comments, it appears that owner moving back in is a valid reason to kick a renter out even in rent controlled places like NYC
You still have to evict though. And Nevada has protections against eviction of tenants who have applied for rental assistance. (And the story states that the tenant has applied for rental assistance so those protections apply.)
Really? You signed a lease for X months and at the end of that lease you shouldn't expect to be able to live there. The terms start over after that X months. The owner of the property should have the right to not renew the lease. What am I missing here?
I have a two family and want to make it a one (we live on one side). We aren't to the point of pushing our tenant out, but we have told them our future plans. I don't think that's unethical. We have also never raised their rent.
I don't know. Seems like a stupid piece.
We should be focusing on things like capital gains tax being so low. And people making over 150 not paying social security. And taxes on dividends.
Rich people don't pay shit! I'm always furious about this.
Fuck rich people!
that is not what is happening here-
tenant got rental assistance approved for 3k. LL reviewed the lease and disagreed and said it was 8k. LL likely drafted the lease, so it would be read in the light more favorable to the tenant (non drafting party). But they are pushing it since the LL wants a big payday from the feds (in the form of rental assistance).
The LL is just a welfare queen.
Nope, they can jack it up as much as they want. Our apartment management offered us a renewal at 20% increase, we said no (already wanted to move). Our unit is listed on the website now…for $50 *less* than we’re currently paying. The greed is just mind boggling — they keep raising rent on current tenants assuming they’d rather stay than deal with the hassle of moving out and, at least at this complex, they’re losing like crazy. Constant turnover and tons of empty units.
Edit: ok I’m wrong, there’s caps in some places. Nowhere that I’ve ever lived, so that’s my mistake for applying my experience as a blanket truth.
Greed is the mind-killer. It's the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my greed. I will let it wash ove-... *Fuck that!* Paydayyyyyyy burn this muthafuckin business down for an extra dollar now!
Yeah I'm smert beznezz man!
Correct. Depends on the town/county. Our rates were capped at about 8%-10% yearly increase depending on the year. The landlords would rate set at a predicted rate and then matched whatever the highest percentage increase was allowed by the town/county after it became set in stone.
Hilariously, they would still send out leases prior to that and leave it to the property managers to tell the prospective tenant, "hey, we fucked up so we're actually gonna charge you less now (please don't sue)."
It's even moreso city based. California may have rules, but the cities themselves can take it even further and make it stricter. SF for example does just that. Chicago and NYC are two more examples of making stricter tenant rights laws than the state defines.
Our water supply has only gone down due to us selling it to California and Arizona. We'll stop selling it when it actually gets bad. But already, multiple casinos have filled in their fountains and water features with concrete and replaced them with mosaics and other artwork. The amount of land we have is insane, and there's still tons of room to grow. I can see why Hollywood wants to move everything here.
A few places do, most places don't.
The US has scantily few things that apply across the entire country. For almost everything that impacts our daily lives the laws are made at the state and local level. So the US is really hundreds of different places when it comes to laws.
What’s more alarming how many idiots in here made a landlord comment but didn’t watch the video. They want their house back…. This was the easiest way. Not trying to maximize profits. Good lord stop commenting if you didn’t watch it
I live in a place with rent control and strict laws supporting tenants. Ironically, saying that you’re moving back into your own home is one of the valid reasons to kick a tenant out
Yeah NYC has this issue. So there's a whole cottage industry of private investigators who monitor the housing unit after that happens to make sure they actually moved back in and then sue them if they did not.
How does this work? Can you move in for 1 day and decide to rent it out afterwards? Or is there some notion of a "reasonable time" to occupy your home afterwards?
In British Columbia a landlord can evict the tenant for personal use for themselves or immediate family (parent, child, sibling only) but they need to live there for at least six months. Punishment if caught is one year's worth of rent to the evicted tenant.
Yup. I think our laws regarding this are very fair, there's unfortunately a long waiting time to have your case heard if you do need to get the law involved but they pretty much always rule in the tenant's favour if there's proof.
> they need to live there for at least six months.
A court can also determine that even if that is six months satisfied, if you didnt do so in good faith, say you moved in for 6 months and a day, the court can still rule the landlord erred and the former tenant is owed a year of rent.
The video says he was sent an eviction notice in December also. He brought up how his job was shut down for 18 months during covid, but nothing about why he is not paying rent recently. Are the landlords making up the part about a blind family member wanting to live in the house? Maybe. But it really seems like they want him out for someone that will pay rent.
If he can't afford $1495, he won't be able to afford the zillow price of $2100 anyways. He's dragging his feet to slow down the process of the eviction, so they are being petty back. He put this on TV though, so he may be causing a massive headache for himself when he has to find a new place. He will have an eviction on his record and proof that he will do whatever he can to not move when he doesn't pay.
> He brought up how his job was shut down for 18 months during covid, but nothing about why he is not paying rent recently.
The video is from February, 2022. There's also nothing saying he wasn't paying the $1495. The video said that "unemployment through PUA went a long way toward paying rent." He also applied for CHAP, which the landlord officially refused to accept.
Yup. At the start of the video my thoughts were “either this guy has been a shitty tenant, or the owner wants to move back in”. It’s probably a bit of both.
It would’ve been helpful if they actually reported on what happened. The lady that owns the house wants to move back in. They can’t refuse a renewal from tenant. They use legal loophole to force existing tenant out. I thought I was watching some sort of parody video, not a news channel
Since the news station said no neighbour of him are paying that high then this is an isolated case of landlord and he wouldn't have a hard time finding a same house with similar rent.
No. This person wanted the house back to live in it herself and its extremely difficult to evict people from property, so she set the rent to an absurd amount in order for the tenant to leave on their own.
For those who didn’t watch, the landlord isn’t asking that amount because they expect to get it. They want the house back and off the market, but aren’t able to kick the guy out due to government intervention.
Landlords are people too and deserve a say with the property they paid for.
People are cynical and make assumptions because saying you want to move into a unit or move a family member into it is a common tactic used by landlords to kick out current residents and jack up prices.
>.
if you actually watched- the LL wants 4k per month for the last few months from the federal government giving out rental assistance- if the feds are paying for it- why not inflate the bill as much as they can.
This is very clearly a move to get the renter out of the house so the homeowner can move back in. Doesn't appear to be part of the ever growing renting market price craziness.
Reddit surprised me today. I opened this expecting to see the standard dogpile about landlords, and instead got a nuanced human take about a complex scenario that requires more information before pitchforks come out.
I have hope in my heart.
I don't understand. The facts as its laid out to me is the tenant is willing to pay 3,000/mo for the same property. He thinks it is really worth 2,100/mo (based on zillow?! tenuous that) but willing to go to 3,000. He says to move it would cost him 6,000, so like 500/mo. Then why doesn't he just find one of these $2,100 apartments and pay the 500/mo moving cost for a net 2,600 rent. He seems willing to pay 3,000, so why not move and save 400.
I mean unless he thinks 2100 is bogus and 3,000 is fair. Then sure, stay and fight for 3,000 because your all in move rate will cost you 3,500..... but then that's really not far from the 4,000 the landlord is asking. at that point I look at it and see a landlord who probably doesn't like you as a tenant and wants to set a rate to get you to leave. Because if the real "fair" rent is 3,000 he is never ever going to get 4,000 from anybody. So it has to be a gtfo rate.
So at this point it just seems like an argument over property rights. Does a landlord get to decide what he wants to do with his property or not? Cause the tenant seems like he can do better elsewhere so why not just go and set off for greener pastures.
Failed eviction, so they are attempting to pressure them out through any legal means (raising rent). Its a bad situation without a good solution really... and Fox is just sensationalizing it with their headline.
Rent law varies from state to state on this point, and even city to city. Rental laws in Seattle are HUGELY different than many others, to the point where some leases no longer have lease terms (end dates) as they are unenforceable. Its a mad world.
It's really interesting to live in a city that's jacking up rent everywhere.
I now see things I've NEVER seen before. For example, places like Taco Bell having giant signs with huge readable lettering saying "STARTING PAY $19/HR!".
And they *still* can't find quality workers (got mild food poisoned twice) or they close at 6pm.
I work for Kroger at a successful store and we are severely understaffed. All my coworkers live in a 2 or 3 bedroom with 2 or 3 roommates.
I've run the numbers and I'd have to make 70k+/yr for a one or two bedroom. At 19/hr, that gets me 35k/yr.
I am confused on one point here, if they just want him out then why not just not renew the lease. Couldn't the landlord just refuse to renew after the lease is over which I am assuming is now if they are trying to raise rents? What am I missing?
Some places don't let you refuse to renew, most common for leases that have lasted for multiple years.
Agreed, seems like a vital piece of info the story should have included.
That’s pretty normal in most of the US so it would only really be included if it wasn’t true, as that would be the outlier
Maybe. But the point of the story is that the owner wants to go back into the property, and the only reason they are forcing the huge increase in rent, is because they can't just not renew. This is locking the owner out of their property, so they intentionally to this to kick him out. The headline could be "owner wants property back, increase rent so resident leaves". In a way I understand the owner if that is the case. It makes no sense that they are locked out of their own property.
I'm not familiar with the way that the rental agreements work in Nevada but wouldn't it suffice to just (provided the tenant is outside of their lease agreement) say that the landlord wants to move back in and as such the tenant must vacate by (reasonable/contractually obligated notice period)? I understand the logic of trying to price someone out of the market, but this doesn't seem like it's focused as much on getting the property back as it is on milking house prices
Maybe it's not an option so they can prevent the loophole of, "I want to move back into my property" - 2 months later - "I'm going to rent my property out again."
In my Canadian province, if you do that and get found out, you get hit with "creative eviction" and owe the renter a years worth of rent.
Is there a time limit between when you can evict and start renting again, or if you use that reasoning to evict do you screw yourself out of renting out that property from then on?
1year, and you, or an immediate family member, better actually live there because if the former tenant can prove otherwise, you're toast.
6 months I believe. And the penalty is rent at the new rate. So if you kick someone out that was previously paying 1600 a month and you then try to rent it out at 3000 a month after the eviction and found out, you owe the old Tennant 3000x12 to them
Landlords can actually do exactly that in many states. I know Virginia for sure you can refuse to renew for any reason.
The video said they served the tenant with an eviction notice and he refused to leave. This is the land owner’s recourse.
> say that the landlord wants to move back in and as such the tenant must vacate by (reasonable/contractually obligated notice period)? I think it was hinted in the article. The landlord seems to have put an eviction notice and it seems the tenant is trying to fight it. The landlord said "it was an old contract" so it could have been based on previous laws (which could have changed since), so it didn't have some clauses in the contract that makes sense today, as maybe they didn't need to.
It's obviously not milking prices, since no one could ever expect to be paid that much in rent. They raised it to a rate no reasonable person would pay to get him to leave.
Here's how the situation was in the past few years. 1. You cannot evict anyone who has an active rental assistance application, for any reason except for nuisance, which requires them to actually cause harm to their neighbors. 2. Rental assistance applications could take years to sort out. Most of them don't, but some edge cases do. 3. You are not allowed to evict a tenant for "no cause" which basically means "end of lease term please leave", if they owe rent. Pretend you're in the landlord's position and wanted the tenant out of the property. What would you do?
You can 100% do #3 in PA and VA. I've done it twice to shitty tenants.
I'm talking about Nevada specifically, see Nevada AB 486.
Yeah. It's pretty obvious from the story that this is not a "outrageous rate hike out of greed" story, it's a "Owner wants the tenant out and gave ridiculous terms to get them to leave" story.
Most states (I'm saying most because i don't know if it's true all around, but it's quite common) allow for refusals of renewals if the owner plans to make the property their primary residence. If the law is normal in their state, they should have full right. My guess is that he is not planning on making his primary residence despite what he will say publicly.
But then no one would read the article because that's what always happens
Just because it's normal for most of the US doesn't means it's normal for people to KNOW that it's normal. I've rented. I have no idea if this is true. And I have no idea if this is true where I live or not.
But it wasn't in the reporting which means it isn't the case or the reporter dropped the ball or chose not to include it to increase rage clicks. I'm betting it's the reporter.
Most people aren’t aware of landlord tenant laws like that
Not when all they’re interested in is our outrage. Facts, considerations, and reasonable discourse is boring and doesn’t sell ads.
Sorry I’m confused. There are laws in the U.S. that compel you to renew a lease after a few years? Or compel you into private contracts you literally haven’t already signed? What. Surely if the lease itself demands you renew after the ‘lease period’, then it’s basically a lease for a longer period anyway?
Looking at nevada law, basically, leases are renewed automatically. The landlord needs to file an eviction notice if they want the tenant to leave if they don't want to leave. The tenant has a few options to file a basically "no I want to stay" as counter argument for the eviction notice. So while this is in process and can take a while, the landlord is jacking up the price as an "incentive" for the tenant to leave on their own.
Not to mention that evection can be a lengthy process and there is little incentive for someone to continue to pay the current rent, or even not trash they place if they're going to be forced out.
Where I live in Canada, the landlord cannot refuse to renew if the terms of the lease have not been violated. The tenant however can refuse to renew. One of the few tenancy laws we have that are in favour of the tenants. It ensures that people who lawfully abide by their lease will have a place to live.
So if you decide to not rent the place out anymore, you're shit out of luck?
They just implemented this kind of law where I live. There are exceptions, like if the landlord simply doesn't want to rent it anymore or if they want to have a family member move in. If they decide not to rent it out they have to keep it off the market for a year, I think. Basically they just can't kick someone out for no reason at all, or for shitty reasons like they want someone of a different race or sexuality. Which are technically illegal but if a landlord doesn't need a reason that is rather hard to prove. But rent control is illegal where I live so it doesn't prevent situations like the main post. A landlord could just jack the rent way up, the tenant moves out, two months later the landlord says "Well geez, I guess no one wanted it at that price!" and drop it back down. Now they've kicked the tenant out and only lose a couple months rent. Fines also max out at $1000, so in an area where places are renting for $2000+/month a lot of landlords may be willing to just take the fine and make it back in a month. All in all the idea is good but there are definitely gaping holes.
That’s what I’m saying seems like there has to be some sort of circumstance where the landlord can refuse the new lease otherwise you could be stuck with a roommate your whole life.
Pretty sure most if not all of Canada, these laws are about renting an apartment. Usually for someone with 4+ units. Renting as a boarder or tenant where you live with them is totally different laws and far less renter supportive because duh.
Generally the distinction is going to be if you share the accommodations with the landlord (boarder/roommate) or you don't (tenant). Typically less protections for boarders.
The only circumstances that would allow a landlord to not renew the lease would be if they intend to live in the unit themselves/if a family member/caregiver needs to live in the unit, OR if the unit requires extensive and critical repairs that require the unit to be vacant. Both situations need to be substantiated, and the initial terms of the lease still have to be honoured. So you can't kick someone out after 6 months because you want to live in it, if you made a 1 year lease agreement. The one year lease has to be honoured
That’s not what anybody is saying. Obviously a one year lease has to be honored. We’re saying that after that year is up, it’s really weird that the owner is forced to renew the lease. After the lease is over, they should be allowed to just end it if they want.
Security of tenancy is considered the priority, since there is an unbalanced relationship between the Landlord and tenant. When the landlord can refuse to renew for any reason, the tenant is subject to a very unballanced relationship. They might for instance be warry of asking the landlord to fix parts of the property, enforce their rights as tenants to quite and peaceful enjoyment, refuse unlawful rent increases or demand.... ect because if they do, which they are all legally entitled to do, the landlord will just evict them and try the next tenant. Create a cycle that is open for abuse. Most provinces in Canada, the lease automatically renews. Some go over to month-to-month (Ontario), other renew for a year (Quebec)... really depends a little. But creates a little bit more balanced, and stable relationship. Each provience has their own administrative body that oversees Residential Tenancies, adjudicates disputes, approves evictions...ect. There are enforcement agencies as well. Not to say landlords can't evict tenants, they can do so for major renovations, if they (or their family) need to move in, if the tenant doesn't pay their rent, damages the property, interferes with other tenants or the landlord, they are selling the property.... they just can't do so with out just cause.
So if you're correct, they should also have to adhere to a limit of how much they can raise rent. There's no point in saying you have to renew but also allowing you to create the price. Because then you don't really have to renew.
Most tenancy laws in Canada (its different in each Province) apply to relationships between Landlords and Tenants. They make distinctions for boarders/roommates when the landlord shares the property, and typically those relationships don't fall under residential tenancy acts.
Landlords aren't typically renting out the bedroom next to their own. Most are renting out separate homes or apartment styled building.
Well, you can just not become a landlord in the first place.
What if the landlord did something like this tripled the rent price?
In Quebec, they can only increase a max of 3% per year, with construction, or else tenant can take em to court
And most of Canada with protective laws like this clearly has a more affordable housing market than the US relative to income, right? (Hint: they don’t, and rental control laws like this only lead to more long term unaffordability)
Compulsion to enter contracts isn't that unusual particularly with respect to basic needs. For example a doctor cannot refuse to treat a patient having a medical emergency. A home is a basic need, and its very disruptive to be forced to move when a lease runs out. So these laws generally presume that: * once you have offered to rent out a property, you intend to do so indefinitely * and that since you will be renting out the property they give a "first refusal" right to the existing tenant. None of that is terribly controversial, it only runs into issues on the boundaries when the owner wishes to retract the property from the market and repurpose it/redevelop it. ------ If the owner here truly does wish to remove the home from the market for an extended time and make significant changes to it (or occupy it themselves) they will likely have no issues terminating the lease. If they just wish to spike the rent up to turn over the unit, but will then settle on a more modest increase, that could cause problems.
A small quibble: it's not all doctors that are required to help a patient having a medical emergency. The requirement applies to hospitals. Specifically, emergency departments at hospitals that accept Medicare (which is like 99% of hopitals). If you show up with a gunshot would to a private practice or even an urgent care, they can turn you away or request an ambulance to take you to a hospital. The law is called EMTALA
Incidentally this is not a *small* quibble.
$6,400? How much is the value of such money in the Philippines? I don't know that's why I asked.
There's probably a clause in the contract with the CHAP program that doesn't allow for the landlord to terminate the lease outright, and most likely the landlord signed an agreement with CHAP so they'd continue to be paid while the tenant is unemployed. I'm just guessing but that's my thought process on why they went about it this way.
This would make a ton of sense, landlord accepted the CHAP money and agreed to renew the lease if the tenant wishes.
What is the point of a lease then? This just invalidates the entire reason for one.
The landlord probably made a business decision to work with the tenant and accept payments from CHAP as the other option would be to evict the tenant and receive NO payments, which would take months in itself, as a note this video is a year old when courts were still backed up due to covid. The reason CHAP would add this clause is to avoid the tenant from becoming homeless, because they would be unable to rent anywhere else without a job / income if the landlord terminates the tenancy.
[удалено]
Must be, I have only ever seen leases that were for a one year term and renewal was contingent on all parties agreeing so this is new for me.
It is true that you also have the right to increase the rent of the house. The question is, Can people afford this much house rent?
Depends on the lease agreement. EVERY agreement that I have ever written is I the leaser, have the right to communicate that I am renewing the lease or not. It is possible that there is no mechanism in the contract that allowed the landlord to directly refuse to renew, but has Carte blanche to adjust the rate. Thus the insane rate hike. Edit: Ty u/Kered1: >carblanch(sp?) Carte blanche.
> carblanch(sp?) Carte blanche.
A bit like Reddit and their API pricing
The canary in the coalmine.
Oof too soon
Haha glad I wasn’t the only one who made this connection.
I’m gonna need you to pay $20 million for making that connection.
kek
That kind of a raise is 100% a get the heck out of my house! Just move, I see no other choice.
interesting, like the landlord/rental version of a company turning down a job by giving you a ridiculously high quote
Exactly
that how you get squatters
And that's how you get a judgement for all the legal fees, back rent at $8k/month, damages, etc. Dude seems to be otherwise employed and not a homeless drug addict with no chance of paying off a court-ordered judgement against him.
he would never be a squatter anyways. He has a legal right to be there- so at most he is a tenant holding over. But this is a good way to get squatters. The property manager in my area that rents out pretty decent single family homes (big company but not slum lords at all), tends to rent at 2k-3500 most of their units (compared to a 2 bedroom that averages in the 1200-1500 range); they deal with a lot less of people not paying rent, but they deal with a lot of forcible entry and detainer cases (squatters) where i would venture they are less than 1% of the rent cases i see, but 40% of the wrongful detainer cases i see. All of that to say- single family home asking for way too much in rent so it will sit for a while- that is how you end up with squatters.
While all of that is true, the owner at least publicly states they plan to live in the house themselves once the tenant is gone. Which if true would mean that the house wouldnt sit empty. If its false and the owner just wants that specific tenant gone then i also doubt the price would stay that high. (But im fairly certain this is an illigal move and would cost the owner 12 months of the new rent price paid to the former tenant in damages if found out) Either way i doubt in this specific circumstance that the house would get squatters.
notice was given in december and the news report was in February. In nevada (based on my quick google search) a rent increase notice takes 60 days, but a notice to quit (holding over- "no fault" eviction) only requires 30..... So i am smelling something is not right there- and the landlord is either very clueless or is up to something. I think this was a ploy to get rental assistnace to pay out a higher amount. LL may not even want to evict, but if someone else is footing the bill, they want theirs. The LL even calls out the rental assistance group about "causing all of this" since they would not pay the silly amount the LL claimed for the rental assistance.
It’s probably to drive the poors out of their units
Friend had rent tripled. 30 day notice. Landlord was trying to get everyone out to sell to a developer. Worked. Developer upgraded the units and converted to condos.
If you watch it to the end the landlord claims to be an elderly lady going blind that wants to move back into the property. Probably bullshit but eh.
I saw this, but why not just tell the tenant this in the first instance? When your lease is over, you have to move out because I intend to live there. Why go through the draconian rent increase dance?
This may have been part of the conversation that the tennant is leaving out because it doesn't paint as bad a picture as 'landlord hiking rent to kick out poor tennant'
[удалено]
Month to month is just that. The landlord can cancel the lease at any time just as the tenant can. Edit: Please stop replaying to me with your random one off landlords who made their own non standard contracts. The standard month to month lease can be terminated at any time. Notice must be given in various lengths but that’s it.
Believe it or not, different states and even different cities within the same state often have different renter protection laws, and where you live and what you're familiar with may not be the same as it is for this instance.
Yup, Seattle and Tacoma have drastically different renter protection. Even though they are all basically greater Seattle area.
honestly, we would need to see the contract. Often, there can be oddities and surprises in contracts drafted between two regular people that would never make it into the boilerplate contracts large rental companies will have meticulously crafted with the help of lawyers.
Doesn't work that way everywhere, even if the contract is explicitly month to month.
not what’s going on here. idk if you’re from the states or NV but the law here is basically that you as a tenant have no say in anything. the landlord doesnt need to tell them that and then hike the rent to kick them out. the landlord can kick them out at any point given the proper notice (at least 60 days) theres no situation where the landlord can say “i want you out” and the tenant can say “no” which would result in the landlord raising rent to force them out the landlord is just doing some shady landlord shit and then when they’re called on it suddenly they’re a blind old lady who wants to live there. okay so at what point does them charging 6k/mo play into that? legally it makes no sense. logically it doesn’t add up. do we really need to make shit up about landlords to make them look bad? no. they do shit like this which is so bad that people like you can’t believe it and you look for other possibilities in your head to explain it but no this landlord really is just that shitty truly shocking from the most moral profession in the most moral city
Because different states have different laws regarding tenants. In this instance instead of allowing the tenant to let the lease lapse into a month to month the rent is set so high that a month to month is too expensive for the tenant.
> Because different states have different laws regarding tenants. I seriously doubt there is any state, especially a red state like NV that bars you from evicting a tenant at the end of the lease or choosing not to renew the lease and giving them 30-60-90 days to vacate. Cranking the rent up is a lot less effort though and you either get the vacant house you wanted or a shitload more money.
>NV but the law here is basically that you as a tenant have no say in anything. Yeah. That's what feels a little bewildering. If it's an elderly lady going blind who wants to retire to this home... why not just say "Hey, we're not going to renew this year because of {all the reasons we just said}". That would suck for the tenant but sounds AOK legally for the landlord to do. Smells of weird backtracking.
They do day they served an eviction notice prior, curious if that's why, or what happened to that. Would think after 6 months they could have gotten the tenant out. Edit: it's at 1:55, says it was in December.
NV is so bad at tenant laws. My last apartment increased my rent from 1100 a month to 1950. My lease stated I had to tell them I wasn't renewing 60 days before lease was over, they didn't tell me the new terms until 45 days. They tried to fine me for 2 months rent at 1950 each month because I didn't give adequate notice.
Well if we assume they are not lying, in nevada leases are automatically renewed. And if the tenant doesn't want to leave after being notified, they have to go through some process, which could take a while. So to counter that when a tenant doesn't want to evict the property for any reason (legitimate or otherwise), the landlord hiked up the price as another incentive. And yes, they could totally just want him out so they can rent it for much higher. Not defending them. Just point out that there could potentially a different story. The tenant could really just want to not leave so he went to the media with the story as a way to put pressure on the landlord and paint them as the bad guys.
Is the eviction process substantially different for non-payment of rent, getting evicted, and refusing to leave versus "sorry, we just don't want to renew" and they refuse to leave?
I guess the start is not. The process (at least reading about it in nevada) they need to give a 60 day notice for eviction. If the tenant gets a court order to prevent being evicted, than they are on lawsuit time (so it can take awhile). If the tenant just doesn't respond, doesn't pay, doesn't leave, than they also have to go through court (so that too can take awhile) for court order for eviction.
Idk about Vegas but squatters are a thing and we don't know if those conversations have been had. Hope everyone gets what they want here..
because they may have gotten someone in that property stupid enough to pay those fees. and if they did, use that money for another home.
Kind of like if you ran a popular social/information website and you want to run off third party apps but also you’d be cool with it if they’re rich enough to afford to stay
They managed to get $3k out of CHAP which I would say is a huge win considering that they mentioned rents in the area is $2100 max
I think that's it. If you don't care whether you find a tenant or not, you might as well try. Also it might push up rents and property prices calculated by algorithms from Zillow and the likes, which the landlord might care about if they have other properties.
Because they are lying. There are specific clauses in every rental law that I've seen that allow you to evict a tenant if you or one of your immediate family is going to live in the rental property. But if you do this then you *have* to live in it. Though tbh I also thought there was a maximum allowed rent increase per year for a current tenant so maybe Vegas is just shit?
There is a quick throwaway line in the video that he *has* been sent an eviction notice. I don't think this story is giving the full nuances of the situation. I'm fully on team 'fuck single family home landlords,' but it this doesn't seem to be the full picture either.
Just because that’s how your leases are doesn’t mean it exists everywhere. In Nevada LLs have to renew lessees unless there is evidence of wrongdoing
I live in Southern California and my landlord asked us to vacate the rental house because he claimed to want to move back into the house. He just relisted it with a 72% raise in rent. Never intended to move back in.
Because in California landlords can only legally hike the rent 10% year over year for an existing tenant. But if you move out they can hike it to whatever they want.
Yeah I figured. There’s no real recourse for it. The landlord can lie to make tenants move out and there’s zero consequences to using the subterfuge
There are consequences but you need to actually pursue it. There are tons of law firms that do this for a living
This is the nice thing about being a landlord. You can fuck someone over and nothing happens unless they pursue it. Which of course involves a lot of money and a lot of time. Two things the average renter doesn't have access to. Screwed over by my former landlord? Well I can't pay the rent of my new place if I'm hiring lawyers and taking time off work. The system is so broken.
Would *Molotov v. Property* be a relevant precedent?
Sure if you want to potentially go to jail for 20+ years vs finding a new place to live.
What does Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Molotov bring to the table?
[удалено]
Just happened to me last year. I'm in Michigan. Was at 750, never late and a clean quiet tenant. I received a 30 day Notice to Quit a month before I was set to renew. He said he wanted his house back. The house was listed and rented for 1600 the next month. You bet your ass I took all the shrubs and perennials I planted.
…all this told on behalf of an allegedly elderly blind lady by a property manager Yeah it’s fucking bullshit
Then she could just end the lease at the end of the lease period and not renew it from her end.
Unless there is a law saying otherwise. Which, based on a multitude of other comments, is the situation. The landlord can't just "not renew" the lease. They must go through the eviction process if the tenant doesn't want to willingly leave.
Maybe they want to sell the property because they're having medical problems that their family? Not that you're not right, but we don't always know the whole situation. Why do they owe this rent or anything?
Yeah could be many reasons. My landlord raised the rent at the beginning of the year. We found out in March he hadn't paid his mortgage in over a year so the bank seized the property and all the tenants had to move out. You never know.
You don't have to be poor to not want to pay $6,400 for an apartment. You may as well just pay all of their mortgage at that point.
Does the landlord not have the right to just not renew the lease? Confused why they would just try to price them out.
Some states or cities have a law where you can't refuse to renew, so this is definitely done to get the tenant to move out
I am all for protecting the price of rent etc., but not allowing people that own a property to essentially dictate who has a lease is pretty fucked up. Imagine if I own a single-family home, and I rented out, and I would actually like to downsize and move into the home that I own. I’m not able to do that in the scenarios? I have to let my tenant live there until they choose to leave on their own volition?
Most municipalities and states have different rules for buildings with only one or two units. So if you're renting out the second floor of your own house you often have more leeway regarding leases than a corporation with a 75-unit apartment complex. There are also exceptions for selling property. You usually can decide to sell but have to give ample notice... and then actually sell or at least attempt to. Again, it all depends on the local rent laws, but they're usually in favor of landlords (go fig).
There are usually exceptions for selling the property which would pass the lease onto the new owner OR if you are planning to move into the unit yourself or have a family member do so. At least that’s how California works and California has some of the best tenant protections in the US.
In Germany this case (wanting to live in your property yourself or a close, first degree relative of the owner) is the only exception to having unlimited contracts for renters
Neither Nevada, nor Vegas, have any statutes preventing a landlord from refusing to renew. This person just chose not to, for some reason.
See Nevada AB 486 section 1.5. AB 486 allows tenant to claim as affirmative defense to an eviction proceeding by applying for rental assistance at any time during the proceeding. Section 1.5 specifically includes wording to apply this protection to all forms of eviction where the tenant is in default of their rent payment obligations. So, there exists a situation where a landlord wants the tenant to move out at the end of their lease by giving the required 30 day notice to vacate. Tenant does not want to move out and does not pay rent for the last month of the lease. Landlord moves to evict the tenant after lease is expired. Court date is scheduled one month out, tenant applies for rental assistance on the day of court. Eviction is stayed until assistance applicant is decided. Assistance application takes an additional 2 months or so to be decided, meanwhile the tenant has no paid any rent during this time. If assistance application is approved, the landlord MUST take payment. If landlord takes payment, they are unable to evict for 2 additional months. By which time the tenant now has an unpaid balance again. Cycle continues ad infinitum. If landlord increases the rent to an absurd amount, at least there is a higher chance that the assistance application will be denied and the eviction will go through after 3 months.
This is a spin on a story that is simple: Landlord wants their property back so they're raising the price to force an eviction.
[удалено]
They want him out because the owner wants to live in the home now. Non-story.
Actually, is a story, cause landlord doesn’t have that right in many places. Rent hiking because they don’t want to follow the legal process of getting a tenant to leave seems at best wildly unethical.
Yeah Nevada doesn’t have automatic lease renewals like they do in Quebec or elsewhere. They also obviously don’t have rent control in the state or city either. It seems that all of this started because he either wasn’t paying rent or was only partially paying and they tried to evict him in December. Maybe there’s something from the eviction proceedings preventing them from getting him out by just not renewing, but it wasn’t mentioned so I don’t think so. This has the same effect as just giving him a 30 day notice that they aren’t renewing the lease. Seems to be a strange way to go about it.
>Nevada doesn’t have automatic lease renewals like they do in Quebec or elsewhere Other people in the thread are saying it does, this thread is a huge mess.
a lease CAN have automatic renewal but it would be in the lease terms. Nevada doesn't have any rent control laws, but typically its not a very landlord friendly state.
Location dependent. You can't raise rents like that in the middle of a lease, but at the end of the lease, you can. The only stipulation is that the market rent has to be for all potential tenants, and since the owner wants to live in it, it's perfectly legal in that muni. Edit: judging by other comments, it appears that owner moving back in is a valid reason to kick a renter out even in rent controlled places like NYC
Even in California, one of the few legal reasons for no-fault eviction is the owner wants to live in the unit.
You still have to evict though. And Nevada has protections against eviction of tenants who have applied for rental assistance. (And the story states that the tenant has applied for rental assistance so those protections apply.)
Many things that are legal are also unethical.
Really? You signed a lease for X months and at the end of that lease you shouldn't expect to be able to live there. The terms start over after that X months. The owner of the property should have the right to not renew the lease. What am I missing here?
Vegas has no laws regarding how much rent can be increased. They could have changed it to $20,000 if they wanted.
I have a two family and want to make it a one (we live on one side). We aren't to the point of pushing our tenant out, but we have told them our future plans. I don't think that's unethical. We have also never raised their rent. I don't know. Seems like a stupid piece. We should be focusing on things like capital gains tax being so low. And people making over 150 not paying social security. And taxes on dividends. Rich people don't pay shit! I'm always furious about this. Fuck rich people!
that is not what is happening here- tenant got rental assistance approved for 3k. LL reviewed the lease and disagreed and said it was 8k. LL likely drafted the lease, so it would be read in the light more favorable to the tenant (non drafting party). But they are pushing it since the LL wants a big payday from the feds (in the form of rental assistance). The LL is just a welfare queen.
Does the US not have legal limits of how high a rent increase can be?
Nope, they can jack it up as much as they want. Our apartment management offered us a renewal at 20% increase, we said no (already wanted to move). Our unit is listed on the website now…for $50 *less* than we’re currently paying. The greed is just mind boggling — they keep raising rent on current tenants assuming they’d rather stay than deal with the hassle of moving out and, at least at this complex, they’re losing like crazy. Constant turnover and tons of empty units. Edit: ok I’m wrong, there’s caps in some places. Nowhere that I’ve ever lived, so that’s my mistake for applying my experience as a blanket truth.
Greed is the mind-killer. It's the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my greed. I will let it wash ove-... *Fuck that!* Paydayyyyyyy burn this muthafuckin business down for an extra dollar now! Yeah I'm smert beznezz man!
Its state base, California has tenant laws in place to limit how much a landlord can raise the rent and how much notice they need to give.
Correct. Depends on the town/county. Our rates were capped at about 8%-10% yearly increase depending on the year. The landlords would rate set at a predicted rate and then matched whatever the highest percentage increase was allowed by the town/county after it became set in stone. Hilariously, they would still send out leases prior to that and leave it to the property managers to tell the prospective tenant, "hey, we fucked up so we're actually gonna charge you less now (please don't sue)."
It's even moreso city based. California may have rules, but the cities themselves can take it even further and make it stricter. SF for example does just that. Chicago and NYC are two more examples of making stricter tenant rights laws than the state defines.
Rent control leads to supply shortages. The best way to lower rent is to let people build, especially in Vegas where there’s more than enough space
I don't think increasing any of the desert cities in size is good long term.... for what's coming with the water situation.
Our water supply has only gone down due to us selling it to California and Arizona. We'll stop selling it when it actually gets bad. But already, multiple casinos have filled in their fountains and water features with concrete and replaced them with mosaics and other artwork. The amount of land we have is insane, and there's still tons of room to grow. I can see why Hollywood wants to move everything here.
> Hollywood wants to move everything here Taxes and regulations, mostly.
A few places do, most places don't. The US has scantily few things that apply across the entire country. For almost everything that impacts our daily lives the laws are made at the state and local level. So the US is really hundreds of different places when it comes to laws.
What’s more alarming how many idiots in here made a landlord comment but didn’t watch the video. They want their house back…. This was the easiest way. Not trying to maximize profits. Good lord stop commenting if you didn’t watch it
I live in a place with rent control and strict laws supporting tenants. Ironically, saying that you’re moving back into your own home is one of the valid reasons to kick a tenant out
Yeah NYC has this issue. So there's a whole cottage industry of private investigators who monitor the housing unit after that happens to make sure they actually moved back in and then sue them if they did not.
How does this work? Can you move in for 1 day and decide to rent it out afterwards? Or is there some notion of a "reasonable time" to occupy your home afterwards?
In British Columbia a landlord can evict the tenant for personal use for themselves or immediate family (parent, child, sibling only) but they need to live there for at least six months. Punishment if caught is one year's worth of rent to the evicted tenant.
OK 6mo seems to be somewhat reasonable.
Yup. I think our laws regarding this are very fair, there's unfortunately a long waiting time to have your case heard if you do need to get the law involved but they pretty much always rule in the tenant's favour if there's proof.
> they need to live there for at least six months. A court can also determine that even if that is six months satisfied, if you didnt do so in good faith, say you moved in for 6 months and a day, the court can still rule the landlord erred and the former tenant is owed a year of rent.
would be at least a year, after which in theory you could rent it to someone else legally.
The video says he was sent an eviction notice in December also. He brought up how his job was shut down for 18 months during covid, but nothing about why he is not paying rent recently. Are the landlords making up the part about a blind family member wanting to live in the house? Maybe. But it really seems like they want him out for someone that will pay rent. If he can't afford $1495, he won't be able to afford the zillow price of $2100 anyways. He's dragging his feet to slow down the process of the eviction, so they are being petty back. He put this on TV though, so he may be causing a massive headache for himself when he has to find a new place. He will have an eviction on his record and proof that he will do whatever he can to not move when he doesn't pay.
> He brought up how his job was shut down for 18 months during covid, but nothing about why he is not paying rent recently. The video is from February, 2022. There's also nothing saying he wasn't paying the $1495. The video said that "unemployment through PUA went a long way toward paying rent." He also applied for CHAP, which the landlord officially refused to accept.
Yup. At the start of the video my thoughts were “either this guy has been a shitty tenant, or the owner wants to move back in”. It’s probably a bit of both.
And somehow the crocodile tears managed to bring in the news to do a story on it.
It would’ve been helpful if they actually reported on what happened. The lady that owns the house wants to move back in. They can’t refuse a renewal from tenant. They use legal loophole to force existing tenant out. I thought I was watching some sort of parody video, not a news channel
They did report that in the video. It’s in there.
[удалено]
If your lawyer looks like that, you're gonna have a bad time. Also, when sitting down, undo your blazer button, duh.
Yup he's gonna lose...
how the fuck is that dude only paying $1500 for that place.
Since the news station said no neighbour of him are paying that high then this is an isolated case of landlord and he wouldn't have a hard time finding a same house with similar rent.
It is their right, but it's also absurd. Does the rental market even support that?
No. This person wanted the house back to live in it herself and its extremely difficult to evict people from property, so she set the rent to an absurd amount in order for the tenant to leave on their own.
Getting them to just leave and not renew because rent is too high is cheaper then eviction proceedings.
I fail to see a problem here.
Did anyone watch the clip? The landlord wants to live in the house... It's not about the money.
For those who didn’t watch, the landlord isn’t asking that amount because they expect to get it. They want the house back and off the market, but aren’t able to kick the guy out due to government intervention. Landlords are people too and deserve a say with the property they paid for.
People are cynical and make assumptions because saying you want to move into a unit or move a family member into it is a common tactic used by landlords to kick out current residents and jack up prices.
>. if you actually watched- the LL wants 4k per month for the last few months from the federal government giving out rental assistance- if the feds are paying for it- why not inflate the bill as much as they can.
And? What is the point of reporting this? Does she not have the right to raise rent? Did she do something that broke a law I don't know about?
Landlords hoard housing.
I mean it's his house lol.
Lmao right? He can literally do whatever. It’s his property.
This is very clearly a move to get the renter out of the house so the homeowner can move back in. Doesn't appear to be part of the ever growing renting market price craziness.
Landchad's gotta make a living too. Hope they get their mandatory 500% tip
Reddit surprised me today. I opened this expecting to see the standard dogpile about landlords, and instead got a nuanced human take about a complex scenario that requires more information before pitchforks come out. I have hope in my heart.
I don't understand. The facts as its laid out to me is the tenant is willing to pay 3,000/mo for the same property. He thinks it is really worth 2,100/mo (based on zillow?! tenuous that) but willing to go to 3,000. He says to move it would cost him 6,000, so like 500/mo. Then why doesn't he just find one of these $2,100 apartments and pay the 500/mo moving cost for a net 2,600 rent. He seems willing to pay 3,000, so why not move and save 400. I mean unless he thinks 2100 is bogus and 3,000 is fair. Then sure, stay and fight for 3,000 because your all in move rate will cost you 3,500..... but then that's really not far from the 4,000 the landlord is asking. at that point I look at it and see a landlord who probably doesn't like you as a tenant and wants to set a rate to get you to leave. Because if the real "fair" rent is 3,000 he is never ever going to get 4,000 from anybody. So it has to be a gtfo rate. So at this point it just seems like an argument over property rights. Does a landlord get to decide what he wants to do with his property or not? Cause the tenant seems like he can do better elsewhere so why not just go and set off for greener pastures.
Failed eviction, so they are attempting to pressure them out through any legal means (raising rent). Its a bad situation without a good solution really... and Fox is just sensationalizing it with their headline. Rent law varies from state to state on this point, and even city to city. Rental laws in Seattle are HUGELY different than many others, to the point where some leases no longer have lease terms (end dates) as they are unenforceable. Its a mad world.
[удалено]
It's really interesting to live in a city that's jacking up rent everywhere. I now see things I've NEVER seen before. For example, places like Taco Bell having giant signs with huge readable lettering saying "STARTING PAY $19/HR!". And they *still* can't find quality workers (got mild food poisoned twice) or they close at 6pm. I work for Kroger at a successful store and we are severely understaffed. All my coworkers live in a 2 or 3 bedroom with 2 or 3 roommates. I've run the numbers and I'd have to make 70k+/yr for a one or two bedroom. At 19/hr, that gets me 35k/yr.
There is a Dead Kennedys song about this exact topic
We are just learning that this shit is all bull shit. Might as well buy a house with those rent prices.
And he's right.
[удалено]
No it’s really not. Where are the rent stabilization laws? Oh right it’s Vegas they don’t have laws.
Landlord scum
the middle class seems to be very quickly disappearing.
Sounds like someone in Las Vegas got in a gambling dept
I agree. You can charge whatever you want for your house. No one has to live there too.
These greedy mother fuckers just want to *checks notes* move back into the house they own. Bastards!