- This topic has 265 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 26, 2008 at 12:05 PM #276395July 13, 2009 at 7:40 PM #429103
Anonymous
GuestI’ll put this simply.
The fact that the landlord may not be paying his/her mortgage is not a valid defense for a non-payment breach of a lease contract. His/her damages will be all rent owed plus late charges and breach of contract fees.
At one point I had 10 properties in foreclosure and 2 different tenants skip, with the reason that they didn’t want to risk being put on the street in the event of a sheriff’s sale. Both tenants lost the second cause of action for damages and are still paying via a garnishment.
Some landlords are not that diligent with getting paid from their tenants, so you might get lucky when you run.
July 13, 2009 at 7:40 PM #429321GuestI’ll put this simply.
The fact that the landlord may not be paying his/her mortgage is not a valid defense for a non-payment breach of a lease contract. His/her damages will be all rent owed plus late charges and breach of contract fees.
At one point I had 10 properties in foreclosure and 2 different tenants skip, with the reason that they didn’t want to risk being put on the street in the event of a sheriff’s sale. Both tenants lost the second cause of action for damages and are still paying via a garnishment.
Some landlords are not that diligent with getting paid from their tenants, so you might get lucky when you run.
July 13, 2009 at 7:40 PM #429610GuestI’ll put this simply.
The fact that the landlord may not be paying his/her mortgage is not a valid defense for a non-payment breach of a lease contract. His/her damages will be all rent owed plus late charges and breach of contract fees.
At one point I had 10 properties in foreclosure and 2 different tenants skip, with the reason that they didn’t want to risk being put on the street in the event of a sheriff’s sale. Both tenants lost the second cause of action for damages and are still paying via a garnishment.
Some landlords are not that diligent with getting paid from their tenants, so you might get lucky when you run.
July 13, 2009 at 7:40 PM #429680GuestI’ll put this simply.
The fact that the landlord may not be paying his/her mortgage is not a valid defense for a non-payment breach of a lease contract. His/her damages will be all rent owed plus late charges and breach of contract fees.
At one point I had 10 properties in foreclosure and 2 different tenants skip, with the reason that they didn’t want to risk being put on the street in the event of a sheriff’s sale. Both tenants lost the second cause of action for damages and are still paying via a garnishment.
Some landlords are not that diligent with getting paid from their tenants, so you might get lucky when you run.
July 13, 2009 at 7:40 PM #429841GuestI’ll put this simply.
The fact that the landlord may not be paying his/her mortgage is not a valid defense for a non-payment breach of a lease contract. His/her damages will be all rent owed plus late charges and breach of contract fees.
At one point I had 10 properties in foreclosure and 2 different tenants skip, with the reason that they didn’t want to risk being put on the street in the event of a sheriff’s sale. Both tenants lost the second cause of action for damages and are still paying via a garnishment.
Some landlords are not that diligent with getting paid from their tenants, so you might get lucky when you run.
July 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM #429122Guest[quote=Wickedheart]You are quibbling over semantics.[/quote]
That line made me chuckle…isn’t that what every legal question is about?
July 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM #429340Guest[quote=Wickedheart]You are quibbling over semantics.[/quote]
That line made me chuckle…isn’t that what every legal question is about?
July 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM #429627Guest[quote=Wickedheart]You are quibbling over semantics.[/quote]
That line made me chuckle…isn’t that what every legal question is about?
July 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM #429698Guest[quote=Wickedheart]You are quibbling over semantics.[/quote]
That line made me chuckle…isn’t that what every legal question is about?
July 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM #429859Guest[quote=Wickedheart]You are quibbling over semantics.[/quote]
That line made me chuckle…isn’t that what every legal question is about?
July 13, 2009 at 10:18 PM #429169briansd1
Guest[quote=OhioLandlord]I’ll put this simply.
The fact that the landlord may not be paying his/her mortgage is not a valid defense for a non-payment breach of a lease contract. His/her damages will be all rent owed plus late charges and breach of contract fees.
At one point I had 10 properties in foreclosure and 2 different tenants skip, with the reason that they didn’t want to risk being put on the street in the event of a sheriff’s sale. Both tenants lost the second cause of action for damages and are still paying via a garnishment.
Some landlords are not that diligent with getting paid from their tenants, so you might get lucky when you run.[/quote]
Not true.
In order to garnish someone’s wages you have to get a judgment.
In order to get a judgment, the landlord has to sue to tenant AND win.
And even if the landlord wins the lawsuit and obtains a judgment he has to take further collections action.
It costs money to sue and it cost money to pursue bad debt. Money the landlord likely doesn’t have if he’s in foreclosure.
The tenant should, of course, respond to any lawsuit and appear in court to defend himself.
If the tenant can show good cause why he didn’t pay rent (fraud on the part of the landlord, lack of maintenance, etc…), it’s unlikely the judge would award any damages to the landlord.
The judge may order that rent be paid with interest but that would be the most the landlord would get.
The tenant’s wife should appear in court and cry for her family. That would be a good stunt to pull… hahaha.
If I were the tenant and found out that the landlord was rent skimming, I would stop payment immediately and contact the landlord to negotiate a sweat deal. The way I see it, the money is coming from me, so if the landlord is stiffing the bank, he should cut me on the deal also.
If the landlord doesn’t deal, then I would contact the lender. The mortgage note likely has an assignment of rents clause that allows the lender to collect rents directly from the tenant in case of default.
If the lender then sends me a letter asking me to no longer direct rent to the landlord, then I’ve got my ass covered.
Now, we all know that banks are being bailed-out by us, generous taxpayers, so there’s no need to pay them. They don’t have the manpower or the systems in place to collect outside of their routine anyway. 😉
It’s a dog eat dog world out there.
The banks are coercing the government for money, else they’ll collapse the economy. The short-sellers and homeowners seeking modifications are also trying to coerce deals.
Shouldn’t the renters get in on the action also?
July 13, 2009 at 10:18 PM #429385Guest[quote=OhioLandlord]I’ll put this simply.
The fact that the landlord may not be paying his/her mortgage is not a valid defense for a non-payment breach of a lease contract. His/her damages will be all rent owed plus late charges and breach of contract fees.
At one point I had 10 properties in foreclosure and 2 different tenants skip, with the reason that they didn’t want to risk being put on the street in the event of a sheriff’s sale. Both tenants lost the second cause of action for damages and are still paying via a garnishment.
Some landlords are not that diligent with getting paid from their tenants, so you might get lucky when you run.[/quote]
Not true.
In order to garnish someone’s wages you have to get a judgment.
In order to get a judgment, the landlord has to sue to tenant AND win.
And even if the landlord wins the lawsuit and obtains a judgment he has to take further collections action.
It costs money to sue and it cost money to pursue bad debt. Money the landlord likely doesn’t have if he’s in foreclosure.
The tenant should, of course, respond to any lawsuit and appear in court to defend himself.
If the tenant can show good cause why he didn’t pay rent (fraud on the part of the landlord, lack of maintenance, etc…), it’s unlikely the judge would award any damages to the landlord.
The judge may order that rent be paid with interest but that would be the most the landlord would get.
The tenant’s wife should appear in court and cry for her family. That would be a good stunt to pull… hahaha.
If I were the tenant and found out that the landlord was rent skimming, I would stop payment immediately and contact the landlord to negotiate a sweat deal. The way I see it, the money is coming from me, so if the landlord is stiffing the bank, he should cut me on the deal also.
If the landlord doesn’t deal, then I would contact the lender. The mortgage note likely has an assignment of rents clause that allows the lender to collect rents directly from the tenant in case of default.
If the lender then sends me a letter asking me to no longer direct rent to the landlord, then I’ve got my ass covered.
Now, we all know that banks are being bailed-out by us, generous taxpayers, so there’s no need to pay them. They don’t have the manpower or the systems in place to collect outside of their routine anyway. 😉
It’s a dog eat dog world out there.
The banks are coercing the government for money, else they’ll collapse the economy. The short-sellers and homeowners seeking modifications are also trying to coerce deals.
Shouldn’t the renters get in on the action also?
July 13, 2009 at 10:18 PM #429674Guest[quote=OhioLandlord]I’ll put this simply.
The fact that the landlord may not be paying his/her mortgage is not a valid defense for a non-payment breach of a lease contract. His/her damages will be all rent owed plus late charges and breach of contract fees.
At one point I had 10 properties in foreclosure and 2 different tenants skip, with the reason that they didn’t want to risk being put on the street in the event of a sheriff’s sale. Both tenants lost the second cause of action for damages and are still paying via a garnishment.
Some landlords are not that diligent with getting paid from their tenants, so you might get lucky when you run.[/quote]
Not true.
In order to garnish someone’s wages you have to get a judgment.
In order to get a judgment, the landlord has to sue to tenant AND win.
And even if the landlord wins the lawsuit and obtains a judgment he has to take further collections action.
It costs money to sue and it cost money to pursue bad debt. Money the landlord likely doesn’t have if he’s in foreclosure.
The tenant should, of course, respond to any lawsuit and appear in court to defend himself.
If the tenant can show good cause why he didn’t pay rent (fraud on the part of the landlord, lack of maintenance, etc…), it’s unlikely the judge would award any damages to the landlord.
The judge may order that rent be paid with interest but that would be the most the landlord would get.
The tenant’s wife should appear in court and cry for her family. That would be a good stunt to pull… hahaha.
If I were the tenant and found out that the landlord was rent skimming, I would stop payment immediately and contact the landlord to negotiate a sweat deal. The way I see it, the money is coming from me, so if the landlord is stiffing the bank, he should cut me on the deal also.
If the landlord doesn’t deal, then I would contact the lender. The mortgage note likely has an assignment of rents clause that allows the lender to collect rents directly from the tenant in case of default.
If the lender then sends me a letter asking me to no longer direct rent to the landlord, then I’ve got my ass covered.
Now, we all know that banks are being bailed-out by us, generous taxpayers, so there’s no need to pay them. They don’t have the manpower or the systems in place to collect outside of their routine anyway. 😉
It’s a dog eat dog world out there.
The banks are coercing the government for money, else they’ll collapse the economy. The short-sellers and homeowners seeking modifications are also trying to coerce deals.
Shouldn’t the renters get in on the action also?
July 13, 2009 at 10:18 PM #429743Guest[quote=OhioLandlord]I’ll put this simply.
The fact that the landlord may not be paying his/her mortgage is not a valid defense for a non-payment breach of a lease contract. His/her damages will be all rent owed plus late charges and breach of contract fees.
At one point I had 10 properties in foreclosure and 2 different tenants skip, with the reason that they didn’t want to risk being put on the street in the event of a sheriff’s sale. Both tenants lost the second cause of action for damages and are still paying via a garnishment.
Some landlords are not that diligent with getting paid from their tenants, so you might get lucky when you run.[/quote]
Not true.
In order to garnish someone’s wages you have to get a judgment.
In order to get a judgment, the landlord has to sue to tenant AND win.
And even if the landlord wins the lawsuit and obtains a judgment he has to take further collections action.
It costs money to sue and it cost money to pursue bad debt. Money the landlord likely doesn’t have if he’s in foreclosure.
The tenant should, of course, respond to any lawsuit and appear in court to defend himself.
If the tenant can show good cause why he didn’t pay rent (fraud on the part of the landlord, lack of maintenance, etc…), it’s unlikely the judge would award any damages to the landlord.
The judge may order that rent be paid with interest but that would be the most the landlord would get.
The tenant’s wife should appear in court and cry for her family. That would be a good stunt to pull… hahaha.
If I were the tenant and found out that the landlord was rent skimming, I would stop payment immediately and contact the landlord to negotiate a sweat deal. The way I see it, the money is coming from me, so if the landlord is stiffing the bank, he should cut me on the deal also.
If the landlord doesn’t deal, then I would contact the lender. The mortgage note likely has an assignment of rents clause that allows the lender to collect rents directly from the tenant in case of default.
If the lender then sends me a letter asking me to no longer direct rent to the landlord, then I’ve got my ass covered.
Now, we all know that banks are being bailed-out by us, generous taxpayers, so there’s no need to pay them. They don’t have the manpower or the systems in place to collect outside of their routine anyway. 😉
It’s a dog eat dog world out there.
The banks are coercing the government for money, else they’ll collapse the economy. The short-sellers and homeowners seeking modifications are also trying to coerce deals.
Shouldn’t the renters get in on the action also?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.