How Many Laws Were Violated On This One

Question

Lack of basic knowledge required by landlords will get you in trouble.

While there are laws violated, look for tortuous conduct as well, claims that may be raised in a suit for civil damages.

Two 21 year old females decided to rent an apartment, it was easy to qualify since one of the tenant's mother works as the property manager for the owner who is also active in management.

We'll call one "M" who is the daughter of the PM and the other "L". They both signed a lease, but L never received a copy signed by the owner but had a copy signed by both tenants.

M decides she wants to move out and go live with her boyfriend,  4 months from the end of the lease. M then told L she needed to move. Later, the owner called and said he was terminating M's lease and that L had to move out in 2 weeks. L basically refused and that's when I go a call from L's mom.

I spoke to the owner and informed him of L's situation, not really able to move out in 2 weeks and he agreed to extend it per the lease but wouldn't allow any other tenant to lease with L, in fact, he refused to allow L's brother to move in.

That didn't last but for a couple days. They changed tactics. M began texting L telling her to leave, 6 to as many as 16 times in a day, that she wasn't going to be responsible for the utilities or rents.

The owner provided a lease signed by M only and signed by the owner, claiming then that L had no lease.

The PM began calling making demands for L to move out, she said that L had until today to be out and that a locksmith (yeha, right) would change the locks on Sunday morning and that if her stuff wasn't out she would let her in to get her things on Sunday. But not past Sunday, that her things would be placed in storage at her expense on Monday as they had another tenant moving in. These calls from the PM were on voice mail.

The PM told L that she didn't have a lease and since she refused to pay the rent to M for the full amount that M (M owed L money, there is a right of equitable setoff here) but that L had to move out immediately that her rents were just with M.

We don't need to be state specific to analyze this mess. L has the copy of the lease with M's signature and some receipts. Here, on a month to month tenant, notice must be given on the first day of the month, that was not made by posting written notice on May 1st. The PM refused to give L receipts for rents from when this all began and for the deposit.

Reportedly the same basic thing happened to another tenant prior to the girls moving in, according to a neighbor. That the owner sent his car lot guys over and moved the tenant out placing her things at the curb.

What recourse do you see for L? How many violations do you see? If the PM changes the locks in the morning, how would that play?

Well, the PM got a call with a message left on her voice mail.

Marcia Maynard · Answer

Quite a mess.  Bill, you are helping L sort this out, yes?  Bless you.

Okay.  Here is my stab at it.

1.  L has clearly established tenancy.  The landlord has an obligation to follow landlord tenant law, which supersedes any written or verbal agreement that is in place between the parties.

2.  L has tenant rights that are being violated by both the PM and the Owner. (lack of proper notice to vacate being one.)

3.  L is being harassed by M. (excessive text messages)

4.  L is being threatened by the PM. (change of locks, removal and storage of tenant property while she still has rights of tenancy)

It appears to me it would not be beneficial to negotiate with M or PM at this point, as they are clearly out of line and threatening.  I would negotiate a solution with the Owner.

Both L and the Owner may have been bamboozled by M and PM all along.  Giving the Owner the benefit of the doubt, he may never have seen the contract signed by both M & L, as PM had control of the leasing process.

If the Owner is open to learning from this, it may be possible to educate him about landlord tenant law and best practices.  He needs to fire PM and learn the right way to manage residential rental properties.

Tortuous?  Perhaps yes.  TORT: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.

Marcia Maynard · Answer

Bill Gulley Thanks for the update. Go get um!  So the Owner has a track record for bad behavior and is in cahoots with the PM and M.... that changes my perspective.  Yep, attorney time!   Good for you for stepping up and arming L with information and resources.

Landlords helping other landlords to become better landlords is a good thing, but the rogue landlords need to be rooted out!

Andrew S. · Answer

Thanks for sharing this story, Bill Gulley   - many important nuggets and reminders!

Roy N. · Answer

Well done Bill!

There are a few landlords in our home market who play fast and loose with their tenants and set a poor image for all of us.  One did get his due a couple of years ago when his "tenant" turned out to have an uncle who is a deputy district attorney.

Karma can be ruthless.

Bill Gulley · Answer

Marcia, good outline. Yes, there is a long list of actionable events to justify claims against M, the PM and the owner. Yes, I'm helping L, I had a conversation with the owner coming to an agreement but as I mentioned he retracted his agreement and manipulated a new lease, failed to mention he back dated it (before the girls moved in) showing M as a tenant with the lease expiring.

Funny too, another tenant is moving out this weekend, different deal but the owner jacked the rents up 25% to drive them out, another violation here. I know the guy as he worked for a friend of mine, so he got a seed planted in his ear too.

Kyle, you're right, the texts sent show the circumstances with M and from the owner. The PM left a voice mail mapping out her tenancy, the owner's knowledge and direction, that rents had been paid, with the demand to give possession, the threat of changing the locks and her position of representing the owner to allow her in to get her things and secure items left together with how her deposit would be handled.

So, the update:

I just called an attorney friend, she knew of the owner and his track record in other dealings, he has been stung before. He's a bad player in business, not just RE but in his auto business as well.

She just made a couple phone calls after meeting with L and her mother informing the PM of L having legal representation. The PM was shaken. The PM denounced any employee relationship with the owner and commented she wouldn't change the locks. Can you imagine that? I'm not a PM, but I won't change the locks.....LOL! The PM asked the attorney how much L paid her to represent here! Told that was confidential and that L was her client! Beyond stupid.

My suggestion to L is to hit M up for $1,500 cash for keys and release all from liability, that is a pretty good deal for them as it's about the cost of getting into a similar unit without any punitive amounts. M and PM are not the sharpest tool in the box, they will baulk at that but the owner may see the light considering his track record in civil court.

New too, is that PM is taking bankruptcy. That just means L will wait to bring any action against her until after her BK is final. Salaried at the owner's car lot, over 10 years of employment history with the owner.

M hasn't texted one letter since the attorney's call.

M can be nailed immediately as can the owner. The only money available to L will be from the owner and the attorney is fully aware of bigger pockets.

I posted this as a reminder to LLs to do things properly. You never know who your tenant may know through a grapevine or relationships. Your tenant may not need a dime to get things corrected. We often think that if a tenant can't pay rents they can't pay an attorney, not true! :)

Kyle Hipp · Answer

Mom/pm is wearing her mom hat much more than her PM hat in my view and she is gonna get herself in trouble for it. M most likely buried the whole deal with text message data which most likely validated all L's claims along with her limited paperwork. I would like to hear how this played out. Hopefully the owner was involved and realised what has gone on and resolved the issue.

Bill Gulley · Answer

A PM employed by an owner that only deals with that owner's properties is not required to have a license. Customary that live-in managers or employees won't be licensed as in this case, she'd never pass a test!

Chris Martin · Answer

I'd have L file a complaint with the real estate commission against the PM. After seeing "...The PM denounced any employee relationship with the owner and commented she wouldn't change the locks..." it seems to me this person may not have a clue that her license may be in jeopardy. I am assuming she is licensed.

Bill Gulley · Answer

Holy  Cow! Now M informed L that the utilities will be turned off on Monday!

I can't believe this!

Great example of the clueless trying to do things to out smart the system to their advantage. Unbelievable!

Due to the close relationships of M, PM and the owner, seems as if they are using poor little M as the responsible party, I'd say it's going to be easy tying the three together. I think a call to the owner is about due to explain that everything that is tried will ultimately come back on him as well and he needs to instruct them both to shut up, not do anything and leave L alone.

This may be more fun than I expected! :)

Bill Gulley · Answer

Thank you all, I'm a nicer guy than I may be perceived to be based on postings in forums, but make no doubt about it, if appropriate action is required toward bad apples, I can be their juicer.

Will, M and L had an agreement to share rents with the consent of the owner. The lease period was not over, mid-term M decided to move out to satisfy her hormonal and social needs leaving L left by herself to pay all the expenses of the lease. The owner was releasing M due to personal relationships, but not L so much unless she just packed in a week and left, she had no place to go!

This is common when you have young tenants sharing a unit, I have leased to college students with good experiences, but you'll always have one who's needs change and want to bail out.

In this case, the owner stepped all over himself, trying to change leases to what he thought was an advantage, he should have kept L on the lease with M as originally done. By manipulating contracts he has put L in a month to month tenancy. State law here is that these tenants be given notice on the 1st day of the month with 30 days notice. He failed to do that on May 1. His next legal opportunity is on June 1 demanding possession on July 1. No, we won't stick it to him that bad as L has located another place, I know the owner!

At this point, L is not responsible to pay rents to the owner but to M, she however can pay rents to the owner.

Just got a call too, M has moved out but was in the unit and locked the dead bolt from the inside, staying quiet and not answering the door. I told L to text M that the door was locked and that she was calling the police. 2 minutes later, the door seemed to become unlocked and the back sliding door was unlocked as well with no one inside. Which means, M unlocked the door and left through the back!   Girls and petty disputes! L is all over the drama about this, totally upset. LOL, sort of. :)

How Many Laws Were Violated On This One

Most Popular Reply