Milee - you should call those people

[whoisjohngalt]

and let them know that they will feel right at home in your neighborhood

gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/family-chooses-homelessness-over-abandoning-pit-bull-150240015--abc-news-topstories.html

[Bonny]

I feel bad for the dog but something sounds fishy about the people in the first story. I find it hard to believe their LL would evict them unless they weren't paying their rent...

[NastyWoman]

I agree with Bonny that there is something strange about the story regarding their eviction, but what boggles my mind is that anyone would choose to let their kids live in a car rather than trying to rehome their pet!

[Bonny]

Feb 19, 2014 19:26:08 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

I agree with Bonny that there is something strange about the story regarding their eviction, but what boggles my mind is that anyone would choose to let their kids live in a car rather than trying to rehome their pet!

Don't you find it a little odd that they can afford to live in the SF Bay Area with them both delivering papers? Especially in Walnut Creek? I'm guessing their real problem is a lack of income and credit.

[NastyWoman]

No kidding.  I was also wondering what "security breach" you can commit delivering newspapers? Really, really strange!

[mollyanna58]

I had a client whose rental property policy was cancelled because a tenant had a pit bull. I can see why some landlords would choose to evict the tenant and dog, rather than getting their insurance cancelled, or paying much higher premiums.

[milee]

On the plus side, Rocco looks a lot friendlier than those Cane Corsos did...

[swamp]

Feb 19, 2014 20:01:32 GMT -5 milee said:

On the plus side, Rocco looks a lot friendlier than those Cane Corsos did...

Are they still around?  Any problems?  

[milee]

We haven't encountered them again while walking, so haven't gotten to talk to them.  I've seen the guy in the distance riding his bike with the dogs in tow, though, so they're still here. No problems that I've heard about, but I don't ask around because that seems like it would be more like being an instigator/causing trouble. No reason to make people worry or stir up shite.

[Bonny]

Feb 19, 2014 19:55:31 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

I had a client whose rental property policy was cancelled because a tenant had a pit bull. I can see why some landlords would choose to evict the tenant and dog, rather than getting their insurance cancelled, or paying much higher premiums.

Well if they brought the dog in after renting the house and without permission I get the eviction. That would mean the tenant violated the terms of the lease. But it still sounds fishy to me that a LL would terminate a lease unless the tenant couldn't pay or wasn't adhering to the terms of the lease. It generally costs money to "turn" a property.

[resolution]

The article said they were evicted when they told the landlord that they had lost their jobs, and that the dog prevented other landlords from renting to them after the eviction.

I can't think of why they would say anything to the landlord about their jobs unless it was to explain why they weren't paying rent, which would also explain why subsequent landlords wouldn't rent to them.

[milee]

Having an eviction on your record is enough to make most LLs refuse to rent to you. Even if these people didn't have a pit bull, the second that most LLs pulled up their past history and found the eviction record, their application would be placed in the circular file.

The only LLs who take people with evictions are either such idiots they don't pull eviction records or those that will try to help people who have turned their life around. But since the tenant story doesn't appear to hold water or indicate any personal responsibility, then it's unlikely a future LL is going to believe them when they say they're trying to turn their life around. LLs will know that you don't get evicted for telling a LL about losing a job like the tenants are claiming; you get evicted for not paying rent or sneaking in a dangerous dog. And yes, I know the story talks about how the dog has been to doggie training after the attack, but again, now that it's been labeled as dangerous, that's even more liability for a potential LL.

[Bonny]

I really think it's an income thing and people are blaming the dog. Walnut Creek is an Upper Middle Class neighborhood with good schools. I compare that to my neck of the woods (solid middle class town) where an entry-level 3/1 1950s 1000 sq.ft house is going for about $3000/mth. That means to qualify these folks would need to be making close to $100k/yr. I don't believe they are making that much money delivering papers.

We have a VERY tight rental market here. Add in bad credit and two dogs and no decent LL is going to want them. These folks either need to get better jobs or find a "lesser" neighborhood where their issues are more of the norm.

[tskeeter]

Yup, I sure want to rent my house to people who have told me they have no income. 

Let's explore the story a little more.  This family has two sons.  Bonny, doesn't CA have a law that prevents a landlord from evicting a tenant who has minor children living with them?  Or is that just LA?  Anyway, the part about the two sons of unspecified age makes me wonder if that's just an embelishment to garner sympathy for the subjects.  And how about the part where the pit bull attacked and injured another dog.  Apparently the pit bull bit the other dog's snout so aggressively that it broke the dog's "nose".  That's quite a bite.  What kind of injuries do you think such a bite might cause to a small child?  The fact the the pit bull is on the dangerous dog list might be a factor in their housing situation, too.  It's not that the dog peed on the carpet once that's a problem.  

[Bonny]

Feb 20, 2014 19:13:34 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Yup, I sure want to rent my house to people who have told me they have no income. 

Let's explore the story a little more.  This family has two sons.  Bonny, doesn't CA have a law that prevents a landlord from evicting a tenant who has minor children living with them?  Or is that just LA?  Anyway, the part about the two sons of unspecified age makes me wonder if that's just an embelishment to garner sympathy for the subjects.  And how about the part where the pit bull attacked and injured another dog.  Apparently the pit bull bit the other dog's snout so aggressively that it broke the dog's "nose".  That's quite a bite.  What kind of injuries do you think such a bite might cause to a small child?  The fact the the pit bull is on the dangerous dog list might be a factor in their housing situation, too.  It's not that the dog peed on the carpet once that's a problem.  

Well they NOW have jobs again delivering papers...

No there's no law anywhere in CA that I'm aware of that prevents an eviction for cause for people who have minor children living with them.  But what CAN happen is a judge can extend time beyond the date of trial for the family to find a place to live.

When I was in the middle of evicting my tenants for non-payment two years ago, that was my concern; e.g. that if I was too aggressive that my tenants who had three school aged kids under 15 plus the mom was a school teacher would be extended extra time by a liberal judge. I had a sea container coming from Germany and I can only imagine how much fun that situation was going to be.

ETA: Supposedly  the tenants have to pay for that extra time but if they couldn't pay the rent before...