All Forum Posts by: John Clark

"Some tenants would refuse just so they could stick it to the LL at 500 bucks per day!!"

---------------------------------------------

I agree. I can see an inspection scheme based on city inspection before every lease (including renewals), and declaring leases void without inspections, but making the LL responsible because the tenant refuses a warrantless inspection of his home? Nope.

@ Matt P. , not sure that would be sufficient warning, Matt, but in the meantime, the original poster's scenario did not mention ANY warning being given to the tenant about the need to move things or the extent of the vibrations, so the landlord is still liable.

"So I have been going back and forth on a bank owned foreclosure. We keep making cash offers and they hardly budge on the price. After a month of going back and forth they finally told use "Highest and Best" as they have multiple offers. So we put our highest and best offer. All cash deal. My broker just got back to me and said the bank has now countered our offer. WHAT?!?!? - They basically came down 1 thousand dollars from the last time we made an offer and they countered. I thought Highest and Best was just that. Can a bank B.S. you and tell you they have multiple offers when they don't. Im feel like there are no other offers and they are just trying to get me to go higher."

----------------------------------

You, sir, are being diddled. Move on.

"So where does it end?"

------------------------------------

The test is reasonableness. So what would a reasonable person foresee as potential damage and what reasonable steps would be taken by that reasonable person to prevent that damage.

That's where it ends.

"I agree it is not a landlord's fault items were not secured properly...I haven't brought up the item in question since she informed me of the mishap, I am going to let it ride and see if she brings it up again."

----------------------------------

Sorry, @Michaelina Stathakos but it IS the landlord's fault for not having the tenant remove breakables from the walls before work was done, AND for negligently hiring workers who were so stupid as not have the tenant remove stuff from walls before they did work that they knew would shake the wall so much that stuff would fall down.

Sing and dance all you want. Require tenant insurance all you want (and the insurance company will go after the landlord in that case). The landlord is responsible in this scenario. Pay the lady.

The tenant being a problem is a different issue. Don't conflate them.

"The landlord is responsible for the Tennant not properly securing something the Tennant hangs from the wall. Idk about that one. If the Tennant owned the house and work was being done and this happened who's fault would it be?"

---------------------------------

If the tenant owned the house and the tenant authorized the repair, the offender and the victim would be one, so the merger doctrine would render the question moot. You cannot be a debtor to yourself.

Here, that's not the case. Workers were doing work to the owner's property for the owner's benefit. The property of a third party (tenant) was damaged. The owner is responsible. There's no "idk" to this one, @Matt P.

And, folks, tenant insurance is irrelevant. Think about it: If you crash your car into another person's car, do you think you'd be able to say "Gee, pal, you have insurance, you can't touch me" and drive off?

"@ Brian Bradley @John Clark and yet you are the one insulting and speculating. Great 30 years spent. You sound just angry and still don’t have reading comprehension since this is a system of many options... "

-------------------------

No, Brian, YOU are the one who presented his system of asset protection as the be all and end all of suit liability. You are wrong. All of your whining to the contrary does not change anything. I m not speculating. I am telling you what many lawyers would do. And if you tried to use your asset protection argument in closing, as has previously been noted, in many states (if not all), your butt (and your client's) would have been bloodied on response/rebuttal.

This is where you say good night and good bye.

"John was just rude to be rude and not even provoked. You don't call somebody "son" as if lecturing somebody. That is just like saying "right boy". "

======

I, too, am a lawyer with over thirty years experience. I mentioned before that discovery would have your client out. Discovery includes subpoens. In my bailiwick, even a $10k lawsuit would no be stopped, becaust court costs (e.g., subpoenas) get recouped.

There is no magic bullet for preventing liability. You presented a "magic bullet." For those of us who have practiced law for decades and understand its uses and limitations, that presents a "boy" attitude as far as I am concerned.

Your path throws up MINOR roadblocks, @Brian Bradley but that is all. And as has been posted before, the full structuring of your client's corporate liability evasion wil be on full display at closing argument the instant you say that your client really and deeply cared for the welfare of his tenants and no. your client had no incentive to cut corners.

Yes, "boy" is an insult. It is also an indication of where one's ignorance lies.

BEFORE YOU BUY:  E-mail  the City's buildings department and ask them how it would handle the situation. It may say rget it rezoned and we're jake, or it may say "we want to press violations, fast and furious." Don't give the address, just ask in general.

Sounds like a good leverage point for reducing the price.

Like I said -- hystrionic responses that fail to address the merits of the case against you.

I notice that "100s" of years of experience" is not the same as 100 years of experience. 50 years of 1st year lawyers rumbling through  motion practice is not, AS YOU WELL KNIOW, the same as  two 25 year experience lawyers doing litigation and discovery.

"nuff said. when you want to address the merits, stop whining and do so.