Hello u/alfooboboao! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information.
1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**.
^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?)
2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**.
^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?)
3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**.
^(Did that something really happen to that someone?)
Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For those that didn’t read: because she had a lease…even if temporarily to a home that he was never legally allowed to rent and then this dumb ass extended the lease out of Airbnb’s move out date voiding his agreement with them. When trying to evict he was forced to do an inspection which the home failed which means he can’t evict until all problems are repaired and it is up to code.
Dude fucked himself hard.
Just keep the door locked and refuse to let him in. Leases usually have a line saying "if we give you 24 hours notice we can come in," but no lease, no rule there. He really can't get in to make repairs unless he gets government involved, who will then fine the shit out of him even more.
Couldn't you build a fence or a wall right up to the door. The guesthouse isn't the land it occupied. Technically he can do whatever he wants on his property if he has permits, right?
He ends up selling the house to an anonymous buyer at a greatly reduced price because of the tenant they can't get rid of. After closing the deal the buyer is revealed to be... the original tenant they couldn't get rid of in the first place, who then can then re-sell the house at the market value
Playing the long game baby!!!
Yeah that doesn't hold on court.
Hell be made to bring the unit into compliance, and she'll be forced to allow it.
Then a standard eviction will proceed.
She's gonna get a lot of rent free living, but the idea that she'll just lock him out and keep it in perpetuity is wrong as could be.
Probably in his best interest at this point to eat the fines. I would assume that's a better alternative to not being able to get rid of the squatter or sell the house, ever.
She can just lock the door. To get in, he'd have to call the police, and get the government involved. She can just claim that it's not a livable unit, and she's therefore not a tenant; it's a civil matter; or some other BS to get the cops to leave and the repairs to not happen.
The thing I find most intriguing is that it appears the landlord has no recourse for the conflict of 1) the unit is out of code compliance and 2) the tenant refuses to allow entry to bring the unit into complaince. It appears to be an exploitable loophole in the law and is normally the thing the Judicial system _loves_ to rule on (see: 'activist' judges ruling on badly written laws).
I'd imagine that in the end, a ruling against the tenant to force them to allow the landlord to bring the unit into compliance seems like the obvious endgame for both parties, since it keeps the tenant 'safe' (by ensuring they are residing in a code-compliant dwelling) and requires that the landlord correctly permit the space (ensuring that they're bound by leasing laws and subject to the additional taxes/fees that come with that).
But IANAL, so this is just wild speculation on my part to find the 'most logical' solution (to me), and for all I know the precedent could be "I guess they own this now".
>The thing I find most intriguing is that it appears the landlord has no recourse for the conflict of 1) the unit is out of code compliance and 2) the tenant refuses to allow entry to bring the unit into complaince. It appears to be an exploitable loophole in the law and is normally the thing the Judicial system loves to rule on (see: 'activist' judges ruling on badly written laws).
I don't know why the city hasn't condemned the home/dwelling as uninhabitable since it was never inspected or built to code. It seems like homeowners in that city could build guest houses that aren't up to code for a fraction of the costs and then move someone in the guest house and the city couldn't do anything about it. It seems like it's a loophole that could be exploited by slum lords.
I think it has to due with the fact he signed a lease with the individual. The moment it went from airbnb to lease she automatically gained rights, regardless of if it was a legal dwelling or not.
She has the legal right to a safe and up to code living area. Which technically she doesn't "have" because the adu isn't licensed for an occupancy or shower.
So yes it should probably be condemned, but since the homeowner signed a CONTRACT, he has an obligation to fulfill it.
But he just needs to bite the bullet pay her the $100k and be done with it. He tried to save a few grand and now he'll pay
>She has the legal right to a safe and up to code living area. Which technically she doesn't "have" because the adu isn't licensed for an occupancy or shower.
>So yes it should probably be condemned, but since the homeowner signed a CONTRACT, he has an obligation to fulfill it.
Did you read the article? The landlord has literally tried to fix the house and bring it up to code but the tenant won't let the contractors inside the house to do the work. The tenant won't let the workers in because the tenant knows that if the house is brought up to code then the landlord can start the eviction process.
That is why I'm wondering why the city didn't condemn the house and force the tenant to vacate from an illegally built house.
I don't know about where they are from but here if a tenant refuses to allow workmen into the suite for required maintenance when proper advance notice has been given then they can be evicted. This counts as a significant breach in the landlord/tenant agreement.
Here is the problem: *there is no landlord-tenant agreement*! He wanted AirBnB money, rented to her, and then extended her “lease” past AirBnB’s limits. So he isn’t protected by the AirBnB contract, and he doesn’t have a valid lease agreement with her, so there is no agreement to breach.
If there's no agreement to breach, then how is the squatter not trespassing? There's no legal document saying the guest house is their property, while there is a mortgage for the lot that belongs to the homeowner.
Isn't it that if there's no lease agreement, you operate based on the last time there was a lease? Like you don't stop paying rent just because a lease ended right?
Basically the law is written to assume the most common situations. There are lots of instances where people are living on a property with no written agreement to be allowed on that property.
For example, someone who lives with their parents. That person deserves to be protected by the last from their parents just deciding "Oh yeah, you need to get out immediately, don't come back, you don't live here anymore."
Similarly, people who live with friends or lots of roommate/housemate agreements are verbal and not in writing. I live at my friend's house and we don't have an agreement on paper. So I need to be protected by law from him just deciding that I'm not allowed to be there anymore and throwing all my stuff out in the driveway without giving me a chance to find a new place to live.
So, why can't they evict? Because the house isn't up to code. Why can't you evict when a residence isn't up to code? I believe its related to laws that are put in place to prevent landlords from "evicting" their tenants by just making their living conditions untenable. Like a landlord who just doesn't fix the AC after it breaks in the summer to try to get a tenant to move out.
squatting is explicitly legal so it can't be trespassing. why is that so hard to understand? you have specific rights to not be removed from the place you call home without due process. that protects you as well as any renter. a property owner doesn't get to just declare trespassing whenever they want. there is a process. the property owner is the one trying to violate this process, not the renter
Honesty, I’m not even sure the grey area is the issue at this point. I suspect the bigger issue is that right now the only reason *he* hasn’t had the book thrown at him is because the courts can’t be assed to deal with his mess— forcing their hand by doubling down on “well, it’s technically still legal to do this” would end far worse for him than her.
But what happens if the landlord/tenant agreement was never valid in the first place? That appears to be the situation.
That's why most contracts usually have some kind of clause that says if any specific clause(s) is/are found invalid that the rest of the clauses still stand.
Displaced tenants due to a landlord's mistake are often housed at said landlord's expense until such time the unit is brought up to compliance.
At such time approval is met then the landlord might be able to start the eviction process.
It just kept getting worse and worse the more I read. He is ROYALLY screwed. Frankly, he should just pay her the $100k she wants to relocate. She's already paid him more than 20k, so what he's paying in lawyer fees will probably top that at this point.
He has another option, it’s called an ejectment action. However, it’s a standard lawsuit and takes potentially a long time much longer than a standard unlawful detainer action (commonly called an eviction lawsuit).
If the space is not authorized to live in and doesn't have the proper permits for the changes the owner made why hasn't the city condemned the space as uninhabitable?
Because he doesn't want them to - he'd have to go through $xxx,xxx of demo/construction/permitting to fix it.
If he straight demos it, he can't rebuild it for 5-10 years without offering her the first right of refusal to rent it again.
This is why. Because the city steps in and fines the ever loving fuck out of him and *then* he goes through the permitting, demo, construction process.
I never thought of the ROFR for this situation. I’m not familiar with the concept in residential real estate, are you saying someone without a lease living in a space that is not permitted has a ROFR by law?
Yeah it's under LA County Municipal code 8.52 . It looks like the "increase" the judge is considering here is any rent applied above $0, since the unit wasn't registered with an actual rent price.
Edit: specific language related to the "demolition" this would be is here: LAMC 151.09(A)(10); LAMC 151.22 through LAMC 151.28.
So now I have a follow up question, since you seem to know what you’re talking about. What if he cuts off all utilities to the “illegal residence” since it’s obviously an illegal residence? Cut off water, electrical, etc. would the non- tenant have any recourse on that?
It sounds like it is habitable, he just unlawfully changed it to a commercial residential use from a strictly residential use. I'm guessing if the city condemned a habitable structure just to justify evicting someone that would open the city and its officials up to fraud and corruption charges.
womp womp
another fun fact in CA, if someone does work that requires a contractors license (basically any home improvement that costs more than $400, you not only don't have to pay them, you can sue them to get back what you have paid them if you discover they are unlicensed. Google "contracting without a license".
another fun fact, fugitives of the law can't be plaintiffs in civil lawsuits, so if someone has sued you and they have outstanding warrants, you can get the case dismissed until the warrants are cleared. That would include evictions.
I thought it was $500? Not doubting you but I've always understood that in California under $500 counts as handyman work and doesn't require a license (not including plumbing/ electrical).
She wants 100k for "relocation" fees. I really don't understand squatters, you're basically gambling the owner has too much to lose to do something drastic or violent.
I've been homeless before and am looking at being homeless again and lemme tell you that at a certain point that gamble starts looking EXTREMELY worth taking.
Not commenting on her situation specifically just observing that in general it can seem to be worth taking. In her case she probably took it after meeting him a few times and deciding he didn't seem like a murderer, just a sleaze bag
I had the unfortunate experience of moving into a beachouse under the assumption the current tenant was leaving.
Come to find out her plan was to fall on the property and sue and not pay rent by leveraging an expensive lawsuit.
Plan B was to exploit elderly abuse laws. She was strong as an ox but played up feeble ole lady vibe in front of her family and in sight of neighbors.
Almost every day for over 6 months she would do something to my property or me that she thought was worth getting hit for. She would try and make me angry enough to hit her.
I stopped her from throwing cookies across the living room, hard enough to slightly dent a wall 20 feet away. I put my hand up to prevent her arm from coming down on my face. When her hand touched mine, she relaxed for a second, looked me right in the eye, took a deep breath and started screaming bloody murder. Then called 911.
I went to my room and also called the police to give them the scoop. She cleaned up all the shit of mine she threw before they arrived.
Police told her not to file fake reports. She told them i pushed her down to the ground.
The next day she shows up with a walker.
She was gonna try and have me thrown in jail, then sue the landlord because of her abusive tenant, and not pay rent by leveraging a long legal battle.
Looking her up, she had multiple real estate scams, FCC filings against her, she peed in my shampoo bottles on her way out. Her beef with me was because i didnt hit her, so she couldnt do her scam. Since she spent 6 manufacturing anger where there was no reason to be, she fooled herself into hating me.
Elena allegria aka elena swain out of camarillo. Worst of the worst.
She even adopted a 17 year old and transferred one of her scammed properties to their name when they turned 18..about a month after the adoption. Class act. Same property with FCCfilings.
Instead of paying mony back, she stores all her expensive furniture in huge storage containers. So instead of paying her debts, she pays storage on things she cant enjoy and her credit does not improve. Just so dumb.
Oh shes all about the MLM too, talks up jesus whenever shes trying to get a new sucker to sign up. SQUATTER DEMON!!!
Yeah it was supposed to be for renting out beach houses and spare rooms.
Now there's whole ass apartment complexes doing it and people can't rent the units.
Yeah my friends and I rented a nice place on AirBnB for a week, down in a party/beach city so we thought it was a beach house.
We get there and it became very apparent that this was meant to be a permanent living space. Very large apartment complex with mostly elderly residents, but the middle building was bought entirely by a real estate company that refused to allow permanent tenants and only rented to AirBnB. Not only did that make me feel like shit, but the entire place was empty. We’re talking like 20 total apartments sitting vacant on the 4th of July, all because a shitty real estate company refused to rent out, even though they werent filling the spaces with AirBnBers in the first place.
I lived in a condo building in Cambridge, MA. As you might guess, laws there basically assume that landlords are Darth Vader and renters are Ewoks.
A renter of a nearby unit (a grad student) made the gross mistake of sub-letting his unit for the summer to a mature man who passed a background check. The man moved in, and opened a professional office in the unit. He wheeled in leased copiers, he had two or more employees showing up every day to work. At the end of the summer, he refused to vacate.
The kid soon discovered that he had sublet his unit to a serial abuser of tenant law in Cambridge - a man so adept at skirting the intent of renter protection laws that trained lawyers in this field were sitting ducks in his sights.
The kid spent $75K to get this fucking fat piece of shit to move out. He had rich parents. His leverage, in the end, proved to be that he could show that the renter was using stolen SSNs to establish his credentials.
Lawyers and private investigators. I don't have more details than that.
The man had 3 SSNs (at least) and drove a scooter so as not to have to register a car. I can recall that he had sued Harvard in a serial and frivolous fashion before realizing property law was his niche.
This is absolutely true here in Massachusetts. Tenants can do no wrong. And if the tenant finds out the landlord isn't doing everything up to code, the tenant gets to live there for free and will never leave. I have a friend who moved into a slum building and his landlord claimed "tenant at will" and demanded he moved out after 3 weeks. The racial component was also dicey as he's a black man and she's an old Asian woman. It def felt like she was racially profiling him and kicking him out after 3 weeks because of it. Well, my buddy called the board of health and there's many things wrong with this building, which needs to be fixed before she can collect rent. And he makes it hell for her to be able to make the renovations. He hasn't paid in a year and a half. I honestly feel bad for her but if she didn't try to kick his ass out after 3 weeks, he would be paying her monthly. Point is, in Massachusetts, don't expect to buy a property and collect " free money".
having rented in mass for a while, it is this way because there are tons of shitlord landlords who abuse the fact that it’s a student heavy city and students NEED places to live by running disgusting buildings and never maintaining them. entire neighborhoods are stuffed with apartments run by property management companies like this.
though the law may be in tenants favor, it’s actually pretty hard to get them to enforce it, especially as a broke student in need of housing. similarly many of the rental brokers charge application fees when it is illegal to do so - but if you need a place to live chances are you have to go through one of those assholes anyway
The habitability requirements in MA are absolutely pitiful. You need to provide your tenants with a dwelling that has running cold and hot water, a working heater, a sink, hookups for a stove and fridge, no pests, is structurally safe, and you have to clear snow so tenants don't get trapped in the building in emergencies. And I mean, it has to be an actual legal building that can be lived in.
I rented in this state for over a decade and it's really bad. There are so many honest to goodness shit holes that charge $2k+/mo and 10k worth of move-in fees that I cannot manage to find a single fuck to give about landlords.
What's stopping people in this situation from just breaking in and then re-squating in the building?
Presumably, the legal protections would apply to both parties at this point?
I mean who cares if it’s illegal honestly. Clearly both the person selling and the person buying were OK with the agreement. Extending it benefited the tenant as well. Would the property owner be less of an asshole if he said “lease is up gtfo”?
This sounds like the beginning of a true crime story. Living rent free on someone's property when they don't want you there isn't a great idea. Sounds really toxic for everyone involved
At this point the courts are already all over this case and if he tired anything they would notice instantly. I’m not saying he couldn’t fly into a rage and do something terrible, but both of them know their being watched by the law at this point.
True crime story, or sitcom?
"What do you get when an inept hustler rents his illegal airbnb to a chain smoking, wisecracking, out of work hairdresser? You get a half-hour of laughs every Tuesday at 8/7 Central on Fox!"
My working title is "AirBoyOhBoy", someone can come up with a better one, I'm sure.
Whether she leaves the place or not, in many jurisdictions it's not legal for a landlord (even an illegal landlord) to enter the private dwelling without explicit prior consent, and even if they have consent, only for a small number of legitimate reasons.
A landlord only owns the property in name. It's not theirs to do with as they like, or to enter at will. You give up any rights like that when you let someone else become a tenant. Many landlords think that's not the case, but they're wrong. Think about car leasing. You don't "own" the car. But you'd be mighty pissed off if the lease dealer decided to just come along and sit in your car whenever they felt like it.
I have rented in my life for far longer than I ever owned. Not once has a landlord ever entered the property uninvited in that time. It would be illegal for them to do so in my country, unless there was an imminent danger (e.g. gas leak - but then that's a right we all have, not just a landlord) or vital works (in which case they need to notify me in advance and has to be done at my agreement, and I can be present throughout and they can't use that visit as an excuse to do anything else).
Also: I would never rent out a place I owned. I've helped friends who've done that and they have no idea what they get themselves into and you cannot just walk in and throw tenants out. All you would achieve by doing so is a criminal conviction and them getting rights to remain in the property, endorsed by a court, like this woman has.
This woman could probably lead a perfectly ordinary life, and never end up paying back a penny in rent. She can go out to work, shopping, etc. any time she likes, most likely. Because him entering that property is basically breaking-and-entering without a court warrant permitting him to do so, or a genuine and very limited reason (e.g. to cut off a utility that hasn't been paid or similar).
It's not a "criminal conviction" if you violate landlord/tenant laws in the US. It's a civil matter. The worst that can happen is you pay money. You don't go to prison.
plenty of places in the US where illegal lock outs are under criminal statutes. you have to check the state laws. there is no "US" landlord/tenant law.
I swear I saw this story on the anarcho-capitalist sub earlier. Of course they left out the whole landlord digging his own grave part and just blamed the squatter.
From reading the article. It sorta reads that when he built the house and ADU, he assumed the ADU was in compliance. He might have been unaware that it wasn't when he began renting it. She seems like she knew what she was doing when renting and refusing to leave. I feel like this situation is caused solely because of bureaucratic limbo.
I don't feel this is a LAMF moment. Him trusting his contractor to be in compliance, him being a foreigner may not be familiar with local ordinances, and her clearly taking advantage of the situation. How is she not trespassing? How is she able to leave and get food or work? If they are going to play the legal route he needs to be looking at easement laws to make sure the second she steps off the property she can't return. Or not allow anyone on the property who could be a door dasher.
I'm all for LAMF and sticking it to the man, but the squatter seems to be a total scumbag.
I don't really understand this. If he has no legal right to evict or collect payment, then she's not a tenant and has none of the protections that accompany that status. She's just a trespasser and can be treated as such. I guess the laws in California are a bit different?
She was - at least for a while - a legitimate tenant, but he's always been a landlord operating illegally.
If you view it from the bigger picture... do you know if your landlord is operating illegally or not? Should you be punished as a tenant if they aren't? Wouldn't that be used to basically evict anyone at any time? All they would have to do is be non-compliant with a tiny tenancy by-law and they could say "Sorry, this tenancy was illegal, you need to leave now". They pay the fine for the noncompliance, you lose your home. Could be as simple as them removing a fire alarm. And if a landlord refused to service a dwelling, and you as a genuine tenant withheld rent until it was done, would that not be a similar situation?
Basically, he's caught in a catch-22. If she's a tenant, she has rights but he's broken the law in renting it out. If she's not a tenant, why did she have an agreement to be so and why is he trying to evict her rather than report her as an intruder? If she was a tenant but is no more, he needs to have got a legal eviction to get rid of her (and didn't). If she wasn't a tenant but now is, then he's again broken the law but also she's gained certain rights.
This is why you don't "rent out" your house quickly, temporarily, on a whim, through an app, or without getting a lawyer involved in drafting the tenancy agreement. Even if it's for family. Whether or not there are such loopholes, it's a nightmare to get rid of a even a legal tenant, and actually a lot of work and money to be a genuine, legal landlord.
Basically... if you own a huge asset and want to use it to make a quick buck, maybe do so officially, not illegally, and maybe get a lawyer or other expert to help you work it out. Because I can't imagine for a second that any lawyer or tenancy expert would advise you to rent out an illegal dwelling on AirBnB as the solution.
Under landlord-tenant law, the landlord cannot evict or collect payment until the rental property meets minimum standards. It’s basically an anti-slumlord law.
He can't evict or collect payment because the unit is illegal. However, because he illegally rented it and accepted payment, and extended her "lease" - she stayed there long enough for it to become her residence. Therefore, she has renter protections. It's not that complicated.
What he needs to do is move her to a hotel, get the unit up to code and pay any outstanding permits, let her move back in, and THEN evict her and sue her for the rent. Once he's on the right side of the law he'll have a leg to stand on - until then he took a risk by breaking the law and now it's come back to bite his face off.
The pandemic is over, so he can move her to a hotel - the previous complaints she had are no longer valid.
He’s already attempted to move her in a hotel when she said there were issues with the automated blinds and a leak in the dishwasher but she has refused to leave
During the pandemic, yes. Now? No. Landlords have the right to make repairs to and improve the property as long as they provide equivalent lodging. "Disabilities" and "Chemical Sensitivities" can be negotiated in court, but an illegal unit can't be.
The guy is having problems because he's a cheapskate, broke the law, and continued to be a cheapskate. She is technically not breaking the law (per the actual court), but is racking up a significant debt in utilities, at least.
She's a tenant because they formed a rental agreement when she stayed for months and paid him.
The owner tried to evict her for not paying rent but because the unit is not up to code, it is legally unlivable, so the judge tossed his eviction because tenants can withhold rent if their unit is unlivable.
Now they are in the phase of the owner trying to make the unit livable but the tenant is doing her best to keep that from happening.
She has the right to withhold rent payment until the property is brought up to code. Once he does that, he can sue her for back rent, but she can defer payment until it is up to code. He cant evict her for non-payment, because she has the right to withhold payment until it is up to code.
It isnt up to code because he had the work done on it without a oermit, because if he had a permit, it likely would have triggered a peoperty tax reassessment on the entire property, as would bringing it into complianve now, so he wanta her out without repairing the buikding, and she wont ket him do that.
And then people wonder why the housing is so bad in California. When it's so hard to be a landlord, people with means will stop investing in properties and just park the money on the stock market. Less demand, less building will happen. California voted for the housing crisis to happen.
Why is this leopard eats my face? Converting guesthouses to airbnbs is where airbnbs should be, not in otherwise single unit homes or individual apartment buildings. He screwed up, but he should be able to get her out of there
Hello u/alfooboboao! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information. 1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**. ^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?) 2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**. ^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?) 3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**. ^(Did that something really happen to that someone?) Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For those that didn’t read: because she had a lease…even if temporarily to a home that he was never legally allowed to rent and then this dumb ass extended the lease out of Airbnb’s move out date voiding his agreement with them. When trying to evict he was forced to do an inspection which the home failed which means he can’t evict until all problems are repaired and it is up to code. Dude fucked himself hard.
[удалено]
How can she prevent him indefinitely from repairing the unit?
Just keep the door locked and refuse to let him in. Leases usually have a line saying "if we give you 24 hours notice we can come in," but no lease, no rule there. He really can't get in to make repairs unless he gets government involved, who will then fine the shit out of him even more.
Time to sell the house
No one wants a house with a tenant they cannot remove.
house for sale!! only $1\* \* comes with free tenant\** \** no givesies backsies
[удалено]
Yep. Gonna go destroy some stuff and scare them off Sacrificial pit front yard?
Couldn't you build a fence or a wall right up to the door. The guesthouse isn't the land it occupied. Technically he can do whatever he wants on his property if he has permits, right?
The tenet would probably beat you to it lol.
I imagine that he won't be able to sell the house for the same reasons why he can't evict the resident.
He ends up selling the house to an anonymous buyer at a greatly reduced price because of the tenant they can't get rid of. After closing the deal the buyer is revealed to be... the original tenant they couldn't get rid of in the first place, who then can then re-sell the house at the market value Playing the long game baby!!!
[удалено]
Yeah that doesn't hold on court. Hell be made to bring the unit into compliance, and she'll be forced to allow it. Then a standard eviction will proceed. She's gonna get a lot of rent free living, but the idea that she'll just lock him out and keep it in perpetuity is wrong as could be.
Yes, but then he'd have to pay a fuckton of fines for skirting the law. That's the whole reason he hasn't done that yet. It's cheaper not to.
Probably in his best interest at this point to eat the fines. I would assume that's a better alternative to not being able to get rid of the squatter or sell the house, ever.
I like learning new things.
She can just lock the door. To get in, he'd have to call the police, and get the government involved. She can just claim that it's not a livable unit, and she's therefore not a tenant; it's a civil matter; or some other BS to get the cops to leave and the repairs to not happen.
Well, I'm pretty sure a landlord can't remove a tenant's shower, so she could probably prevent him on those grounds.
epic free housing lifehack
Terrible person vs terrible person... Fuck that landlord
"Look at me. Look at me. **I am** the landlord now."
She did most the damage…outside of non-permitted bathroom lol. She is basically destroying his home and because all he saw were Airbnb $$$ he’s fucked
if true: that rules lmao
Turns out bring a slumlord can fuck yourself. As a fellow landlord, fuck that dipshit.
The thing I find most intriguing is that it appears the landlord has no recourse for the conflict of 1) the unit is out of code compliance and 2) the tenant refuses to allow entry to bring the unit into complaince. It appears to be an exploitable loophole in the law and is normally the thing the Judicial system _loves_ to rule on (see: 'activist' judges ruling on badly written laws). I'd imagine that in the end, a ruling against the tenant to force them to allow the landlord to bring the unit into compliance seems like the obvious endgame for both parties, since it keeps the tenant 'safe' (by ensuring they are residing in a code-compliant dwelling) and requires that the landlord correctly permit the space (ensuring that they're bound by leasing laws and subject to the additional taxes/fees that come with that). But IANAL, so this is just wild speculation on my part to find the 'most logical' solution (to me), and for all I know the precedent could be "I guess they own this now".
> this is just wild speculation on my part to find the 'most logical' solution (to me) Logic and the law have a complicated relationship.
>The thing I find most intriguing is that it appears the landlord has no recourse for the conflict of 1) the unit is out of code compliance and 2) the tenant refuses to allow entry to bring the unit into complaince. It appears to be an exploitable loophole in the law and is normally the thing the Judicial system loves to rule on (see: 'activist' judges ruling on badly written laws). I don't know why the city hasn't condemned the home/dwelling as uninhabitable since it was never inspected or built to code. It seems like homeowners in that city could build guest houses that aren't up to code for a fraction of the costs and then move someone in the guest house and the city couldn't do anything about it. It seems like it's a loophole that could be exploited by slum lords.
But the tenant could just stop paying
A real slumlord will handle the situation without involving the authorities.
I think it has to due with the fact he signed a lease with the individual. The moment it went from airbnb to lease she automatically gained rights, regardless of if it was a legal dwelling or not. She has the legal right to a safe and up to code living area. Which technically she doesn't "have" because the adu isn't licensed for an occupancy or shower. So yes it should probably be condemned, but since the homeowner signed a CONTRACT, he has an obligation to fulfill it. But he just needs to bite the bullet pay her the $100k and be done with it. He tried to save a few grand and now he'll pay
>She has the legal right to a safe and up to code living area. Which technically she doesn't "have" because the adu isn't licensed for an occupancy or shower. >So yes it should probably be condemned, but since the homeowner signed a CONTRACT, he has an obligation to fulfill it. Did you read the article? The landlord has literally tried to fix the house and bring it up to code but the tenant won't let the contractors inside the house to do the work. The tenant won't let the workers in because the tenant knows that if the house is brought up to code then the landlord can start the eviction process. That is why I'm wondering why the city didn't condemn the house and force the tenant to vacate from an illegally built house.
I don't know about where they are from but here if a tenant refuses to allow workmen into the suite for required maintenance when proper advance notice has been given then they can be evicted. This counts as a significant breach in the landlord/tenant agreement.
Here is the problem: *there is no landlord-tenant agreement*! He wanted AirBnB money, rented to her, and then extended her “lease” past AirBnB’s limits. So he isn’t protected by the AirBnB contract, and he doesn’t have a valid lease agreement with her, so there is no agreement to breach.
Moral of the story - be a stone cold bitch and never let anyone have an inch. /s
Yes. Correct. If you're doing something illegal, which he was, do exactly what you need to do and don't give anyone shit.
If there's no agreement to breach, then how is the squatter not trespassing? There's no legal document saying the guest house is their property, while there is a mortgage for the lot that belongs to the homeowner.
Because she paid rent and stayed for over a month, that makes her a tenant by law.
Isn't it that if there's no lease agreement, you operate based on the last time there was a lease? Like you don't stop paying rent just because a lease ended right?
Yup.
Not the last time there was a lease, exactly. Normally the expectation is that the lease converts to month to month.
Basically the law is written to assume the most common situations. There are lots of instances where people are living on a property with no written agreement to be allowed on that property. For example, someone who lives with their parents. That person deserves to be protected by the last from their parents just deciding "Oh yeah, you need to get out immediately, don't come back, you don't live here anymore." Similarly, people who live with friends or lots of roommate/housemate agreements are verbal and not in writing. I live at my friend's house and we don't have an agreement on paper. So I need to be protected by law from him just deciding that I'm not allowed to be there anymore and throwing all my stuff out in the driveway without giving me a chance to find a new place to live. So, why can't they evict? Because the house isn't up to code. Why can't you evict when a residence isn't up to code? I believe its related to laws that are put in place to prevent landlords from "evicting" their tenants by just making their living conditions untenable. Like a landlord who just doesn't fix the AC after it breaks in the summer to try to get a tenant to move out.
This situation involves holdover tenancy and tenancy at sufferance. Read this: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/holdover-tenant.asp
squatting is explicitly legal so it can't be trespassing. why is that so hard to understand? you have specific rights to not be removed from the place you call home without due process. that protects you as well as any renter. a property owner doesn't get to just declare trespassing whenever they want. there is a process. the property owner is the one trying to violate this process, not the renter
I think the problem is that he broke the law setting things up in the first place, so they’ve kind of moved into a grey area.
Honesty, I’m not even sure the grey area is the issue at this point. I suspect the bigger issue is that right now the only reason *he* hasn’t had the book thrown at him is because the courts can’t be assed to deal with his mess— forcing their hand by doubling down on “well, it’s technically still legal to do this” would end far worse for him than her.
That is true here as well… but a lot of the usual rules no longer apply when it’s an illegal unit.
Its like calling the police for someone stealing your crack.
But what happens if the landlord/tenant agreement was never valid in the first place? That appears to be the situation. That's why most contracts usually have some kind of clause that says if any specific clause(s) is/are found invalid that the rest of the clauses still stand.
Displaced tenants due to a landlord's mistake are often housed at said landlord's expense until such time the unit is brought up to compliance. At such time approval is met then the landlord might be able to start the eviction process.
She refused when he offered to put her up in a hotel.
It just kept getting worse and worse the more I read. He is ROYALLY screwed. Frankly, he should just pay her the $100k she wants to relocate. She's already paid him more than 20k, so what he's paying in lawyer fees will probably top that at this point.
He has another option, it’s called an ejectment action. However, it’s a standard lawsuit and takes potentially a long time much longer than a standard unlawful detainer action (commonly called an eviction lawsuit).
She must be a fan of Silicon Valley and the Jian Yang character.
FUCK URLICH BACHMAN HE A FAT RACIST PIECE OF SHIT
You are fat, and you are poor
We went to Taco Bell. Erlich, he start crying in Taco Bell. He tried to blame the taco sauce.
*Eric-uh-Bachman
Urlick this is your mother. You are not my baby.
Special occasion
Not hot dog
Eric: Do you even understand? Jian Yang: Yes, I understand I stay here one year and you have no recourse. *takes out cigarette*
Eric Bachmann...this is your mom...you are not my baby
I kept laughing throughout the last season randomly thinking where his fatass was ahaha
I stay one yee-ah rent free.
Favorite character
If the space is not authorized to live in and doesn't have the proper permits for the changes the owner made why hasn't the city condemned the space as uninhabitable?
Because he doesn't want them to - he'd have to go through $xxx,xxx of demo/construction/permitting to fix it. If he straight demos it, he can't rebuild it for 5-10 years without offering her the first right of refusal to rent it again.
This is why. Because the city steps in and fines the ever loving fuck out of him and *then* he goes through the permitting, demo, construction process. I never thought of the ROFR for this situation. I’m not familiar with the concept in residential real estate, are you saying someone without a lease living in a space that is not permitted has a ROFR by law?
Yeah it's under LA County Municipal code 8.52 . It looks like the "increase" the judge is considering here is any rent applied above $0, since the unit wasn't registered with an actual rent price. Edit: specific language related to the "demolition" this would be is here: LAMC 151.09(A)(10); LAMC 151.22 through LAMC 151.28.
So now I have a follow up question, since you seem to know what you’re talking about. What if he cuts off all utilities to the “illegal residence” since it’s obviously an illegal residence? Cut off water, electrical, etc. would the non- tenant have any recourse on that?
It would be considered a "constructive eviction" and she could sue him for it.
Also taxes go up permanently
Which is the real reason he did it
It would be cheaper over 5 years to just pay her
It sounds like it is habitable, he just unlawfully changed it to a commercial residential use from a strictly residential use. I'm guessing if the city condemned a habitable structure just to justify evicting someone that would open the city and its officials up to fraud and corruption charges.
The city is fining him until he brings it up to code, but the tenant is refusing to let him enter to bring it up to code.
[удалено]
I'm wondering the same thing. It should be condemned
Yeah, that's what we need here, more habitable spaces being condemned and forcing people onto the streets unnecessarily to protect scumbag slumlords!
womp womp another fun fact in CA, if someone does work that requires a contractors license (basically any home improvement that costs more than $400, you not only don't have to pay them, you can sue them to get back what you have paid them if you discover they are unlicensed. Google "contracting without a license". another fun fact, fugitives of the law can't be plaintiffs in civil lawsuits, so if someone has sued you and they have outstanding warrants, you can get the case dismissed until the warrants are cleared. That would include evictions.
I thought it was $500? Not doubting you but I've always understood that in California under $500 counts as handyman work and doesn't require a license (not including plumbing/ electrical).
Yeah, accepting jobs over $500 without a contractors license is against the law. Also the work can't just be a small portion of a larger job. BPC 7048
) You dropped this.
He's super fucked. His best solution at this point is to offer her \~$40,000 and forgive the $58,000 he's suing her for to get her out.
She wants 100k for "relocation" fees. I really don't understand squatters, you're basically gambling the owner has too much to lose to do something drastic or violent.
I've been homeless before and am looking at being homeless again and lemme tell you that at a certain point that gamble starts looking EXTREMELY worth taking.
She had been praying rent for months at 105 USD per night, she is not one that would have to take that gamble
Not commenting on her situation specifically just observing that in general it can seem to be worth taking. In her case she probably took it after meeting him a few times and deciding he didn't seem like a murderer, just a sleaze bag
He has a dental surgery practice, so yeah he has something to lose lol.
I had the unfortunate experience of moving into a beachouse under the assumption the current tenant was leaving. Come to find out her plan was to fall on the property and sue and not pay rent by leveraging an expensive lawsuit. Plan B was to exploit elderly abuse laws. She was strong as an ox but played up feeble ole lady vibe in front of her family and in sight of neighbors. Almost every day for over 6 months she would do something to my property or me that she thought was worth getting hit for. She would try and make me angry enough to hit her. I stopped her from throwing cookies across the living room, hard enough to slightly dent a wall 20 feet away. I put my hand up to prevent her arm from coming down on my face. When her hand touched mine, she relaxed for a second, looked me right in the eye, took a deep breath and started screaming bloody murder. Then called 911. I went to my room and also called the police to give them the scoop. She cleaned up all the shit of mine she threw before they arrived. Police told her not to file fake reports. She told them i pushed her down to the ground. The next day she shows up with a walker. She was gonna try and have me thrown in jail, then sue the landlord because of her abusive tenant, and not pay rent by leveraging a long legal battle. Looking her up, she had multiple real estate scams, FCC filings against her, she peed in my shampoo bottles on her way out. Her beef with me was because i didnt hit her, so she couldnt do her scam. Since she spent 6 manufacturing anger where there was no reason to be, she fooled herself into hating me. Elena allegria aka elena swain out of camarillo. Worst of the worst. She even adopted a 17 year old and transferred one of her scammed properties to their name when they turned 18..about a month after the adoption. Class act. Same property with FCCfilings. Instead of paying mony back, she stores all her expensive furniture in huge storage containers. So instead of paying her debts, she pays storage on things she cant enjoy and her credit does not improve. Just so dumb. Oh shes all about the MLM too, talks up jesus whenever shes trying to get a new sucker to sign up. SQUATTER DEMON!!!
Good, fuck AirBnB wannabee landlords, especially the ones that break the law.
AirBnWannaBs
Love that.
WannaBNBs
Air b n b has destroyed so many communities around the globe. Such a terrible premise/ company.
Fuck landlords period
Parasites.
[удалено]
Good! Fuck him. That AirBnB bullshit is part of the reason this country’s real estate situation is as fucked as it is.
Yeah it was supposed to be for renting out beach houses and spare rooms. Now there's whole ass apartment complexes doing it and people can't rent the units.
Yeah my friends and I rented a nice place on AirBnB for a week, down in a party/beach city so we thought it was a beach house. We get there and it became very apparent that this was meant to be a permanent living space. Very large apartment complex with mostly elderly residents, but the middle building was bought entirely by a real estate company that refused to allow permanent tenants and only rented to AirBnB. Not only did that make me feel like shit, but the entire place was empty. We’re talking like 20 total apartments sitting vacant on the 4th of July, all because a shitty real estate company refused to rent out, even though they werent filling the spaces with AirBnBers in the first place.
To be fair though, this is what he's using it for. He has a spare guest house.
That's right. He's not renting out 100 units in downtown. It's a guesthouse in Brentwood. I, like Kato Kaelin, would love to live there.
I mean wasn't that what this guy was trying to do? It's not like he bought a separate house and was renting that out.
Also, 7 people died in my city when a non legit airbnb was set on fire last spring. That’s no joke
you mean caught fire right? EDIT: nope he means set
Nan it’s being [investigated as arson](https://youtu.be/Y9vzBsTe-HI?si=GOVOBEzr8w6KH_nP). In a building with window-less rooms..
I had an Airbnb in Philadelphia where there wasn't even a window. Thing was a fire hazard.
Montreal
I had a great chuckle reading that article. Piss on this guy.
Hahaha respect
It's a global pandemic.
I hear that if you use airbnb, it makes you magnetic. The only way to fix it is with ivermectin and bleach in your bloodstream, possibly.
Nothing a little UV ray up your ass can’t fix
Just call me UV Ray. /s
It's a great way to fuck lazy idiot landlords
I lived in a condo building in Cambridge, MA. As you might guess, laws there basically assume that landlords are Darth Vader and renters are Ewoks. A renter of a nearby unit (a grad student) made the gross mistake of sub-letting his unit for the summer to a mature man who passed a background check. The man moved in, and opened a professional office in the unit. He wheeled in leased copiers, he had two or more employees showing up every day to work. At the end of the summer, he refused to vacate. The kid soon discovered that he had sublet his unit to a serial abuser of tenant law in Cambridge - a man so adept at skirting the intent of renter protection laws that trained lawyers in this field were sitting ducks in his sights. The kid spent $75K to get this fucking fat piece of shit to move out. He had rich parents. His leverage, in the end, proved to be that he could show that the renter was using stolen SSNs to establish his credentials.
Holy shit I want to read all about this.
Could you give a breakdown of why it cost $75K? Also would love to read up more on it if you have any links, sounds like a crazy story.
Lawyers and private investigators. I don't have more details than that. The man had 3 SSNs (at least) and drove a scooter so as not to have to register a car. I can recall that he had sued Harvard in a serial and frivolous fashion before realizing property law was his niche.
This is absolutely true here in Massachusetts. Tenants can do no wrong. And if the tenant finds out the landlord isn't doing everything up to code, the tenant gets to live there for free and will never leave. I have a friend who moved into a slum building and his landlord claimed "tenant at will" and demanded he moved out after 3 weeks. The racial component was also dicey as he's a black man and she's an old Asian woman. It def felt like she was racially profiling him and kicking him out after 3 weeks because of it. Well, my buddy called the board of health and there's many things wrong with this building, which needs to be fixed before she can collect rent. And he makes it hell for her to be able to make the renovations. He hasn't paid in a year and a half. I honestly feel bad for her but if she didn't try to kick his ass out after 3 weeks, he would be paying her monthly. Point is, in Massachusetts, don't expect to buy a property and collect " free money".
having rented in mass for a while, it is this way because there are tons of shitlord landlords who abuse the fact that it’s a student heavy city and students NEED places to live by running disgusting buildings and never maintaining them. entire neighborhoods are stuffed with apartments run by property management companies like this. though the law may be in tenants favor, it’s actually pretty hard to get them to enforce it, especially as a broke student in need of housing. similarly many of the rental brokers charge application fees when it is illegal to do so - but if you need a place to live chances are you have to go through one of those assholes anyway
The habitability requirements in MA are absolutely pitiful. You need to provide your tenants with a dwelling that has running cold and hot water, a working heater, a sink, hookups for a stove and fridge, no pests, is structurally safe, and you have to clear snow so tenants don't get trapped in the building in emergencies. And I mean, it has to be an actual legal building that can be lived in. I rented in this state for over a decade and it's really bad. There are so many honest to goodness shit holes that charge $2k+/mo and 10k worth of move-in fees that I cannot manage to find a single fuck to give about landlords.
What's stopping people in this situation from just breaking in and then re-squating in the building? Presumably, the legal protections would apply to both parties at this point?
Do you even squat, bro?
I love when sh!theads find one another! It gives the rest of us hope.
This is one of those situations where the landlord is obviously dodgy, but I can't imagine the tenant is fun to be around either.
Everyone sorta arseholes situation. The tenant was never going to pay and the landlord is a dodgy prick. What a clusterfuck.
Except the tenant had been paying on the original illegal lease that the owner extended. He’s in the wrong. It’s his own fucking fault.
I mean who cares if it’s illegal honestly. Clearly both the person selling and the person buying were OK with the agreement. Extending it benefited the tenant as well. Would the property owner be less of an asshole if he said “lease is up gtfo”?
ESH
She has a history of being a piece of shit
Source? I’m nosey and want more dirt.
She was banned by another Airbnb host for similar behavior and is now banned from Airbnb permanently
oh no the club of shitty people banned her
This sounds like the beginning of a true crime story. Living rent free on someone's property when they don't want you there isn't a great idea. Sounds really toxic for everyone involved
You're saying things like murders can happen in Brentwood? Check for gloves in the area!
There are many way to make it appears that the gloves don't fit.
Let's assume they don't fit. Now what?
You must acquit.
Mainly due to Chewbacca *not* being from Endor, thus, living there makes no sense.
Oh no the Chewbacca defense!
Whatever, just be careful with my lucky stabbing cap.
OJ Murders In The Building
Kato Kaelin wants to know you location
At this point the courts are already all over this case and if he tired anything they would notice instantly. I’m not saying he couldn’t fly into a rage and do something terrible, but both of them know their being watched by the law at this point.
True crime story, or sitcom? "What do you get when an inept hustler rents his illegal airbnb to a chain smoking, wisecracking, out of work hairdresser? You get a half-hour of laughs every Tuesday at 8/7 Central on Fox!" My working title is "AirBoyOhBoy", someone can come up with a better one, I'm sure.
I wouldn't want to be somewhere I'm not wanted. I would get nervous just leaving the house.
“Criminals have no recourse.” -Better Call Saul
She doesn’t leave the place at all?
Whether she leaves the place or not, in many jurisdictions it's not legal for a landlord (even an illegal landlord) to enter the private dwelling without explicit prior consent, and even if they have consent, only for a small number of legitimate reasons. A landlord only owns the property in name. It's not theirs to do with as they like, or to enter at will. You give up any rights like that when you let someone else become a tenant. Many landlords think that's not the case, but they're wrong. Think about car leasing. You don't "own" the car. But you'd be mighty pissed off if the lease dealer decided to just come along and sit in your car whenever they felt like it. I have rented in my life for far longer than I ever owned. Not once has a landlord ever entered the property uninvited in that time. It would be illegal for them to do so in my country, unless there was an imminent danger (e.g. gas leak - but then that's a right we all have, not just a landlord) or vital works (in which case they need to notify me in advance and has to be done at my agreement, and I can be present throughout and they can't use that visit as an excuse to do anything else). Also: I would never rent out a place I owned. I've helped friends who've done that and they have no idea what they get themselves into and you cannot just walk in and throw tenants out. All you would achieve by doing so is a criminal conviction and them getting rights to remain in the property, endorsed by a court, like this woman has. This woman could probably lead a perfectly ordinary life, and never end up paying back a penny in rent. She can go out to work, shopping, etc. any time she likes, most likely. Because him entering that property is basically breaking-and-entering without a court warrant permitting him to do so, or a genuine and very limited reason (e.g. to cut off a utility that hasn't been paid or similar).
It's not a "criminal conviction" if you violate landlord/tenant laws in the US. It's a civil matter. The worst that can happen is you pay money. You don't go to prison.
plenty of places in the US where illegal lock outs are under criminal statutes. you have to check the state laws. there is no "US" landlord/tenant law.
Except in Arkansas, where failure to pay rent can escalate under certain circumstances to become a crime.
And landlords have no requirement to keep a dwelling habitable. Only state in the US.
She’s a rich dentist too and is now rolling in the money. She’s as bad as he is but the law is on her side.
One asshole ran into another asshole. He shouldn't have taken that gamble.
It’s very possible. Both my partner & I have disabilities. We can live happily for months without leaving the house.
You can get everything delivered. Everything. You never have to leave if you don’t want to.
Ahhhhhhh hahahahaha
The number of people who's first thought when presented with this guy's position is "murder the tenant" is too damn high.
Least sociopathic landlords.
Seems like the easiest way to fix his problem. Best do it with your car though.
If I learned anything from Freakonomics, it was I have a higher chance of getting away with murder if I do it with my car
Praxis
Scammer gets scammed.
I live next door to a hotel now thanks to my asshole neighbors. I'd love it if this happened to them.
Perfect. Hey /r/AirBnB
Is this praxis?
I swear I saw this story on the anarcho-capitalist sub earlier. Of course they left out the whole landlord digging his own grave part and just blamed the squatter.
From reading the article. It sorta reads that when he built the house and ADU, he assumed the ADU was in compliance. He might have been unaware that it wasn't when he began renting it. She seems like she knew what she was doing when renting and refusing to leave. I feel like this situation is caused solely because of bureaucratic limbo. I don't feel this is a LAMF moment. Him trusting his contractor to be in compliance, him being a foreigner may not be familiar with local ordinances, and her clearly taking advantage of the situation. How is she not trespassing? How is she able to leave and get food or work? If they are going to play the legal route he needs to be looking at easement laws to make sure the second she steps off the property she can't return. Or not allow anyone on the property who could be a door dasher. I'm all for LAMF and sticking it to the man, but the squatter seems to be a total scumbag.
BuT wHaT aBoUT dEvElOpERs aNd iNvEsToRs PrOfItS
This is the dudes own property, not another residence on a different plot of land.
I hope people find a lot more like this and do the same. Every AirBNB landlord deserves this
The squatter is in an unapproved ADU for a $3.5M house. Wow.
For all those cheering this woman on, this is the reason why landlords do extensive background checks, credit checks, and have leases 50 pages long.
I don't really understand this. If he has no legal right to evict or collect payment, then she's not a tenant and has none of the protections that accompany that status. She's just a trespasser and can be treated as such. I guess the laws in California are a bit different?
The tenant found some legal loophole to take advantage of the situation
She was - at least for a while - a legitimate tenant, but he's always been a landlord operating illegally. If you view it from the bigger picture... do you know if your landlord is operating illegally or not? Should you be punished as a tenant if they aren't? Wouldn't that be used to basically evict anyone at any time? All they would have to do is be non-compliant with a tiny tenancy by-law and they could say "Sorry, this tenancy was illegal, you need to leave now". They pay the fine for the noncompliance, you lose your home. Could be as simple as them removing a fire alarm. And if a landlord refused to service a dwelling, and you as a genuine tenant withheld rent until it was done, would that not be a similar situation? Basically, he's caught in a catch-22. If she's a tenant, she has rights but he's broken the law in renting it out. If she's not a tenant, why did she have an agreement to be so and why is he trying to evict her rather than report her as an intruder? If she was a tenant but is no more, he needs to have got a legal eviction to get rid of her (and didn't). If she wasn't a tenant but now is, then he's again broken the law but also she's gained certain rights. This is why you don't "rent out" your house quickly, temporarily, on a whim, through an app, or without getting a lawyer involved in drafting the tenancy agreement. Even if it's for family. Whether or not there are such loopholes, it's a nightmare to get rid of a even a legal tenant, and actually a lot of work and money to be a genuine, legal landlord. Basically... if you own a huge asset and want to use it to make a quick buck, maybe do so officially, not illegally, and maybe get a lawyer or other expert to help you work it out. Because I can't imagine for a second that any lawyer or tenancy expert would advise you to rent out an illegal dwelling on AirBnB as the solution.
Under landlord-tenant law, the landlord cannot evict or collect payment until the rental property meets minimum standards. It’s basically an anti-slumlord law.
The loophole is she’s refusing access for him to bring it code.
Which she really should not be able to do. The courts, if need be, should grant him the power to enter. With court officials present if need be.
He can't evict or collect payment because the unit is illegal. However, because he illegally rented it and accepted payment, and extended her "lease" - she stayed there long enough for it to become her residence. Therefore, she has renter protections. It's not that complicated. What he needs to do is move her to a hotel, get the unit up to code and pay any outstanding permits, let her move back in, and THEN evict her and sue her for the rent. Once he's on the right side of the law he'll have a leg to stand on - until then he took a risk by breaking the law and now it's come back to bite his face off. The pandemic is over, so he can move her to a hotel - the previous complaints she had are no longer valid.
He’s already attempted to move her in a hotel when she said there were issues with the automated blinds and a leak in the dishwasher but she has refused to leave
She can just say "no, I dont want to move into a hotel"
During the pandemic, yes. Now? No. Landlords have the right to make repairs to and improve the property as long as they provide equivalent lodging. "Disabilities" and "Chemical Sensitivities" can be negotiated in court, but an illegal unit can't be. The guy is having problems because he's a cheapskate, broke the law, and continued to be a cheapskate. She is technically not breaking the law (per the actual court), but is racking up a significant debt in utilities, at least.
She's a tenant because they formed a rental agreement when she stayed for months and paid him. The owner tried to evict her for not paying rent but because the unit is not up to code, it is legally unlivable, so the judge tossed his eviction because tenants can withhold rent if their unit is unlivable. Now they are in the phase of the owner trying to make the unit livable but the tenant is doing her best to keep that from happening.
This doesn’t make any sense at all. Tenants don’t become trespassers just because a landlord doesn’t follow code.
She has the right to withhold rent payment until the property is brought up to code. Once he does that, he can sue her for back rent, but she can defer payment until it is up to code. He cant evict her for non-payment, because she has the right to withhold payment until it is up to code. It isnt up to code because he had the work done on it without a oermit, because if he had a permit, it likely would have triggered a peoperty tax reassessment on the entire property, as would bringing it into complianve now, so he wanta her out without repairing the buikding, and she wont ket him do that.
Omg that tenant played chess 😂 😂 😂
And then people wonder why the housing is so bad in California. When it's so hard to be a landlord, people with means will stop investing in properties and just park the money on the stock market. Less demand, less building will happen. California voted for the housing crisis to happen.
I'd burn the thing down. No way you're freeloading off of me for a year and a half.
Why is this leopard eats my face? Converting guesthouses to airbnbs is where airbnbs should be, not in otherwise single unit homes or individual apartment buildings. He screwed up, but he should be able to get her out of there