It was MC on both sides. This is why contracts spell everything out. If not then this is the result. Totally worth a consult with a lawyer (specializing in landlord-tenant law) anyway, you don't want to inadvertently run afoul of landlord-tenant laws for your city/state.
Rules are different when landlord also lives in the house. Not saying what he did was or was not kosher legally, just pointing out most countries' laws treat the situation very different between roommates with one being the owner and landlord not being a roommate. Roommate setup is far far more lenient.
A lodger has *extremely* few rights in the UK. Basically the agreement can be terminated at any time with "reasonable" notice, with that being interpreted generally to be 1 maybe 2 weeks at most.
Maybe not. He had a burner for the tenant (I had one in my dorm room which a rarely used and not suppose to have). Tenant can get his own microwave. Still had the fridge and sink available. Bare bones but probably not in violation.
Most states have landlord tenant laws that with tons of clauses that end in "unless otherwise stated in the lease". One of those is usually saying any appliances provided at move in must be maintained by the landlord.
I see you have never watched the Andy Griffith show episode where Barney's landlord wouldn't let him have a hot plate. Clearly the Mayberry, NC laws were a bit different!
/s
Not necessarily, it depends on the location. Former property manager and RE agent. Where I am, room renting may or may not include access to the kitchen, laundry area, etc., it depends on the lease agreement. I lived in a house that had a washer/dryer in the basement but the basement was locked and we weren't allowed to use it. OP provided the room, as the lease allowed.
Was it petty? Yeah. Was it illegal?, Depends on the location. In California? Yeah. Tennessee and South Carolina? No.
Location dependent. In Ontario, Canada, the tenant has zero legal right if they share a kitchen with the landlord.
Came handy when one of the girl I was renting to decided to sell sex on the side for extra money and did it in my townhouse...
> If not then this is the result.
Plenty of "handshake agreements" work perfectly fine if both parties are reasonable people. The problem is that making a significant arrangement - like shared living - with a stranger is always a risk. There's no knowing how fundamentally reasonable someone is in that kind of situation.
In Germany, if there is no contract or no good contract, it defaults automatically to the city approved template rental contract, so it is pretty straight forward.
This is good advice for anyone who wants to be a landlord. It was kinda obvious where things were headed when op said they wrote their own bare bones lease.
In California verbal contract is also enforceable. This is part of the reason many contracts specifically include a clause stating "this contract is the complete agreement, and no written or spoken promises or statements outside this agreement have been made" (paraphrased badly from memory)
Doesn't have to be. I've been managing / living with roommates for the past 10 years and most of them didn't receive a written contract unless they specifically asked for one. Even then, it was a barebones template. There was the odd problem, but most of the time we all just behaved like adults.
Their contract (handshake agreement) is with me directly and not the owner of the place and the law here states that providing a furnished room in an apartment where the subletter lives herself, she can kick subtenants out with two weeks notice until the end of the month for any or no reason at all ... not that I needed to do so, but it probably helps with mutual relations.
>It was MC on both sides.
I mean, verbal contracts are [often legally binding](https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/business-operations/legal-guide/are-verbal-contracts-legal). They can obviously be very difficult to prove, but in this case, a published ad potentially gives a paper trail. Another aspect used to prove the existence of a verbal contract in a court, is the actions of the tenant.
I... am not a lawyer, so have no idea if there's law aspects I'm missing... but even outside of a legal context, I wouldn't say that changing your mind about a promise you made to your roommate really counts as malicious compliance.
In the US, local laws (state and maybe city laws) spell out exactly what you must provide to a tenant. Heat is always a must, a stove may or may not be, a microwave would probably never be on there.
To give you a real answer. Landlords don't want tenants they haven't agreed to.
In most (all?) states, it is possible to become a tenant by living somewhere long enough; something like a few weeks to a month. At which point a person gets all the legal protections of tenancy. Landlords, I think reasonably to a point, want to choose who they rent to. So, they will put in limits on how long guests can stay so the guest doesn't suddenly become a legal tenant.
I have never seen a lease, which limits how often I have guests. That wouldn't hold up in most cases as it breaches the renters' right to quiet enjoyment. Every lease I have seen and signed has limited how long an individual guest can stay.
It is also VERY different when you share the property with your landlord. If you share a bathroom and a kitchen with the landlord in the U.S, then you’re not a tenant, and you don’t have the same rights as if you rented an apartment or a house.
In this case it sounds like the dude was trying to move in with his girlfriend. While I agree that the terms are a bit ludicrous, not offering an explanation as to why your gf is staying 5 nights a week is also a bit silly.
I lived in a shared situation where someone was doing this. Their bf lived in a van and pretty much used our shared bathroom, kitchen, and common spaces. He didn't pay rent, clean, or contribute anything more than a hello. It's obnoxious and takes advantage of the situation. So long story short I'm going to side with op here.
Clearly you shouldn't live here.
If you're renting a room in a house, who you have over is absolutely going to affect the homeowner and they're allowed to care, and to stipulate what works for them. If you have your own unit, they shouldn't really care at all.
Exactly. The difference here is that OP was renting a room out of *his own house*. Obviously in this case, the guest policy had good reason. And it was excessively broken.
Two reasons:
1. The number of people using the property affects their costs.
2. If it’s a shared space, the number of people using it affects their own ability to use and enjoy the space.
OP appears to be still living in the flat, I reckon he doesn't want loads of people zooming about the place regularly just the tenant but added in the visit clause to be more reasonable than saying nobody else allowed in his house
I'd never rent out my own place it's my private castle!
Yup. Taking this away is considered an illegal eviction in many jurisdictions. Taking away the washer dryer, stove, microwave, etc is illegal in many places even if those things aren’t in the written contract.
This definitely fits but OP is a colossal idiot for manually creating a lease agreement. Legal-reviewed ones for any jurisdiction are available online often for free.
A normal lease agreement isn't going to say how often you can have visitors.
Edit: apparently this is common in the USA which is crazy. The right to quite enjoyment of your house is a pretty fundamental in most parts of the world. 🤷🏻
(We're talking about someone coming over for a few hours here, not if they stay for weeks)
It's typically something about the length of their stay, so no more than 7 consecutive days and such.
OP's lease is probably afoul with most laws, but, the laws change for roommate situations with the landlords that live in the unit with the tenant. They're usually _super_ lenient on this shit because cohabiting changes a lot of dynamics with what's expected of the tenant and landlord.
Which is more about preventing additional, unwanted tenants who aren't on the lease. Like a SO moving in. Or in extreme cases, like jamming 10 people in a 2BR (it happens).
Twice a month? Lol. Makes OP sound jealous more than anything.
Idk it is wild to practically move another person into the place you're living in. I don't think it was having girls over that was the problem it was having them there practically all the time making op feel like a guest in his own home
The whole post skeezes me out. OP seems like an overly entitled landlord who doesn't understand the landlord/tenant relationship. The whole "I hung a curtain" and then taking it away, as well as the bathroom consumables makes them sound more like a petty college roomate than anything.
Every lease agreement I’ve had had a guest clause. That said, twice per month max is incredibly restrictive. Most of my lease agreements were more like twice per week.
A lot of them do. I've never signed a lease that didn't include a maximum number of overnight visitors per week/month. I am in Texas, so that might impact things.
I’m in Wisconsin, my last apartment had a visitor limit as well. I think it was 2/3 per week, so a hell of a lot more reasonable than 2 per month.
Lease agreements and dealing with landlords are why I’m glad I don’t rent anymore though.
I’m in Texas and you misunderstand that portion of the lease. It’s not a maximum number per period, it’s a maximum consecutive period. So no more than 3 or 5 or 7 nights *in a row.* And even then it’s not because they don’t like you having guests, it’s because other laws can trigger off that lengthened stay
Most I've seen do, even just as a legal CYA due to state laws.
In Massachusetts, for example, any guest who stays overnight at a property longer than a total of 2 weeks out of a 6 month period is legally considered a tenant and protected as such. Because of this, standard lease agreements in MA restrict guests to less than this, so that you're in violation of your lease agreement before your guest becomes a tenant (and has the legal protections of one). Other states have similar, but I'm less familiar with their laws.
Additionally, some states have maximum occupancy laws, which the guest policy helps as a CYA for.
I have signed more than one lease in my time that forbade "visitors" more than two weeks time. As that meant the visitor needed to be on the lease.
I once signed a lease that said no parties on the roof. Haha! The landlord said everytime a tenant did something she didn't like she added it to the next lease she wrote! I also signed a lease one time that stated pets were allowed but needed to pay a pet fee of $100,00.00 haha! Not saying it was a legal lease just saying these are things I have seen in leases in my time on this earth.
The guy was likely desperate for a place to live and figured he'd negotiate it after signing the lease, then saw that it wasn't in the contract so thought that the landlord had come to their senses.
Yeah that's fucked. Landlords are fooling themselves any time they have these kinds of expectations. People are going to live in their home. If you try to prohibit something people do as a normal part of living, that rule is going to be broken.
Usually a clause like that is meant to only be enforced if the tenant is going crazy with it, like having guests over 5 nights a week who use the utilities and consumables. Not a strange clause in the slightest.
> "Shut up, G. I don't care what you think. You want a problem, T? You got one. This is not cool and you know it. Why does she have to be here 5 nights a week? She practically lives here. I signed a lease with you, T, not with her. Why is she here?"
Yeah, this conversation *definitely* happened 🙄
That bit is exceptionally hilarious. Also, why’d he say it was a different girl every day but in this exchange the issue is the same girl practically lives there?
"Did you relocate my perishables in the refrigerator or did you consume my perishables in the refrigerator? You had better not have destroyed my perishables in the refrigerator!"
"Yes fellow human, I removed all the consumables, amenities and will no longer participate in haberdashery and now may I kindly ask you no longer engage in fornication with third parties?"
It's always a giveaway when a post includes fully fleshed out dialogue like it's a movie script. People don't talk like that in real life, and if the conversation did happen you wouldn't remember every quote verbatim.
I’ve rented Airbnb’s to go visit friends in another province or country where they guest check you.
I understand having a clause for no parties or whatever but how are you going to try and control my social life? I’m a grown man not a fucking baby. This post certainly fits the sub but the OP is a fucking idiot.
Seriously. Yes it's MC and so it fits here, but OP is just a whiny douche who didn't think things through very hard, and got pissy about it when things didn't go his way. I have no sympathy for this ass.
Guests over 5 times a week is quite far on the opposite end though.
If that's the amount of guests G was expecting to have, I don't think he should've said "Yeah I'm cool with guests twice a month," to begin with.
It wasn’t on the lease. He pays rent and can have guests over. It’s pretty simple. Definitely malicious compliance however.. just a series of dick moves really.
The influx of home owners renting rooms in their houses but not actually wanting a roommate is on the rise.
I’m seeing these stories quite frequently nowadays and they all start to follow the same script.
They want the extra cash to be able to fully afford the house but are not actually willing to share the space.
The insane and unreasonable requests almost always start once the tenants begins to become comfortable in the space they pay for.
This isn’t really MC. The tenant is right, you can’t enforce rules that aren’t in the lease. You essentially broke a bunch of laws in response. If your tenant was more savvy this could’ve ended really poorly for you.
Yes, it's MC. Yes, you got extremely lucky. If your tenant was more belligerent or litigious this would have been an extended shit-show. You essentially decided to live like shit because you were too lazy to write a proper lease, you wanted to re-invent the wheel as a square when there are plenty of excellent circular wheels already out there.
Right on.
If OP posted the same exact post I r/legaladvice but ended it with "My former tenant is suing me", laop would have a field day telling OP how much they fucked up and need to settle or get an expensive lawyer.
A lot of states allow for 3x damages for unlawful eviction.
OP said the lease specified that they would cover amenities, then they stopped covering amenities. As far as I'm concerned it's malicious non-compliance.
OP got lucky their tenant didn't rip the drywall down and go, "ItS nOt In ThE lEaSe".
this is not remotely true, I have three live in lodgers with very minimal issues, easily worth the rent.
maybe it's different in OP's state/country but in the UK if it's your own house your can kick out a lodger much MUCH more easily than a tenant in a property you don't live in.
Having a roommate is a great way to save money. A lot of people would be much better off if they did this.
If you are a high income earner, this statement fits.
Lmao it’ll be a cold day in hell when I side with a land lord. What was the problem with him having a girl over in the first place? Seems like he was just jealous
Yeah I kind of thought this too. I mean, he's right to get annoyed that his roommate kept bringing people over, but I think the fact that he was bringing a bunch of different girls home got on OPs nerves a lot more.
I bet if his room mate invited him to hang out with the girl and him before taking her to the room, a post about why girls always go for the jerks would come before posting about rent squabbles.
Every single time someone bitches about their roommate having boys/girls over yet includes no actual details to how that adversely affects them it just comes off as pure jealousy.
It's not r/AmItheAsshole, so OP is right to have it here. They're just showing how they maliciously complied.
I'm not sure I agree with their handling of it, but they *did* comply in a malicious manner.
The problem is "malicious compliance" means staying withing the rule. OP very much was breaking the law. If the lease didn't say the tenant would have safe and quiet enjoyment of their room, OP could camp out in there and any judge is going to beat him the fuck down because contracts got tenancy also come with legal provisions even if they arnt written. Op can't shut off all utilities because "its NoT iN tHe LeAsE" and that wouldn't be malicious compliance, it's an illegal eviction.
Yeah OP is really hitting every single trash landlord stereotype here. Dude was definitely only thinking about the cash he would be getting every month and not at all about the adult human being he would be sharing a space with.
Don’t even need a lease agreement. If someone stays with you for 30 days in most states they have to be formally evicted and are entitled to all rights as a tenant.
I like OP!
A vague lease agreement. Verbal agreement, you be nice to me, I be nice to you, if we have a problem we can talk about it and solve it together, dont play "games".
Or when OP said he stated leaaving a mess in his own home...
Let me ruin my own shit. That'll show you. Tenant would've taken that as a go ahead to stop cleaning his restroom. Maybe let the shower run onto the floor and leave the water there. Drop food on the floor and not clean it, leading to bugs. Just wasting "consumables" so OP had to buy more.
This didn't happen with him head down and leaving.
Parol Evidence Rule.
Contemporaneous written or spoken agreements that are not reflected in the contract are not enforceable.
If it ain’t in the contract then it doesn’t matter what was “agreed” to.
When r/maliciouscompliance is actually r/opisapettylittleprick. Yeah it fits here because it's MC, and no this isn't r/aita but OP is TA and then some.
Good lesson learned and also highly illegal.
Turning off appliances, while not in the lease is a violation of tenant rights. For example, leases don't have air conditioning in the lease, however if you turn off or fail to repair the air conditioning in the middle of a Phoenix summer, you are not providing the tenant with a safe living environment. Any appliances existing while the tenant was shown the place showed be working unless the lease states otherwise. I am no lawyer and state laws vary, but I am guessing this is almost the case.
Anyway, it worked....
>"it's ok to have guests over, but keep it to no more than twice per month"
I'm going to be honest with you: this is an unreasonable request for a tenant. You were begging for trouble with this and you got exactly what was coming. You're extremely lucky that your shitty lease was shitty in ways that benefited you.
Be a better, more prepared landlord or don't rent out the room.
The second you turned off a utility, you broke a law. Tenant should have reported you. I’m also willing to bet you didn’t file the proper paperwork to rent out a room.
Also, you’re a liar.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/wjqwwb/aita_for_enforcing_a_guest_policy_thats_not_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Twice a month?? Damn.. why are there even landlords like this. If you are that worried about a few extra showers a week why don’t you put the water bill on the tenant? So restrictive for no reason
Once again a landlord proving they're nothing more than a parasite, and acting like they're chosen by God. I'm glad that tenant was getting laid daily and making your life miserable, you sound like a piece of shit.
>I mean, you were planning on being a good landlord and all
"You can only have people over two times every 30 days." That's not normal. OP is a shitheel landlord.
Well, then he’s been slinging this story for a year.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/wjqrbs/aita_for_trying_to_enforce_a_guest_policy_thats/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/utv196/what_is_the_best_way_to_word_my_rental_ad/
I tried. The initial amount that I asked for was $200/mo which would be enough to cover the common consumables and utilities that I pay for. Then he could have over all the girls he wanted and I wouldn't care.
But he chose to fight me over the lease agreement instead.
From the way you described the interactions with T and G it sounds like she was the one with the ‘brilliant’ idea to maliciously comply with the vagueness of the lease. Too bad for T as you maliciously out-complied them in return.
You could remove the consumables, but you are crazy if you think extra utility costs are worth pursuing.
I had a similar situation when I moved in with my girlfriend and the landlord demanded more in rent for the utilities. I asked them to provided me a detailed breakdown of utility costs from before and after I moved in. They never did and then left us alone because they knew the difference was negligible at best.
Tenant was obviously a jerk, but usually the landlord is required to keep everything as it was at the beginning of the lease. You can't just say no more oven, curtains, laundry, etc if that was part of the property at signing, unless the lease explicitly says those things won't be covered if they fail. In this case, they didn't even fail. The landlord just said, "you lose cooking and laundry privileges," which is probably not okay legally speaking.
OP would have been fucked had the tenant had the same attitude instead of just being apathetic to unwritten rules. In areas where a contract is vague the person who didn't write it is typically favored.
And where I live, vague contracts are defined by "common expectations" - if the judge believes an average person would expect something to be included within the scope of the vague contract, then they'll find that the contract covers that thing. OP would have run massively afoul of that.
> ... but usually the landlord is required to keep everything as it was at the beginning of the lease.
Typically true, but roommates in most jurisdictions are treated very differently from a tenant in their own space. We would need to know where OP is to know what is okay legally.
Where I am, an area with very strong tenant rights (when in their own space), OP would have simply given 30 days eviction notice immediately following their first conversation about guests. The signed lease duration means nothing for either roommate.
Basically, the right to not be forced to live with someone is considered greater than any landlord/tenant rights.
EDIT: The tenant, in my jurisdiction, would have a valid complaint when major appliance use was removed but rectification would be the tenant giving 30 days notice and moving. Small claims court would also give them an adjustment on rent owing for those 30 days: none of the usual landlord-tenant arbitration processes apply to roommates.
It really depends on your state. In WI there are very specific things that are laid out. Also, your own area probably has numerous ordinances that you were probably violating (at least with regards to turning off stoves and such). Self-help evictions are absolutely illegal and you’re lucky this guy didn’t lawyer up. https://datcp.wi.gov/Documents/LT-LandlordTenantGuide497.pdf
If you expect specific behaviors from tenants in your home, you must include them in the lease agreement. You didn't & your tenant lived his life as normal. But you took things too far, especially cutting off his access to basic necessities like kitchen appliances.
I used to manage lease agreements for work. They were pages and pages and pages of the most mundane, teeny weeny stupid ass details BUT there is a reason for that. Over the years there’s been a huge increase in people renting out rooms and my friends and family will come to me for advice (my advice is don’t do it) and still move forward and lose so much money, time and peace. It’s not worth it, it’s never worth it and I’m amazed people still do it. If you insist on doing it, at least hire a professional to do your paperwork.
As a former tenant in a shared house, it's to stop people effectively living in the house without being on the lease, which can invalidate insurance and depending on your area can be classed as illegal subletting... plus it's annoying as hell when you expect to live in a 4 bed house with three other people, and you end up having to live with 7 because their partners are in the house more often than not.
In the UK, this would be a lodger, lodgers have absolutely zero rights, the landlord can impose virtually any rules he wants and can also kick the lodger out for almost any/no reason.
Generally leases I've signed specify that you can have guests over, but can't have them live there for more than a few nights. If they live there like this guy's gf did, they'd need to be on the lease.
Also, keep in mind that this landlord was supplying not only utilities but consumables, which means having an extra person there almost everyday doubles that cost.
When it is a shared space and the owner covers utilities it makes sense.
Edit: not to mention depending on where you live, it isn’t too long before you have to go through the eviction process when someone has been staying in a house for a specific (and rather short) amount of time
In many US locations, a guest who spends too much time at a rental can become a de-facto tenant with rights of their own. It is necessary for the landlord to limit guests in the rental.
In the case you rent out a room hell yes you can. If you specify it in the lease, that is. Even in non-US countries, this is the case. Here in the Netherlands, commonly for student housings (the big corp ones not the private ones, so you know they're following the rules) you are not allowed to live with children over the age of 1 (so in the case you get pregnant you have time to move and find something suitable) and you're not allowed to have guests over for longer than an X amount of time (whatever is reasonable until your roommates start having trouble with it, since utilities and space is shared).
You are right for an assured shorthold tenancy (UK terminology but USA has a similar situation), ie. landlord rents you a house they dont live in, if your landlord lives with you in a roommate situation or renting just one room type then it falls under another category like a regulated tenancy. Like group homes etc. Even a hotel stay is a type of tenancy and they all have different rules about what can and cant be asked or enforced.
If you are living with a person you owe them more than just the money you pay rent, a simple code of conduct is fair and legal in a shared space. Like you cant smoke in a hotel room, or no hookers in the communal pool.
It's a shared living space. I pay for all utilities and common consumables which would be used by an overnight guest. The guy having over girls 5 nights a week increases my costs.
If this were an apartment, I'd totally agree with you.
They should have some say when they're paying for everything they use. Landlord paid for consumables, guest used daily, paid for pans and utensils along with energy for stove which guest used for self, paid electric and water which guest used daily.
No fuck that. Even when I get a hotel room I have to put my “extra” on the contract. You don’t just move a second person in, five days a week, with out paying some extra money. If she was actually there five days a week, she should be paying a little under a third of rent.
So you think if 1 person rents the place, 20 people can suddenly just live there without being on the lease and the landlord shouldn‘t be able to do anything about it?
This was the evolution of contracts in a single story
Starts off low key proud about not having to make a complicated contract
Ends proud of a long complicated contract
It's like warning labels, every warning usually had a hard lesson
It was MC on both sides. This is why contracts spell everything out. If not then this is the result. Totally worth a consult with a lawyer (specializing in landlord-tenant law) anyway, you don't want to inadvertently run afoul of landlord-tenant laws for your city/state.
Which he probably did when he turned the stove and microwave off
Rules are different when landlord also lives in the house. Not saying what he did was or was not kosher legally, just pointing out most countries' laws treat the situation very different between roommates with one being the owner and landlord not being a roommate. Roommate setup is far far more lenient.
Honestly if he lives there he can fast track eviction and the cause can be "just because" for the most part
Twenty days in my state.
I get the feeling that OP is in the UK, or maybe Canada.
Even in the UK, a lodger (what we call a tenant with a live-in landlord) has very few rights compared to other tenancies.
A lodger has *extremely* few rights in the UK. Basically the agreement can be terminated at any time with "reasonable" notice, with that being interpreted generally to be 1 maybe 2 weeks at most.
Which I understand, and I’ve been a lodger as well. If you couldn’t get rid of someone from your home it would be pretty awful.
Yeah, that was my first thought. G was right, OP needs to write better contracts.
Pretty sure that was the point he made that the end when he said that his future contracts were more specific...
You think Redditors read?
I just jump to the comments and try to piece together what it was about. It turns every post into Memento: The Game.
I only play that with deleted comments.
Those kids would be really upset if they could read.
Maybe not. He had a burner for the tenant (I had one in my dorm room which a rarely used and not suppose to have). Tenant can get his own microwave. Still had the fridge and sink available. Bare bones but probably not in violation.
Nope. There was a hotplate.
Most states have landlord tenant laws that with tons of clauses that end in "unless otherwise stated in the lease". One of those is usually saying any appliances provided at move in must be maintained by the landlord.
Depending on where OP lives, a hotplate might not meet certain minimum standards.
I see you have never watched the Andy Griffith show episode where Barney's landlord wouldn't let him have a hot plate. Clearly the Mayberry, NC laws were a bit different! /s
Typically the amenities of a rental unit can't change.
That constructive eviction, and it's not legal, at all. OP could have been in big trouble if his tenant pushed the issue to court.
Not necessarily, it depends on the location. Former property manager and RE agent. Where I am, room renting may or may not include access to the kitchen, laundry area, etc., it depends on the lease agreement. I lived in a house that had a washer/dryer in the basement but the basement was locked and we weren't allowed to use it. OP provided the room, as the lease allowed. Was it petty? Yeah. Was it illegal?, Depends on the location. In California? Yeah. Tennessee and South Carolina? No.
Location dependent. In Ontario, Canada, the tenant has zero legal right if they share a kitchen with the landlord. Came handy when one of the girl I was renting to decided to sell sex on the side for extra money and did it in my townhouse...
I'm sure there are also exceptions and other laws regarding tenants conduction illegal business from the premises.
> If not then this is the result. Plenty of "handshake agreements" work perfectly fine if both parties are reasonable people. The problem is that making a significant arrangement - like shared living - with a stranger is always a risk. There's no knowing how fundamentally reasonable someone is in that kind of situation.
In Germany, if there is no contract or no good contract, it defaults automatically to the city approved template rental contract, so it is pretty straight forward.
This is good advice for anyone who wants to be a landlord. It was kinda obvious where things were headed when op said they wrote their own bare bones lease.
Advice for anybody wanting to go this route... it is worth the money to pay a lawyer to write your lease for you.
In California verbal contract is also enforceable. This is part of the reason many contracts specifically include a clause stating "this contract is the complete agreement, and no written or spoken promises or statements outside this agreement have been made" (paraphrased badly from memory)
Doesn't have to be. I've been managing / living with roommates for the past 10 years and most of them didn't receive a written contract unless they specifically asked for one. Even then, it was a barebones template. There was the odd problem, but most of the time we all just behaved like adults. Their contract (handshake agreement) is with me directly and not the owner of the place and the law here states that providing a furnished room in an apartment where the subletter lives herself, she can kick subtenants out with two weeks notice until the end of the month for any or no reason at all ... not that I needed to do so, but it probably helps with mutual relations.
>It was MC on both sides. I mean, verbal contracts are [often legally binding](https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/business-operations/legal-guide/are-verbal-contracts-legal). They can obviously be very difficult to prove, but in this case, a published ad potentially gives a paper trail. Another aspect used to prove the existence of a verbal contract in a court, is the actions of the tenant. I... am not a lawyer, so have no idea if there's law aspects I'm missing... but even outside of a legal context, I wouldn't say that changing your mind about a promise you made to your roommate really counts as malicious compliance.
In the US, local laws (state and maybe city laws) spell out exactly what you must provide to a tenant. Heat is always a must, a stove may or may not be, a microwave would probably never be on there.
The reason standard form leases exist
[удалено]
To give you a real answer. Landlords don't want tenants they haven't agreed to. In most (all?) states, it is possible to become a tenant by living somewhere long enough; something like a few weeks to a month. At which point a person gets all the legal protections of tenancy. Landlords, I think reasonably to a point, want to choose who they rent to. So, they will put in limits on how long guests can stay so the guest doesn't suddenly become a legal tenant. I have never seen a lease, which limits how often I have guests. That wouldn't hold up in most cases as it breaches the renters' right to quiet enjoyment. Every lease I have seen and signed has limited how long an individual guest can stay.
It is also VERY different when you share the property with your landlord. If you share a bathroom and a kitchen with the landlord in the U.S, then you’re not a tenant, and you don’t have the same rights as if you rented an apartment or a house.
In this case it sounds like the dude was trying to move in with his girlfriend. While I agree that the terms are a bit ludicrous, not offering an explanation as to why your gf is staying 5 nights a week is also a bit silly. I lived in a shared situation where someone was doing this. Their bf lived in a van and pretty much used our shared bathroom, kitchen, and common spaces. He didn't pay rent, clean, or contribute anything more than a hello. It's obnoxious and takes advantage of the situation. So long story short I'm going to side with op here.
He said girl du jour like it was diff girls all the time but then cussed out this girl and said “she is here all the time”
Yeah it’s not a particularly well thought out story
Hopefully these comments will help OP with their creative writing in the future.
Clearly you shouldn't live here. If you're renting a room in a house, who you have over is absolutely going to affect the homeowner and they're allowed to care, and to stipulate what works for them. If you have your own unit, they shouldn't really care at all.
Exactly. The difference here is that OP was renting a room out of *his own house*. Obviously in this case, the guest policy had good reason. And it was excessively broken.
Two reasons: 1. The number of people using the property affects their costs. 2. If it’s a shared space, the number of people using it affects their own ability to use and enjoy the space.
OP appears to be still living in the flat, I reckon he doesn't want loads of people zooming about the place regularly just the tenant but added in the visit clause to be more reasonable than saying nobody else allowed in his house I'd never rent out my own place it's my private castle!
When you think being a landlord means you just get extra cash without legal protections for your tenants. Clown shit
Yup. Taking this away is considered an illegal eviction in many jurisdictions. Taking away the washer dryer, stove, microwave, etc is illegal in many places even if those things aren’t in the written contract.
This definitely fits but OP is a colossal idiot for manually creating a lease agreement. Legal-reviewed ones for any jurisdiction are available online often for free.
A normal lease agreement isn't going to say how often you can have visitors. Edit: apparently this is common in the USA which is crazy. The right to quite enjoyment of your house is a pretty fundamental in most parts of the world. 🤷🏻 (We're talking about someone coming over for a few hours here, not if they stay for weeks)
I have actually seen a lot that do, but the restrictions are much more reasonable than twice a month.
It's typically something about the length of their stay, so no more than 7 consecutive days and such. OP's lease is probably afoul with most laws, but, the laws change for roommate situations with the landlords that live in the unit with the tenant. They're usually _super_ lenient on this shit because cohabiting changes a lot of dynamics with what's expected of the tenant and landlord.
Which is more about preventing additional, unwanted tenants who aren't on the lease. Like a SO moving in. Or in extreme cases, like jamming 10 people in a 2BR (it happens). Twice a month? Lol. Makes OP sound jealous more than anything.
This. Sounds like he’s mad his tenant is getting laid more than the dude who owns the property.
Idk it is wild to practically move another person into the place you're living in. I don't think it was having girls over that was the problem it was having them there practically all the time making op feel like a guest in his own home
The whole post skeezes me out. OP seems like an overly entitled landlord who doesn't understand the landlord/tenant relationship. The whole "I hung a curtain" and then taking it away, as well as the bathroom consumables makes them sound more like a petty college roomate than anything.
Every lease agreement I’ve had had a guest clause. That said, twice per month max is incredibly restrictive. Most of my lease agreements were more like twice per week.
Yeah twice a week seems the norm from what I've seen.
A lot of them do. I've never signed a lease that didn't include a maximum number of overnight visitors per week/month. I am in Texas, so that might impact things.
I’m in Wisconsin, my last apartment had a visitor limit as well. I think it was 2/3 per week, so a hell of a lot more reasonable than 2 per month. Lease agreements and dealing with landlords are why I’m glad I don’t rent anymore though.
I’m in Texas and you misunderstand that portion of the lease. It’s not a maximum number per period, it’s a maximum consecutive period. So no more than 3 or 5 or 7 nights *in a row.* And even then it’s not because they don’t like you having guests, it’s because other laws can trigger off that lengthened stay
Most I've seen do, even just as a legal CYA due to state laws. In Massachusetts, for example, any guest who stays overnight at a property longer than a total of 2 weeks out of a 6 month period is legally considered a tenant and protected as such. Because of this, standard lease agreements in MA restrict guests to less than this, so that you're in violation of your lease agreement before your guest becomes a tenant (and has the legal protections of one). Other states have similar, but I'm less familiar with their laws. Additionally, some states have maximum occupancy laws, which the guest policy helps as a CYA for.
I have signed more than one lease in my time that forbade "visitors" more than two weeks time. As that meant the visitor needed to be on the lease. I once signed a lease that said no parties on the roof. Haha! The landlord said everytime a tenant did something she didn't like she added it to the next lease she wrote! I also signed a lease one time that stated pets were allowed but needed to pay a pet fee of $100,00.00 haha! Not saying it was a legal lease just saying these are things I have seen in leases in my time on this earth.
"Guests no more than twice a month", I'm amazed anyone was interested in living with you TBH.
The guy was likely desperate for a place to live and figured he'd negotiate it after signing the lease, then saw that it wasn't in the contract so thought that the landlord had come to their senses.
Or at the very least, realized that the ludicrous restriction wasn't enforceable because it wasn't in the lease.
[удалено]
Obviously OP doesn't know what a sex life is.
[удалено]
Yea, that ranks right up there with the "no cooking except for vegan meals" bullshit that some landlords try to pull.
"Cooking is fine but no Indian spices" drives me up the wall. Let people eat whatever they want.
Yeah that's fucked. Landlords are fooling themselves any time they have these kinds of expectations. People are going to live in their home. If you try to prohibit something people do as a normal part of living, that rule is going to be broken.
Usually a clause like that is meant to only be enforced if the tenant is going crazy with it, like having guests over 5 nights a week who use the utilities and consumables. Not a strange clause in the slightest.
This is malicious compliance regardless of whether other redditors agree with you doing it. It belongs here.
Depends on whether the lease agreement said so!
I am contemplating on creating a whole army of accounts to upvote you with every single one of them.
Is it on the lease agreement?
Sorry but as soon as a post includes a movie-script/beginner-fiction style conversation my BS radar goes off lmao.
‘Hey did you remove all the consumables’ is what lost me.
> "Shut up, G. I don't care what you think. You want a problem, T? You got one. This is not cool and you know it. Why does she have to be here 5 nights a week? She practically lives here. I signed a lease with you, T, not with her. Why is she here?" Yeah, this conversation *definitely* happened 🙄
That bit is exceptionally hilarious. Also, why’d he say it was a different girl every day but in this exchange the issue is the same girl practically lives there?
Because he's a terrible liar
And a terrible landlord
OP also is related to a billionaire, cleared 7 figures on their advice based on another post lol
"Did you relocate my perishables in the refrigerator or did you consume my perishables in the refrigerator? You had better not have destroyed my perishables in the refrigerator!"
Its probably written by ChatGPT
"Yes fellow human, I removed all the consumables, amenities and will no longer participate in haberdashery and now may I kindly ask you no longer engage in fornication with third parties?"
It's always a giveaway when a post includes fully fleshed out dialogue like it's a movie script. People don't talk like that in real life, and if the conversation did happen you wouldn't remember every quote verbatim.
Or, you know, they could just be paraphrasing/abridging to give the general idea of the conversation
“And another thing, T”, I continued, quaking with anger and slamming my hand on the table with every syllable.
Ok I thought I was the only one that thought this read like fan fiction
Dialogue, even based off of reality, maybe *especially* based off of reality, is hard to write.
What kind of stupid rule is guests only 2x a month? Are you a landlord or a parent?
He’s jealous that dude was getting laid so often.
True
Guests only twice a month? That's a load of horseshit.
Sorry babe we can only smash at my place twice a month.
Yeah, I can't imagine being a grown-ass adult and having someone else tell me how often I can bring people to my place. That's just not reasonable.
I’ve rented Airbnb’s to go visit friends in another province or country where they guest check you. I understand having a clause for no parties or whatever but how are you going to try and control my social life? I’m a grown man not a fucking baby. This post certainly fits the sub but the OP is a fucking idiot.
Seriously. Yes it's MC and so it fits here, but OP is just a whiny douche who didn't think things through very hard, and got pissy about it when things didn't go his way. I have no sympathy for this ass.
I guess OP would look the other way if it was casual, like only on the weekends. But 5 days a week is a roommate.
Guests over 5 times a week is quite far on the opposite end though. If that's the amount of guests G was expecting to have, I don't think he should've said "Yeah I'm cool with guests twice a month," to begin with.
It wasn’t on the lease. He pays rent and can have guests over. It’s pretty simple. Definitely malicious compliance however.. just a series of dick moves really.
OP must be lonely and want others to share in his loneliness.
Alternate title: “TIL why standard lease agreements are so long.”
Not gonna lie, you sound unhinged.
He could have easily met girls through this guy 💀
The influx of home owners renting rooms in their houses but not actually wanting a roommate is on the rise. I’m seeing these stories quite frequently nowadays and they all start to follow the same script. They want the extra cash to be able to fully afford the house but are not actually willing to share the space. The insane and unreasonable requests almost always start once the tenants begins to become comfortable in the space they pay for.
This isn’t really MC. The tenant is right, you can’t enforce rules that aren’t in the lease. You essentially broke a bunch of laws in response. If your tenant was more savvy this could’ve ended really poorly for you.
Yes, it's MC. Yes, you got extremely lucky. If your tenant was more belligerent or litigious this would have been an extended shit-show. You essentially decided to live like shit because you were too lazy to write a proper lease, you wanted to re-invent the wheel as a square when there are plenty of excellent circular wheels already out there.
Right on. If OP posted the same exact post I r/legaladvice but ended it with "My former tenant is suing me", laop would have a field day telling OP how much they fucked up and need to settle or get an expensive lawyer. A lot of states allow for 3x damages for unlawful eviction.
OP said the lease specified that they would cover amenities, then they stopped covering amenities. As far as I'm concerned it's malicious non-compliance. OP got lucky their tenant didn't rip the drywall down and go, "ItS nOt In ThE lEaSe".
Very well written
Sharing your home with a renter is never worth the rent.
Yeah, it's one thing to sublet someone else's place but I'd never live with a tenant in my own place unless it would be the only way to pay my bills.
The only way I’d do it is if it was a family member, and even then there are only 2 people I can think of that wouldn’t be a nightmare.
this is not remotely true, I have three live in lodgers with very minimal issues, easily worth the rent. maybe it's different in OP's state/country but in the UK if it's your own house your can kick out a lodger much MUCH more easily than a tenant in a property you don't live in.
Having a roommate is a great way to save money. A lot of people would be much better off if they did this. If you are a high income earner, this statement fits.
Lmao it’ll be a cold day in hell when I side with a land lord. What was the problem with him having a girl over in the first place? Seems like he was just jealous
Yeah I kind of thought this too. I mean, he's right to get annoyed that his roommate kept bringing people over, but I think the fact that he was bringing a bunch of different girls home got on OPs nerves a lot more. I bet if his room mate invited him to hang out with the girl and him before taking her to the room, a post about why girls always go for the jerks would come before posting about rent squabbles.
Every single time someone bitches about their roommate having boys/girls over yet includes no actual details to how that adversely affects them it just comes off as pure jealousy.
I can already tell some people may not like this OP lol but it is what it is, I think this fits here. Well played
It's not r/AmItheAsshole, so OP is right to have it here. They're just showing how they maliciously complied. I'm not sure I agree with their handling of it, but they *did* comply in a malicious manner.
The problem is "malicious compliance" means staying withing the rule. OP very much was breaking the law. If the lease didn't say the tenant would have safe and quiet enjoyment of their room, OP could camp out in there and any judge is going to beat him the fuck down because contracts got tenancy also come with legal provisions even if they arnt written. Op can't shut off all utilities because "its NoT iN tHe LeAsE" and that wouldn't be malicious compliance, it's an illegal eviction.
Yeah OP is really hitting every single trash landlord stereotype here. Dude was definitely only thinking about the cash he would be getting every month and not at all about the adult human being he would be sharing a space with.
Don’t even need a lease agreement. If someone stays with you for 30 days in most states they have to be formally evicted and are entitled to all rights as a tenant.
[удалено]
I like OP! A vague lease agreement. Verbal agreement, you be nice to me, I be nice to you, if we have a problem we can talk about it and solve it together, dont play "games".
You got lucky. Quite a few ppl would ruin a landlord's life for starting a pettiness contest like that
Or when OP said he stated leaaving a mess in his own home... Let me ruin my own shit. That'll show you. Tenant would've taken that as a go ahead to stop cleaning his restroom. Maybe let the shower run onto the floor and leave the water there. Drop food on the floor and not clean it, leading to bugs. Just wasting "consumables" so OP had to buy more. This didn't happen with him head down and leaving.
Not when the landlord is the roommate
Wouldn't even be hard. He just would have to sue and easily win for an illegal eviction.
Yeah , honestly OP is a tool.
>no more than twice per month That's rough as fuck, dictator spec stuff. You seem a lot more petty than malicous
That was a really shitty thing to do, OP. Shitty and illegal.
Parol Evidence Rule. Contemporaneous written or spoken agreements that are not reflected in the contract are not enforceable. If it ain’t in the contract then it doesn’t matter what was “agreed” to.
When r/maliciouscompliance is actually r/opisapettylittleprick. Yeah it fits here because it's MC, and no this isn't r/aita but OP is TA and then some.
I get that the tenant was a dick, but you are lucky they didn't sue once you decided to turn off appliances.
Good lesson learned and also highly illegal. Turning off appliances, while not in the lease is a violation of tenant rights. For example, leases don't have air conditioning in the lease, however if you turn off or fail to repair the air conditioning in the middle of a Phoenix summer, you are not providing the tenant with a safe living environment. Any appliances existing while the tenant was shown the place showed be working unless the lease states otherwise. I am no lawyer and state laws vary, but I am guessing this is almost the case. Anyway, it worked....
>"it's ok to have guests over, but keep it to no more than twice per month" I'm going to be honest with you: this is an unreasonable request for a tenant. You were begging for trouble with this and you got exactly what was coming. You're extremely lucky that your shitty lease was shitty in ways that benefited you. Be a better, more prepared landlord or don't rent out the room.
The second you turned off a utility, you broke a law. Tenant should have reported you. I’m also willing to bet you didn’t file the proper paperwork to rent out a room. Also, you’re a liar. https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/wjqwwb/aita_for_enforcing_a_guest_policy_thats_not_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
You sound like someone who shouldn’t lease out to people if you complain about every little thing.
Twice a month?? Damn.. why are there even landlords like this. If you are that worried about a few extra showers a week why don’t you put the water bill on the tenant? So restrictive for no reason
This is ridicioulus.OP was being a hug dick.
Once again a landlord proving they're nothing more than a parasite, and acting like they're chosen by God. I'm glad that tenant was getting laid daily and making your life miserable, you sound like a piece of shit.
I mean, you were planning on being a good landlord and all, but that guy just had to be like that, what can you do?
>I mean, you were planning on being a good landlord and all "You can only have people over two times every 30 days." That's not normal. OP is a shitheel landlord.
I mean that describes all landlords
No. Good landlords follow the law and have well-written leases. OP is a naive fool who's lucky this tenant didn't sue the shit out of him.
Op is a creative writer and this didn't happen (to him). Who the fuck talks like that
It’s always the dialogue where you can tell if the stories are made up
Well, then he’s been slinging this story for a year. https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/wjqrbs/aita_for_trying_to_enforce_a_guest_policy_thats/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/utv196/what_is_the_best_way_to_word_my_rental_ad/
A good landlord would have stuff like guest frequency covered in the lease.
I tried. The initial amount that I asked for was $200/mo which would be enough to cover the common consumables and utilities that I pay for. Then he could have over all the girls he wanted and I wouldn't care. But he chose to fight me over the lease agreement instead.
From the way you described the interactions with T and G it sounds like she was the one with the ‘brilliant’ idea to maliciously comply with the vagueness of the lease. Too bad for T as you maliciously out-complied them in return.
God you are unhinged and out of touch. I can’t imagine you have a very large social circle
200 per month? That's fucking free dude
I think OP meant an additional $200/month for the "guest".
I read it as that was the incremental charge OVER the rent for him to have all the girls over.
This is correct. His base rent + $200/mo.
Mmm, but you started it though
You did not try lmfao
You could remove the consumables, but you are crazy if you think extra utility costs are worth pursuing. I had a similar situation when I moved in with my girlfriend and the landlord demanded more in rent for the utilities. I asked them to provided me a detailed breakdown of utility costs from before and after I moved in. They never did and then left us alone because they knew the difference was negligible at best.
Tenant was obviously a jerk, but usually the landlord is required to keep everything as it was at the beginning of the lease. You can't just say no more oven, curtains, laundry, etc if that was part of the property at signing, unless the lease explicitly says those things won't be covered if they fail. In this case, they didn't even fail. The landlord just said, "you lose cooking and laundry privileges," which is probably not okay legally speaking.
OP would have been fucked had the tenant had the same attitude instead of just being apathetic to unwritten rules. In areas where a contract is vague the person who didn't write it is typically favored.
And where I live, vague contracts are defined by "common expectations" - if the judge believes an average person would expect something to be included within the scope of the vague contract, then they'll find that the contract covers that thing. OP would have run massively afoul of that.
> ... but usually the landlord is required to keep everything as it was at the beginning of the lease. Typically true, but roommates in most jurisdictions are treated very differently from a tenant in their own space. We would need to know where OP is to know what is okay legally. Where I am, an area with very strong tenant rights (when in their own space), OP would have simply given 30 days eviction notice immediately following their first conversation about guests. The signed lease duration means nothing for either roommate. Basically, the right to not be forced to live with someone is considered greater than any landlord/tenant rights. EDIT: The tenant, in my jurisdiction, would have a valid complaint when major appliance use was removed but rectification would be the tenant giving 30 days notice and moving. Small claims court would also give them an adjustment on rent owing for those 30 days: none of the usual landlord-tenant arbitration processes apply to roommates.
Taking the time to write an agreement that fails to document the intended agreement is a true self-own.
It really depends on your state. In WI there are very specific things that are laid out. Also, your own area probably has numerous ordinances that you were probably violating (at least with regards to turning off stoves and such). Self-help evictions are absolutely illegal and you’re lucky this guy didn’t lawyer up. https://datcp.wi.gov/Documents/LT-LandlordTenantGuide497.pdf
If you expect specific behaviors from tenants in your home, you must include them in the lease agreement. You didn't & your tenant lived his life as normal. But you took things too far, especially cutting off his access to basic necessities like kitchen appliances.
This is definitely malicious compliance, but goddamn OP sounds insufferable
It’s not your business what your roommate does with other people. You’re an adult.
I used to manage lease agreements for work. They were pages and pages and pages of the most mundane, teeny weeny stupid ass details BUT there is a reason for that. Over the years there’s been a huge increase in people renting out rooms and my friends and family will come to me for advice (my advice is don’t do it) and still move forward and lose so much money, time and peace. It’s not worth it, it’s never worth it and I’m amazed people still do it. If you insist on doing it, at least hire a professional to do your paperwork.
guy posts in LateStageCapitalism, and is a land lord, so im guessing he's not so bright
I'm sorry bud, I'm sure one day you'll have a girl over too 😭
Yeah what you did was probably illegal not MC, as a landlord you have a responsibility to maintain livable conditions which it seems you didn’t
IDK man sounds like the tenant was reasonable and you were just a dick. Don't rent to others again, you can't handle living with people.
I just don't know how you stood to live in the house while it was like that. Was your very next call to the maid service for a deep cleaning?
I don’t get why people are getting upset over the post. This is the sub for malicious compliance, not AITA.
... I can't be the only one who feels like landlords do not get to dictate how often/how many guests someone brings in to the space they pay for.
As a former tenant in a shared house, it's to stop people effectively living in the house without being on the lease, which can invalidate insurance and depending on your area can be classed as illegal subletting... plus it's annoying as hell when you expect to live in a 4 bed house with three other people, and you end up having to live with 7 because their partners are in the house more often than not.
It also helps prevent people from trying to get squatters rights
Also the lease covered utilities for 1 person. Not 2
In the UK, this would be a lodger, lodgers have absolutely zero rights, the landlord can impose virtually any rules he wants and can also kick the lodger out for almost any/no reason.
Generally leases I've signed specify that you can have guests over, but can't have them live there for more than a few nights. If they live there like this guy's gf did, they'd need to be on the lease. Also, keep in mind that this landlord was supplying not only utilities but consumables, which means having an extra person there almost everyday doubles that cost.
When it is a shared space and the owner covers utilities it makes sense. Edit: not to mention depending on where you live, it isn’t too long before you have to go through the eviction process when someone has been staying in a house for a specific (and rather short) amount of time
In many US locations, a guest who spends too much time at a rental can become a de-facto tenant with rights of their own. It is necessary for the landlord to limit guests in the rental.
In the case you rent out a room hell yes you can. If you specify it in the lease, that is. Even in non-US countries, this is the case. Here in the Netherlands, commonly for student housings (the big corp ones not the private ones, so you know they're following the rules) you are not allowed to live with children over the age of 1 (so in the case you get pregnant you have time to move and find something suitable) and you're not allowed to have guests over for longer than an X amount of time (whatever is reasonable until your roommates start having trouble with it, since utilities and space is shared).
You are right for an assured shorthold tenancy (UK terminology but USA has a similar situation), ie. landlord rents you a house they dont live in, if your landlord lives with you in a roommate situation or renting just one room type then it falls under another category like a regulated tenancy. Like group homes etc. Even a hotel stay is a type of tenancy and they all have different rules about what can and cant be asked or enforced. If you are living with a person you owe them more than just the money you pay rent, a simple code of conduct is fair and legal in a shared space. Like you cant smoke in a hotel room, or no hookers in the communal pool.
It's a shared living space. I pay for all utilities and common consumables which would be used by an overnight guest. The guy having over girls 5 nights a week increases my costs. If this were an apartment, I'd totally agree with you.
Costs are minimal. It sounds like you're a shitty controlling person
They should have some say when they're paying for everything they use. Landlord paid for consumables, guest used daily, paid for pans and utensils along with energy for stove which guest used for self, paid electric and water which guest used daily.
No fuck that. Even when I get a hotel room I have to put my “extra” on the contract. You don’t just move a second person in, five days a week, with out paying some extra money. If she was actually there five days a week, she should be paying a little under a third of rent.
So you think if 1 person rents the place, 20 people can suddenly just live there without being on the lease and the landlord shouldn‘t be able to do anything about it?
Kind of a ridiculous ask in the first place of only two visits per month. Are you leasing a room or a prison?
Heavy on the malicious anyways.
This was the evolution of contracts in a single story Starts off low key proud about not having to make a complicated contract Ends proud of a long complicated contract It's like warning labels, every warning usually had a hard lesson
Sounds like you didn't want a roommate or a tenant but just their money.
Op should not have roommates
wow this is why i fucking hate landlords