I MISS EVICTION COURT
I miss eviction court. Hopefully, the feds will let landlords evict again. Supposed to be Sept. 3, now — the date to reopen the evictions courts nationwide. We’ll see.
I do my own “forcible entry and detainers.”
That means evictions.
First, I serve the deadbeat tenant an eviction notice. Technically, that is a three-day notice.
Then I go to the court, and for $125 fill out another piece of paper, called a “forcible entry.” On the form, under the “second cause of action,” I write: “Tenant owes back rent.” I used to write novellas: “Blah, blah, wherefore plaintiff prays for damages and the cost of this action . . .” A waste of time. The tenant is broke; you’re not going to get anything by writing more.
I occasionally lose a case — usually on oddball stuff. Like when an AIDS victim claimed I didn’t rent to him because of his illness. I didn’t know he had AIDS. We settled for $620. I was fine with that. You know what a real discrimination case can cost? Five-thousand dollars, for starters.
Another AIDS victim wanted to move from the fourth floor to the first. I didn’t want that; the guy was always late with his rent, and I would have to repaint his old suite and his new one. He got a lawyer who said I was discriminating. I said, “Can I help you with that couch?” The tenant moved to the first floor and died a couple months later.
Lawyers say past rent is “recoverable.” Yes, the rent is recoverable, but try to recover money from somebody who’s broke. Not recoverable.
The courts have determined that accepting late rent “effectively waives strict compliance with the rental terms.”
Strict compliance? Who’s into strict compliance? I accept late rent payments. I don’t say to tenants, “Oh, it’s the eighth of the month, I can’t accept your rent.”
I sometimes hire a lawyer for legal complications — matters beyond the workaday. For instance, the city wanted to ban basement dwellings because the mayor thought below-ground suites were a throwback to the dark ages when custodians lived underground and stoked coal-fired boilers. My lawyer brought a stenographer to the city hearing. The city guys were impressed with that. Also, a group of ethnic babushka landladies — who owned basement rental units too — were there. Afterward, they thanked me for stymying the city’s effort.
Quasi-legal advice:
1. Do not discriminate against people with kids. Federal law prohibits it.
2. Do discriminate on age — on the young side — if you want. But be consistent. For example, you can prohibit adults under a certain age, say 22, from your apartments. That means 18-to-21 year olds can’t live in your buildings. That reduces the partying and potatoes stuck in the toilet drains.
3. When you try to evict a party animal, you need to quote verbatim from the Ohio Revised Code, Section 5321.05 (A) (8). That’s the part that ends “conduct yourself in a manner that will not disturb your neighbor’s peaceful enjoyment of the premises.” You have to use that exact language.
Peaceful enjoyment. That’s the goal.
4 comments
This is an interesting summation of landlord-tenant law from the landlord’s perspective.
When I worked for Legal Aid back in Washington state, we were prohibited from representing landlords. I can’t remember if it was board policy, or came from our funder, the Legal Foundation of Washington. It created resentment because the reality was that some landlords’ (usually elderly on fixed income) basic living expenses were put at risk when tenants failed to pay rent.
They met our income eligibility standards, yet we couldn’t help them, even though they could not afford to hire a private attorney.
Keep writing these always interesting blogs, Bert!
Bert, peaceful enjoyment is the goal of the entire legal system. You have captured it all in a single phrase. Also, you have grasped the first thing a young lawyer has to learn. “Recoverable” doesn’t mean a thing if the defendant is broke. You are now ready to practice law — if you can pass the bar exam.
Who can define the boundaries of “peaceful enjoyment”?
Bert and I were once watching a sunset off the shores of Washington state. Imagine rocky coastline, lone kayaker, red-streaked sky. Someone was playing a boombox. Bert turned it off.
The boombox’s large owner appeared and said, “What are you doing, man.” One man’s peaceful enjoyment is not always another’s.
Not so fast on that bar exam. You need to cite your sources first.
Please give your source for “The courts have determined that accepting late rent ‘effectively waives strict compliance with the rental terms.’” I believe you could still get specific performance at equity even if this was established common law.
There is a legal doctrine called the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. It states the tenant shall have quiet and peaceful possession of the premises against the landlord. It means basically you can’t go into their place. I’ve never seen it used to mean literally “quiet” premises!
Leave a Comment