Landlords who try to sneak a home sale past tenants…

[CDMA ENG]

Well month-to-month’s are usually drawing a premium too. Your paying a “option” so to speak.

Believe me I am not pro-renter. I took care of my uncle’s low rent properties in college and now that a tenent can be the scum of the earth too.

But I just couldn’t see this guy/gal as being honest and up front. There are plenty of LLs in craigslist that state up front the property is for sale and usually discount the rent pretty heavily on those conditions. Both parties know what is involved and there is full disclosure.

That is an honest deal.

I would just be pissed if the LL came to me and said get out. I FRIGGING HATE MOVING beyond anything!

Well… everyone is happy now…

Lets go get a beer!

CE

[CBad]

I thought I was the only nerd who picked up on the mail tampering offense. I also thought it was cute that after being on the market for what, 3+ months??, that everyone thinks the renters haven’t found out by now. I mean I’m sure it’s possible this is the first they are hearing about it but I kind of doubt it.

[CBad]

I thought I was the only nerd who picked up on the mail tampering offense. I also thought it was cute that after being on the market for what, 3+ months??, that everyone thinks the renters haven’t found out by now. I mean I’m sure it’s possible this is the first they are hearing about it but I kind of doubt it.

[CBad]

I thought I was the only nerd who picked up on the mail tampering offense. I also thought it was cute that after being on the market for what, 3+ months??, that everyone thinks the renters haven’t found out by now. I mean I’m sure it’s possible this is the first they are hearing about it but I kind of doubt it.

[CBad]

I thought I was the only nerd who picked up on the mail tampering offense. I also thought it was cute that after being on the market for what, 3+ months??, that everyone thinks the renters haven’t found out by now. I mean I’m sure it’s possible this is the first they are hearing about it but I kind of doubt it.

[CBad]

I thought I was the only nerd who picked up on the mail tampering offense. I also thought it was cute that after being on the market for what, 3+ months??, that everyone thinks the renters haven’t found out by now. I mean I’m sure it’s possible this is the first they are hearing about it but I kind of doubt it.

[8bitnintendo]

[quote=pabloesqobar]I can understand everyone’s anger, but it appears somewhat misplaced. I’m sure 8bit’s heart was in the right place – but he likely just committed a federal offense. No biggee, since there isn’t a bunch of mailbox police roaming around. Not a risk I would’ve taken, tho.[/quote]
A federal offense? It’s a federal offense now to add mail to someone’s mailbox? That’s a new one on me. Mailboxes are protected by federal law, and crimes against them and the mail they contain are considered a federal offense. But in this case I did not open, destroy, or interfere with the tenant’s mail, or vandalize their mailbox. I added a printout of publicly available information, which the tenant most certainly would be interested in receiving, unlike the junk mail which generally fills mailboxes (and is often delivered unaddressed, on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.) If adding a flyer is “tampering”, then I definitely need to start going after all the local restaurants.

“What if the tenant is a deadbeat?” Um, then the landlord can use the normal rules to evict them?

@ Uneven – if you found out that the landlord for one of your friends was attempting to sell their house and deliberately not informing your friend (in fact, requesting that prospective buyers not inform them), you would not tell them? If not, I am glad I’m not your friend. If you would tell them, what are the criteria for deciding whether or not somebody is worth gifting with your knowledge?

The landlord wasn’t doing anything illegal, and I certainly didn’t imply that to the tenants. If your implication is that informing people of a public fact is interfering with the legal right to do business, perhaps you are also against Consumer Reports, and any website which does reviews of products. After all, if the website informs people that a product sucks, they might not buy it.

In the spirit of fairness, please do feel free to call the real estate agent and tell them I informed the tenants. It would be a delight to be sued for something like that, and I promise to post all the juicy details to the forums.

[8bitnintendo]

[quote=pabloesqobar]I can understand everyone’s anger, but it appears somewhat misplaced. I’m sure 8bit’s heart was in the right place – but he likely just committed a federal offense. No biggee, since there isn’t a bunch of mailbox police roaming around. Not a risk I would’ve taken, tho.[/quote]
A federal offense? It’s a federal offense now to add mail to someone’s mailbox? That’s a new one on me. Mailboxes are protected by federal law, and crimes against them and the mail they contain are considered a federal offense. But in this case I did not open, destroy, or interfere with the tenant’s mail, or vandalize their mailbox. I added a printout of publicly available information, which the tenant most certainly would be interested in receiving, unlike the junk mail which generally fills mailboxes (and is often delivered unaddressed, on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.) If adding a flyer is “tampering”, then I definitely need to start going after all the local restaurants.

“What if the tenant is a deadbeat?” Um, then the landlord can use the normal rules to evict them?

@ Uneven – if you found out that the landlord for one of your friends was attempting to sell their house and deliberately not informing your friend (in fact, requesting that prospective buyers not inform them), you would not tell them? If not, I am glad I’m not your friend. If you would tell them, what are the criteria for deciding whether or not somebody is worth gifting with your knowledge?

The landlord wasn’t doing anything illegal, and I certainly didn’t imply that to the tenants. If your implication is that informing people of a public fact is interfering with the legal right to do business, perhaps you are also against Consumer Reports, and any website which does reviews of products. After all, if the website informs people that a product sucks, they might not buy it.

In the spirit of fairness, please do feel free to call the real estate agent and tell them I informed the tenants. It would be a delight to be sued for something like that, and I promise to post all the juicy details to the forums.

[8bitnintendo]

[quote=pabloesqobar]I can understand everyone’s anger, but it appears somewhat misplaced. I’m sure 8bit’s heart was in the right place – but he likely just committed a federal offense. No biggee, since there isn’t a bunch of mailbox police roaming around. Not a risk I would’ve taken, tho.[/quote]
A federal offense? It’s a federal offense now to add mail to someone’s mailbox? That’s a new one on me. Mailboxes are protected by federal law, and crimes against them and the mail they contain are considered a federal offense. But in this case I did not open, destroy, or interfere with the tenant’s mail, or vandalize their mailbox. I added a printout of publicly available information, which the tenant most certainly would be interested in receiving, unlike the junk mail which generally fills mailboxes (and is often delivered unaddressed, on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.) If adding a flyer is “tampering”, then I definitely need to start going after all the local restaurants.

“What if the tenant is a deadbeat?” Um, then the landlord can use the normal rules to evict them?

@ Uneven – if you found out that the landlord for one of your friends was attempting to sell their house and deliberately not informing your friend (in fact, requesting that prospective buyers not inform them), you would not tell them? If not, I am glad I’m not your friend. If you would tell them, what are the criteria for deciding whether or not somebody is worth gifting with your knowledge?

The landlord wasn’t doing anything illegal, and I certainly didn’t imply that to the tenants. If your implication is that informing people of a public fact is interfering with the legal right to do business, perhaps you are also against Consumer Reports, and any website which does reviews of products. After all, if the website informs people that a product sucks, they might not buy it.

In the spirit of fairness, please do feel free to call the real estate agent and tell them I informed the tenants. It would be a delight to be sued for something like that, and I promise to post all the juicy details to the forums.

[8bitnintendo]

[quote=pabloesqobar]I can understand everyone’s anger, but it appears somewhat misplaced. I’m sure 8bit’s heart was in the right place – but he likely just committed a federal offense. No biggee, since there isn’t a bunch of mailbox police roaming around. Not a risk I would’ve taken, tho.[/quote]
A federal offense? It’s a federal offense now to add mail to someone’s mailbox? That’s a new one on me. Mailboxes are protected by federal law, and crimes against them and the mail they contain are considered a federal offense. But in this case I did not open, destroy, or interfere with the tenant’s mail, or vandalize their mailbox. I added a printout of publicly available information, which the tenant most certainly would be interested in receiving, unlike the junk mail which generally fills mailboxes (and is often delivered unaddressed, on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.) If adding a flyer is “tampering”, then I definitely need to start going after all the local restaurants.

“What if the tenant is a deadbeat?” Um, then the landlord can use the normal rules to evict them?

@ Uneven – if you found out that the landlord for one of your friends was attempting to sell their house and deliberately not informing your friend (in fact, requesting that prospective buyers not inform them), you would not tell them? If not, I am glad I’m not your friend. If you would tell them, what are the criteria for deciding whether or not somebody is worth gifting with your knowledge?

The landlord wasn’t doing anything illegal, and I certainly didn’t imply that to the tenants. If your implication is that informing people of a public fact is interfering with the legal right to do business, perhaps you are also against Consumer Reports, and any website which does reviews of products. After all, if the website informs people that a product sucks, they might not buy it.

In the spirit of fairness, please do feel free to call the real estate agent and tell them I informed the tenants. It would be a delight to be sued for something like that, and I promise to post all the juicy details to the forums.

[8bitnintendo]

[quote=pabloesqobar]I can understand everyone’s anger, but it appears somewhat misplaced. I’m sure 8bit’s heart was in the right place – but he likely just committed a federal offense. No biggee, since there isn’t a bunch of mailbox police roaming around. Not a risk I would’ve taken, tho.[/quote]
A federal offense? It’s a federal offense now to add mail to someone’s mailbox? That’s a new one on me. Mailboxes are protected by federal law, and crimes against them and the mail they contain are considered a federal offense. But in this case I did not open, destroy, or interfere with the tenant’s mail, or vandalize their mailbox. I added a printout of publicly available information, which the tenant most certainly would be interested in receiving, unlike the junk mail which generally fills mailboxes (and is often delivered unaddressed, on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.) If adding a flyer is “tampering”, then I definitely need to start going after all the local restaurants.

“What if the tenant is a deadbeat?” Um, then the landlord can use the normal rules to evict them?

@ Uneven – if you found out that the landlord for one of your friends was attempting to sell their house and deliberately not informing your friend (in fact, requesting that prospective buyers not inform them), you would not tell them? If not, I am glad I’m not your friend. If you would tell them, what are the criteria for deciding whether or not somebody is worth gifting with your knowledge?

The landlord wasn’t doing anything illegal, and I certainly didn’t imply that to the tenants. If your implication is that informing people of a public fact is interfering with the legal right to do business, perhaps you are also against Consumer Reports, and any website which does reviews of products. After all, if the website informs people that a product sucks, they might not buy it.

In the spirit of fairness, please do feel free to call the real estate agent and tell them I informed the tenants. It would be a delight to be sued for something like that, and I promise to post all the juicy details to the forums.

[DWCAP]

[quote=uneven]Like I said, we don’t know the agreement or the circumstances for either party. If it’s month to month, then it is 30 day notice for both sides. If its a longer term, then there is legal recourse available if either party breaks the agreement. I’m sorry if it sounds callous, but if you have a month to month agreement, but assume you’ll be there forever is both naive and irresponsible. Renters don’t tend to care about leaving a LL with a vacancy for months (although I’ve had some very nice ones that have helped find new people)

My threat of litigation may have no merit,but if you willfully and maliciously attempt to interfere with someone’s right to conduct business , its against the law. One could say “I was only informing him of public information” but the real question is “why?” If you’ve highlighted things and otherwise made it seem that there is some wrong doing going on with the intent to enrage a tenant or encourage them to take action against the LL, then it’s malicious. That was my point.

My 2 cents, in this market, a tenant’s hardships (having to find a new place) is much more desirable then a LL hardship. But I’m not going to take sides. My whole point is we do not have info and can not throw anyone under a bus. And it’s not right to interfere in this, by assuming the tenant is little red riding hood.

I’m not too worked up… I just get this way sometimes =) I’ve been on both sides of this for the last several years as a tenant and a land lord. It’s just there’s always 2 sides to things.[/quote]

I dont know what you call ‘taking sides’, but bring up the threat the litigation against someone for posting public information sure meets my definition of ‘taking sides’. Nor can I believe that the revilation of PUBLIC information to all parties is ‘throwing someone under the bus’. As you said over and over again, we dont know the full story. Who is to say that the LL isnt in a long term lease, and trying to screw the tenant? It is your assumption about a month-month lease. We dont know. So your assumption is no better than anyone elses.

If the LL had any reasonable expectation of privacy, they would have attempted to conduct a private sale without making any information public.

Now if someone had inside information, (like a private sale)and it was disclosed, that is another story.

BTW, how the frak are they gonna show the property, or have it inspected, without the tenant knowing? Legally they have to give notice dont they?

[DWCAP]

[quote=uneven]Like I said, we don’t know the agreement or the circumstances for either party. If it’s month to month, then it is 30 day notice for both sides. If its a longer term, then there is legal recourse available if either party breaks the agreement. I’m sorry if it sounds callous, but if you have a month to month agreement, but assume you’ll be there forever is both naive and irresponsible. Renters don’t tend to care about leaving a LL with a vacancy for months (although I’ve had some very nice ones that have helped find new people)

My threat of litigation may have no merit,but if you willfully and maliciously attempt to interfere with someone’s right to conduct business , its against the law. One could say “I was only informing him of public information” but the real question is “why?” If you’ve highlighted things and otherwise made it seem that there is some wrong doing going on with the intent to enrage a tenant or encourage them to take action against the LL, then it’s malicious. That was my point.

My 2 cents, in this market, a tenant’s hardships (having to find a new place) is much more desirable then a LL hardship. But I’m not going to take sides. My whole point is we do not have info and can not throw anyone under a bus. And it’s not right to interfere in this, by assuming the tenant is little red riding hood.

I’m not too worked up… I just get this way sometimes =) I’ve been on both sides of this for the last several years as a tenant and a land lord. It’s just there’s always 2 sides to things.[/quote]

I dont know what you call ‘taking sides’, but bring up the threat the litigation against someone for posting public information sure meets my definition of ‘taking sides’. Nor can I believe that the revilation of PUBLIC information to all parties is ‘throwing someone under the bus’. As you said over and over again, we dont know the full story. Who is to say that the LL isnt in a long term lease, and trying to screw the tenant? It is your assumption about a month-month lease. We dont know. So your assumption is no better than anyone elses.

If the LL had any reasonable expectation of privacy, they would have attempted to conduct a private sale without making any information public.

Now if someone had inside information, (like a private sale)and it was disclosed, that is another story.

BTW, how the frak are they gonna show the property, or have it inspected, without the tenant knowing? Legally they have to give notice dont they?

[DWCAP]

[quote=uneven]Like I said, we don’t know the agreement or the circumstances for either party. If it’s month to month, then it is 30 day notice for both sides. If its a longer term, then there is legal recourse available if either party breaks the agreement. I’m sorry if it sounds callous, but if you have a month to month agreement, but assume you’ll be there forever is both naive and irresponsible. Renters don’t tend to care about leaving a LL with a vacancy for months (although I’ve had some very nice ones that have helped find new people)

My threat of litigation may have no merit,but if you willfully and maliciously attempt to interfere with someone’s right to conduct business , its against the law. One could say “I was only informing him of public information” but the real question is “why?” If you’ve highlighted things and otherwise made it seem that there is some wrong doing going on with the intent to enrage a tenant or encourage them to take action against the LL, then it’s malicious. That was my point.

My 2 cents, in this market, a tenant’s hardships (having to find a new place) is much more desirable then a LL hardship. But I’m not going to take sides. My whole point is we do not have info and can not throw anyone under a bus. And it’s not right to interfere in this, by assuming the tenant is little red riding hood.

I’m not too worked up… I just get this way sometimes =) I’ve been on both sides of this for the last several years as a tenant and a land lord. It’s just there’s always 2 sides to things.[/quote]

I dont know what you call ‘taking sides’, but bring up the threat the litigation against someone for posting public information sure meets my definition of ‘taking sides’. Nor can I believe that the revilation of PUBLIC information to all parties is ‘throwing someone under the bus’. As you said over and over again, we dont know the full story. Who is to say that the LL isnt in a long term lease, and trying to screw the tenant? It is your assumption about a month-month lease. We dont know. So your assumption is no better than anyone elses.

If the LL had any reasonable expectation of privacy, they would have attempted to conduct a private sale without making any information public.

Now if someone had inside information, (like a private sale)and it was disclosed, that is another story.

BTW, how the frak are they gonna show the property, or have it inspected, without the tenant knowing? Legally they have to give notice dont they?

[DWCAP]

[quote=uneven]Like I said, we don’t know the agreement or the circumstances for either party. If it’s month to month, then it is 30 day notice for both sides. If its a longer term, then there is legal recourse available if either party breaks the agreement. I’m sorry if it sounds callous, but if you have a month to month agreement, but assume you’ll be there forever is both naive and irresponsible. Renters don’t tend to care about leaving a LL with a vacancy for months (although I’ve had some very nice ones that have helped find new people)

My threat of litigation may have no merit,but if you willfully and maliciously attempt to interfere with someone’s right to conduct business , its against the law. One could say “I was only informing him of public information” but the real question is “why?” If you’ve highlighted things and otherwise made it seem that there is some wrong doing going on with the intent to enrage a tenant or encourage them to take action against the LL, then it’s malicious. That was my point.

My 2 cents, in this market, a tenant’s hardships (having to find a new place) is much more desirable then a LL hardship. But I’m not going to take sides. My whole point is we do not have info and can not throw anyone under a bus. And it’s not right to interfere in this, by assuming the tenant is little red riding hood.

I’m not too worked up… I just get this way sometimes =) I’ve been on both sides of this for the last several years as a tenant and a land lord. It’s just there’s always 2 sides to things.[/quote]

I dont know what you call ‘taking sides’, but bring up the threat the litigation against someone for posting public information sure meets my definition of ‘taking sides’. Nor can I believe that the revilation of PUBLIC information to all parties is ‘throwing someone under the bus’. As you said over and over again, we dont know the full story. Who is to say that the LL isnt in a long term lease, and trying to screw the tenant? It is your assumption about a month-month lease. We dont know. So your assumption is no better than anyone elses.

If the LL had any reasonable expectation of privacy, they would have attempted to conduct a private sale without making any information public.

Now if someone had inside information, (like a private sale)and it was disclosed, that is another story.

BTW, how the frak are they gonna show the property, or have it inspected, without the tenant knowing? Legally they have to give notice dont they?

[Author]

Posts