Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 23, 2019 22:19:55 GMT -5
My bet is that the landlord is responsible. He rented out the unit, the renter caused damage to your unit. It makes no sense to me that he would have an insurance policy that would not cover deliberate acts of a tenant, from what I hear it's not unusual for a tenant to total the place on the way out the door. But even if the insurance does not cover it, that does not negate the landlord/owner's responsibility. I'm guessing you will be taking the owner to small claims court. My issue with small claims court is that it doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. I really don't understand the point of it. You can "win" in small claims court, but a sleazy guy like him will laugh all the way to the bank. He's not going to pay willingly. What's the point of putting myself through all the trouble, time and effort so he can laugh at me once again? Waiting for the attorney to call me. I am not holding my breath. Nobody wants this case.
|
|
Bunnysmom
New Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2017 21:54:51 GMT -5
Posts: 9
|
Post by Bunnysmom on Apr 24, 2019 5:43:50 GMT -5
My bet is that the landlord is responsible. He rented out the unit, the renter caused damage to your unit. It makes no sense to me that he would have an insurance policy that would not cover deliberate acts of a tenant, from what I hear it's not unusual for a tenant to total the place on the way out the door. But even if the insurance does not cover it, that does not negate the landlord/owner's responsibility. I'm guessing you will be taking the owner to small claims court. My issue with small claims court is that it doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. I really don't understand the point of it. You can "win" in small claims court, but a sleazy guy like him will laugh all the way to the bank. He's not going to pay willingly. What's the point of putting myself through all the trouble, time and effort so he can laugh at me once again? Waiting for the attorney to call me. I am not holding my breath. Nobody wants this case. I believe you can file for garnishment if that happens. I wouldn’t dismiss it so quickly. Chances are the reason you cant get any attorney to call you back is the settlement value is too low and they won’t waste their time with it. I tried to get a lawyer for a $2700 deposit that wasnt returned and all lawyers i contacted said to go to small claims.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 24, 2019 6:15:16 GMT -5
My issue with small claims court is that it doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. I really don't understand the point of it. You can "win" in small claims court, but a sleazy guy like him will laugh all the way to the bank. He's not going to pay willingly. What's the point of putting myself through all the trouble, time and effort so he can laugh at me once again? Waiting for the attorney to call me. I am not holding my breath. Nobody wants this case. I believe you can file for garnishment if that happens. I wouldn’t dismiss it so quickly. Chances are the reason you cant get any attorney to call you back is the settlement value is too low and they won’t waste their time with it. I tried to get a lawyer for a $2700 deposit that wasnt returned and all lawyers i contacted said to go to small claims. Did you go to small claims court? And were you able to collect? I may consider it. I will think it over during the weekend and make a decision on Monday. I still don't have the total amount of repairs yet, so I don't know if I can start a claim and give the amount later. Water damage has cost me $600 so far, but the work is not finished and it's going to be more. We haven't even looked at electric damage yet.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 24, 2019 6:17:11 GMT -5
I know someone who went to small claims court. Maybe things have changed, this was 7 years ago.
He won a judgement but the other party refused to pay him. So he went back to small claims court and they told him they couldn't do anything to enforce the judgement. He ended up never collecting. That's why I'm hesitant to put myself through all the aggravation once again, for nothing.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 24, 2019 6:20:25 GMT -5
I googled it. There are some articles about garnishing someone's wages, but this guy doesn't work for someone else. He owns a business.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,304
|
Post by gs11rmb on Apr 24, 2019 6:37:20 GMT -5
I googled it. There are some articles about garnishing someone's wages, but this guy doesn't work for someone else. He owns a business. Can you put a lien against his business?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 7:41:18 GMT -5
My bet is that the landlord is responsible. He rented out the unit, the renter caused damage to your unit. It makes no sense to me that he would have an insurance policy that would not cover deliberate acts of a tenant, from what I hear it's not unusual for a tenant to total the place on the way out the door. But even if the insurance does not cover it, that does not negate the landlord/owner's responsibility. I'm guessing you will be taking the owner to small claims court. Just to keep in mind, it sounds like at the time this all happened, this person was not necessarily a tenant, but rather a former tenant who committed an act of vandalism. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but it's difficult to imagine a court holding the victim of a criminal act responsible for the financial ramifications of the criminal as it relates to others also being damaged as a result of the criminal activity. Imagine a former significant other who lived with you coming back one night and using a saw to cut down your flagpole, and then that flagpole falls on your neighbor's car smashing it. Then imagine your neighbor telling you that YOU are responsible because it was YOUR flagpole that fell on their car. It's hard to imagine a judge holding you responsible simply because you had a flagpole, or that it's your fault because you dated that person.
|
|
Peace77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 1:42:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,926
|
Post by Peace77 on Apr 24, 2019 8:03:32 GMT -5
Ava,
Have you called the police? If the former tenant can be charged with vandalism, destruction of property, etc. , perhaps he could be ordered to pay restitution as part of his punishment.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 24, 2019 10:47:53 GMT -5
Ava, Have you called the police? If the former tenant can be charged with vandalism, destruction of property, etc. , perhaps he could be ordered to pay restitution as part of his punishment. There's a police report. I haven't put a formal complaint with the olice. But the former tenant is broke. Getting a judgement against him would be a complete waste of time and money. I will never collect. The reason I want to talk to an attorney is to know exactly against who should I file a claim
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 24, 2019 10:53:05 GMT -5
My bet is that the landlord is responsible. He rented out the unit, the renter caused damage to your unit. It makes no sense to me that he would have an insurance policy that would not cover deliberate acts of a tenant, from what I hear it's not unusual for a tenant to total the place on the way out the door. But even if the insurance does not cover it, that does not negate the landlord/owner's responsibility. I'm guessing you will be taking the owner to small claims court. Just to keep in mind, it sounds like at the time this all happened, this person was not necessarily a tenant, but rather a former tenant who committed an act of vandalism. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but it's difficult to imagine a court holding the victim of a criminal act responsible for the financial ramifications of the criminal as it relates to others also being damaged as a result of the criminal activity. Imagine a former significant other who lived with you coming back one night and using a saw to cut down your flagpole, and then that flagpole falls on your neighbor's car smashing it. Then imagine your neighbor telling you that YOU are responsible because it was YOUR flagpole that fell on their car. It's hard to imagine a judge holding you responsible simply because you had a flagpole, or that it's your fault because you dated that person. I believe the landlord was negligent. The ex tenant had the keys to the condo days after eviction. As far as I understand the landlord didn't even show up until I reported the incident. He didn't change the locks, he didn't stop by the property. Nothing. Besides that, my concern is that he has a bad attitude and obviously doesn't care about finding quality tenants. What if he next rents to someone who sets the place on fire when evicted? Do I have to pay for all damages my home receives then? What about my personal security?
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,196
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Apr 24, 2019 11:01:52 GMT -5
I'm sorry but you cannot control the attitude of the owner of the unit (landlord). If your HOA does not address tenants, you can't control that either.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 11:02:13 GMT -5
Just to keep in mind, it sounds like at the time this all happened, this person was not necessarily a tenant, but rather a former tenant who committed an act of vandalism. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but it's difficult to imagine a court holding the victim of a criminal act responsible for the financial ramifications of the criminal as it relates to others also being damaged as a result of the criminal activity. Imagine a former significant other who lived with you coming back one night and using a saw to cut down your flagpole, and then that flagpole falls on your neighbor's car smashing it. Then imagine your neighbor telling you that YOU are responsible because it was YOUR flagpole that fell on their car. It's hard to imagine a judge holding you responsible simply because you had a flagpole, or that it's your fault because you dated that person. I believe the landlord was negligent. The ex tenant had the keys to the condo days after eviction. As far as I understand the landlord didn't even show up until I reported the incident. He didn't change the locks, he didn't stop by the property. Nothing. Besides that, my concern is that he has a bad attitude and obviously doesn't care about finding quality tenants. What if he next rents to someone who sets the place on fire when evicted? Do I have to pay for all damages my home receives then? What about my personal security? So if you decide to rent out your place, and the person you rent to ends up murdering someone...would it be reasonable to put you in jail for murder because it was your tenant? You're so far off the rails trying to talk about how it's the landlords job to find tenants who won't break the law AFTER they move out that I'm not even sure how to respond if you honestly believe that landlords should be responsible for criminal actions by former tenants after they are no longer tenants. Why isn't the person responsible for the crime the person who actually committed the crime? Why is it just the person with more money that you think you can collect from who magically becomes "responsible"? To your question...Do you have to pay for all the damages done by someone committing a crime against you? No, you can have your insurance pay for it, or you can have the person who committed the act pay for it. I'm not really following why your answer is "find the richest victim of the crime, and make them pay for it since they have more money and they knew the criminal in some way".
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 11:03:21 GMT -5
I'm sorry but you cannot control the attitude of the owner of the unit (landlord). If your HOA does not address tenants, you can't control that either. Obviously a landlord should look into their crystal ball to figure out which tenants will commit crimes once they are no longer tenants.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 24, 2019 12:59:24 GMT -5
My bet is that the landlord is responsible. He rented out the unit, the renter caused damage to your unit. It makes no sense to me that he would have an insurance policy that would not cover deliberate acts of a tenant, from what I hear it's not unusual for a tenant to total the place on the way out the door. But even if the insurance does not cover it, that does not negate the landlord/owner's responsibility. I'm guessing you will be taking the owner to small claims court. Just to keep in mind, it sounds like at the time this all happened, this person was not necessarily a tenant, but rather a former tenant who committed an act of vandalism. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but it's difficult to imagine a court holding the victim of a criminal act responsible for the financial ramifications of the criminal as it relates to others also being damaged as a result of the criminal activity. Imagine a former significant other who lived with you coming back one night and using a saw to cut down your flagpole, and then that flagpole falls on your neighbor's car smashing it. Then imagine your neighbor telling you that YOU are responsible because it was YOUR flagpole that fell on their car. It's hard to imagine a judge holding you responsible simply because you had a flagpole, or that it's your fault because you dated that person. Renting out the premises has risks. The owner doesn't get to just reap the benefits without taking responsibility for the risk. The person that did this had a key given to him by the owner which gave him the ability to cause this damage. (I think they technically were still a tenant for a couple of more days but that doesn't really matter)
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,369
|
Post by NastyWoman on Apr 24, 2019 13:07:50 GMT -5
I'm sorry but you cannot control the attitude of the owner of the unit (landlord). If your HOA does not address tenants, you can't control that either. Obviously a landlord should look into their crystal ball to figure out which tenants will commit crimes once they are no longer tenants. S/he doesn't need a crystal ball. But if you evict someone from your property and do not change the locks, you may as well leave the doors wide open for one and all to walk straight in. And by not securing this condo after the eviction → there is the case for damages caused due to neglect IMO.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 13:15:16 GMT -5
Just to keep in mind, it sounds like at the time this all happened, this person was not necessarily a tenant, but rather a former tenant who committed an act of vandalism. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but it's difficult to imagine a court holding the victim of a criminal act responsible for the financial ramifications of the criminal as it relates to others also being damaged as a result of the criminal activity. Imagine a former significant other who lived with you coming back one night and using a saw to cut down your flagpole, and then that flagpole falls on your neighbor's car smashing it. Then imagine your neighbor telling you that YOU are responsible because it was YOUR flagpole that fell on their car. It's hard to imagine a judge holding you responsible simply because you had a flagpole, or that it's your fault because you dated that person. Renting out the premises has risks. The owner doesn't get to just reap the benefits without taking responsibility for the risk. The person that did this had a key given to him by the owner which gave him the ability to cause this damage. (I think they technically were still a tenant for a couple of more days but that doesn't really matter) It does. In your mind is one of the risks of renting being held responsible for the crimes your tenants commit? And if so, is there any line? Should landlords do jail time anytime a person renting commits a murder? I would guess that most people don't think a reasonable risk of being a landlord is being held responsible for tenant criminal activity that you weren't aware of and in this case were the primary victim/target of. I would also disagree that the owner gave him the ability to cause this damage. This person had the ability to cause this damage regardless of whether or not they had a key. The key made it easier, but the key did not change things from "no ability to cause the damage" to "ability to cause the damage". I do get the feeling reading this thread that there is a certain subsection of people who think that a landlord is a de-facto stand-in for their tenant in all cases of crime, which is kind of baffling to me. We're holding landlords to a higher standard than what the legal standard is of parents in regards to their own minor children. I wonder if this same level of victim-blaming by saying the landlord is responsible for this act of crime committed against them and targeted at them would be so ok with victim blaming in other cases. If you give the key to your place to someone and they then break in and assault you in some way, did you "give them the ability" to assault you?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 13:18:41 GMT -5
Obviously a landlord should look into their crystal ball to figure out which tenants will commit crimes once they are no longer tenants. S/he doesn't need a crystal ball. But if you evict someone from your property and do not change the locks, you may as well leave the doors wide open for one and all to walk straight in. And by not securing this condo after the eviction → there is the case for damages caused due to neglect IMO. So if you break up with a significant other and don't change the locks, is it then your fault when they use the key and come back and assault you? Are you financially responsible if during the assault they fire a gun at you, and the bullet goes through the wall and breaks the neighbor's TV? I'm very surprised at some opinions that the victim of the crime is being blamed for "neglect" because they should have done more to prevent someone else from committing a crime against them.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,369
|
Post by NastyWoman on Apr 24, 2019 13:25:07 GMT -5
Renting out the premises has risks. The owner doesn't get to just reap the benefits without taking responsibility for the risk. The person that did this had a key given to him by the owner which gave him the ability to cause this damage. (I think they technically were still a tenant for a couple of more days but that doesn't really matter) It does. In your mind is one of the risks of renting being held responsible for the crimes your tenants commit? And if so, is there any line? Should landlords do jail time anytime a person renting commits a murder? I would guess that most people don't think a reasonable risk of being a landlord is being held responsible for tenant criminal activity that you weren't aware of and in this case were the primary victim/target of. I would also disagree that the owner gave him the ability to cause this damage. This person had the ability to cause this damage regardless of whether or not they had a key. The key made it easier, but the key did not change things from "no ability to cause the damage" to "ability to cause the damage". I do get the feeling reading this thread that there is a certain subsection of people who think that a landlord is a de-facto stand-in for their tenant in all cases of crime, which is kind of baffling to me. We're holding landlords to a higher standard than what the legal standard is of parents in regards to their own minor children. I wonder if this same level of victim-blaming by saying the landlord is responsible for this act of crime committed against them and targeted at them would be so ok with victim blaming in other cases. If you give the key to your place to someone and they then break in and assault you in some way, did you "give them the ability" to assault you? You seem to be able to step over the fact that this tenant was evicted → this was not just some person leaving at the end of his lease. It would not surprise me if the insurance denied the LL's claim based on this. He did not make even the smallest efford at protection his own property and as a result Ava was victimized. And guess what? she has been blamed multiple times for not having insurance to cover her. In one case it was even asked whether that doesn't mean that SHE was not the one who was negligent!
Yes the LL was a victim of vandalism but he also was without a doubt negligent
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 13:39:11 GMT -5
It does. In your mind is one of the risks of renting being held responsible for the crimes your tenants commit? And if so, is there any line? Should landlords do jail time anytime a person renting commits a murder? I would guess that most people don't think a reasonable risk of being a landlord is being held responsible for tenant criminal activity that you weren't aware of and in this case were the primary victim/target of. I would also disagree that the owner gave him the ability to cause this damage. This person had the ability to cause this damage regardless of whether or not they had a key. The key made it easier, but the key did not change things from "no ability to cause the damage" to "ability to cause the damage". I do get the feeling reading this thread that there is a certain subsection of people who think that a landlord is a de-facto stand-in for their tenant in all cases of crime, which is kind of baffling to me. We're holding landlords to a higher standard than what the legal standard is of parents in regards to their own minor children. I wonder if this same level of victim-blaming by saying the landlord is responsible for this act of crime committed against them and targeted at them would be so ok with victim blaming in other cases. If you give the key to your place to someone and they then break in and assault you in some way, did you "give them the ability" to assault you? You seem to be able to step over the fact that this tenant was evicted → this was not just some person leaving at the end of his lease. It would not surprise me if the insurance denied the LL's claim based on this. He did not make even the smallest efford at protection his own property and as a result Ava was victimized. And guess what? she has been blamed multiple times for not having insurance to cover her. In one case it was even asked whether that doesn't mean that SHE was not the one who was negligent!
Yes the LL was a victim of vandalism but he also was without a doubt negligent
So if you kick a significant other out of your house, you're responsible when they come back and assault you using the key? But if you just decide to part ways peacefully you're not responsible if they use the key to come back and assault you? Lots of people don't use even the smallest effort at protection their own property or their own body from having crimes committed against them. Is that the new standard? It's ok to blame victims based on the level of care we feel they took to protect themselves?
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 24, 2019 13:41:00 GMT -5
I believe the landlord was negligent. The ex tenant had the keys to the condo days after eviction. As far as I understand the landlord didn't even show up until I reported the incident. He didn't change the locks, he didn't stop by the property. Nothing. Besides that, my concern is that he has a bad attitude and obviously doesn't care about finding quality tenants. What if he next rents to someone who sets the place on fire when evicted? Do I have to pay for all damages my home receives then? What about my personal security? So if you decide to rent out your place, and the person you rent to ends up murdering someone...would it be reasonable to put you in jail for murder because it was your tenant? You're so far off the rails trying to talk about how it's the landlords job to find tenants who won't break the law AFTER they move out that I'm not even sure how to respond if you honestly believe that landlords should be responsible for criminal actions by former tenants after they are no longer tenants. Why isn't the person responsible for the crime the person who actually committed the crime? Why is it just the person with more money that you think you can collect from who magically becomes "responsible"? To your question...Do you have to pay for all the damages done by someone committing a crime against you? No, you can have your insurance pay for it, or you can have the person who committed the act pay for it. I'm not really following why your answer is "find the richest victim of the crime, and make them pay for it since they have more money and they knew the criminal in some way". I'm not looking for the richest victim. I am looking for A. A party who is legally responsible And B. Is solvent so I don't end up spending more money getting a judgement against someone who can't pay. That's why I want to consult an attorney
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 13:48:58 GMT -5
So if you decide to rent out your place, and the person you rent to ends up murdering someone...would it be reasonable to put you in jail for murder because it was your tenant? You're so far off the rails trying to talk about how it's the landlords job to find tenants who won't break the law AFTER they move out that I'm not even sure how to respond if you honestly believe that landlords should be responsible for criminal actions by former tenants after they are no longer tenants. Why isn't the person responsible for the crime the person who actually committed the crime? Why is it just the person with more money that you think you can collect from who magically becomes "responsible"? To your question...Do you have to pay for all the damages done by someone committing a crime against you? No, you can have your insurance pay for it, or you can have the person who committed the act pay for it. I'm not really following why your answer is "find the richest victim of the crime, and make them pay for it since they have more money and they knew the criminal in some way". I'm not looking for the richest victim. I am looking for A. A party who is legally responsible And B. Is solvent so I don't end up spending more money getting a judgement against someone who can't pay. That's why I want to consult an attorney It's super clear you're looking for the richest person you can hold responsible. You've gone so far as to say the landlord was negligent because he didn't make the tenant have renter's insurance (which almost assuredly wouldn't cover this anyways) even while you don't have insurance. You've gone out of your way to concoct crazy reasons why the landlord should be responsible. You're talking about how he doesn't care about the quality of his tenants and what if the next one burns the place down, as if people WANT to be victims of crimes. There's nothing wrong with the approach of "I'm going to figure out who is legally responsible". That's not what you're doing, you're creating all kinds of mental reasons to place the blame on the victim because you've already acknowledged you won't get money from the person who we all know is obviously responsible. The landlord (former landlord) may indeed hold some level of legal responsibility, but it's certainly not because of the reasons you're concocting. You're just throwing anything and everything you can at the wall, hoping that something sticks because he IS the person with the deepest pockets here.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 24, 2019 13:56:43 GMT -5
Ok
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 24, 2019 14:01:28 GMT -5
And I think that is the landlord. To me it is like having someone get into an accident when they borrow your car. You don't get charged with their driving offenses but your insurance covers any damage they cause. In this case you lent them your house. In doing so you took responsibility for their behaviour with the neighbours.
I'm still betting the landlord is legally responsible.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 24, 2019 14:08:44 GMT -5
Renting out the premises has risks. The owner doesn't get to just reap the benefits without taking responsibility for the risk. The person that did this had a key given to him by the owner which gave him the ability to cause this damage. (I think they technically were still a tenant for a couple of more days but that doesn't really matter) It does. In your mind is one of the risks of renting being held responsible for the crimes your tenants commit? And if so, is there any line? Should landlords do jail time anytime a person renting commits a murder? I would guess that most people don't think a reasonable risk of being a landlord is being held responsible for tenant criminal activity that you weren't aware of and in this case were the primary victim/target of. I would also disagree that the owner gave him the ability to cause this damage. This person had the ability to cause this damage regardless of whether or not they had a key. The key made it easier, but the key did not change things from "no ability to cause the damage" to "ability to cause the damage". I do get the feeling reading this thread that there is a certain subsection of people who think that a landlord is a de-facto stand-in for their tenant in all cases of crime, which is kind of baffling to me. We're holding landlords to a higher standard than what the legal standard is of parents in regards to their own minor children. I wonder if this same level of victim-blaming by saying the landlord is responsible for this act of crime committed against them and targeted at them would be so ok with victim blaming in other cases. If you give the key to your place to someone and they then break in and assault you in some way, did you "give them the ability" to assault you? You've gone way off on some bizarre tangent. See my previous post. The landlord is not getting charged criminally. I am really interested in what the real legal answer is.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 14:15:19 GMT -5
It does. In your mind is one of the risks of renting being held responsible for the crimes your tenants commit? And if so, is there any line? Should landlords do jail time anytime a person renting commits a murder? I would guess that most people don't think a reasonable risk of being a landlord is being held responsible for tenant criminal activity that you weren't aware of and in this case were the primary victim/target of. I would also disagree that the owner gave him the ability to cause this damage. This person had the ability to cause this damage regardless of whether or not they had a key. The key made it easier, but the key did not change things from "no ability to cause the damage" to "ability to cause the damage". I do get the feeling reading this thread that there is a certain subsection of people who think that a landlord is a de-facto stand-in for their tenant in all cases of crime, which is kind of baffling to me. We're holding landlords to a higher standard than what the legal standard is of parents in regards to their own minor children. I wonder if this same level of victim-blaming by saying the landlord is responsible for this act of crime committed against them and targeted at them would be so ok with victim blaming in other cases. If you give the key to your place to someone and they then break in and assault you in some way, did you "give them the ability" to assault you? You've gone way off on some bizarre tangent. See my previous post. The landlord is not getting charged criminally. I am really interested in what the real legal answer is. I'm interested to hear the real legal answer, though I fear we likely never will since that's up to a judge and this doesn't seem likely to go to a real trial for that decision.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 14:18:51 GMT -5
And I think that is the landlord. To me it is like having someone get into an accident when they borrow your car. You don't get charged with their driving offenses but your insurance covers any damage they cause. In this case you lent them your house. In doing so you took responsibility for their behaviour with the neighbours. I'm still betting the landlord is legally responsible. The comparable action though would be if someone STEALS your car without your permission, committing a crime against you, and then gets into a car accident while doing it. Are you responsible for paying for the car that person hit while committing a crime against multiple people, yourself included. Your insurance in YOUR example pays for it because they are protecting you. You actively let someone else drive your car with your permission, using the insurance on the car. That's not the same as someone stealing your car and committing a crime against you in the process.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 24, 2019 14:26:35 GMT -5
And I think that is the landlord. To me it is like having someone get into an accident when they borrow your car. You don't get charged with their driving offenses but your insurance covers any damage they cause. In this case you lent them your house. In doing so you took responsibility for their behaviour with the neighbours. I'm still betting the landlord is legally responsible. The comparable action though would be if someone STEALS your car without your permission, committing a crime against you, and then gets into a car accident while doing it. Are you responsible for paying for the car that person hit while committing a crime against multiple people, yourself included. Your insurance in YOUR example pays for it because they are protecting you. You actively let someone else drive your car with your permission, using the insurance on the car. That's not the same as someone stealing your car and committing a crime against you in the process. As the landlord in this situation you actively let the tenant live there, with your permission. And yes, your insurance still pays up even if the accident was your friend's fault.
|
|
Poptart
Established Member
Joined: Sept 8, 2011 18:23:48 GMT -5
Posts: 433
|
Post by Poptart on Apr 24, 2019 14:30:29 GMT -5
Just to keep in mind, it sounds like at the time this all happened, this person was not necessarily a tenant, but rather a former tenant who committed an act of vandalism. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but it's difficult to imagine a court holding the victim of a criminal act responsible for the financial ramifications of the criminal as it relates to others also being damaged as a result of the criminal activity. Imagine a former significant other who lived with you coming back one night and using a saw to cut down your flagpole, and then that flagpole falls on your neighbor's car smashing it. Then imagine your neighbor telling you that YOU are responsible because it was YOUR flagpole that fell on their car. It's hard to imagine a judge holding you responsible simply because you had a flagpole, or that it's your fault because you dated that person. Renting out the premises has risks. The owner doesn't get to just reap the benefits without taking responsibility for the risk. The person that did this had a key given to him by the owner which gave him the ability to cause this damage. (I think they technically were still a tenant for a couple of more days but that doesn't really matter) You're wrong. The landlord is not responsible for the criminal acts of his tenant, and Ava was negligent in failing to have proper insurance coverage in place, if she had coverage her company would have covered the loss and then would have sued the tenant for her damages.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 14:30:47 GMT -5
The comparable action though would be if someone STEALS your car without your permission, committing a crime against you, and then gets into a car accident while doing it. Are you responsible for paying for the car that person hit while committing a crime against multiple people, yourself included. Your insurance in YOUR example pays for it because they are protecting you. You actively let someone else drive your car with your permission, using the insurance on the car. That's not the same as someone stealing your car and committing a crime against you in the process. As the landlord in this situation you actively let the tenant live there, with your permission. And yes, your insurance still pays up even if the accident was your friend's fault. This tenant had moved out. This tenant committed a crime against the landlord during this action. Borrowing a car is not a crime committed against the owner of a car. This tenant apparently did NOT have permission to be in there at the time. It's akin to letting someone borrow your car sometimes, and then this time they steal it without your permission. You're trying to equate giving some explicit permission to do something with having the same action committed against you WITHOUT your permission in a criminal activity. That comparison is never going to stick, it's a completely different dynamic comparing activities happening with your permission and activities happening against your permission which are criminal against you. You're trying to make BORROWING someone's car into the same scenario as STEALING someone's car, and equating a willing permission-giver to that of a criminal victim.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 24, 2019 14:38:13 GMT -5
Renting out the premises has risks. The owner doesn't get to just reap the benefits without taking responsibility for the risk. The person that did this had a key given to him by the owner which gave him the ability to cause this damage. (I think they technically were still a tenant for a couple of more days but that doesn't really matter) You're wrong. The landlord is not responsible for the criminal acts of his tenant, and Ava was negligent in failing to have proper insurance coverage in place, if she had coverage her company would have covered the loss and then would have sued the tenant for her damages. Just because I see people using a lot of the word "neglect"/"negligence"...let's be clear that there's a difference between being negligent legally and perhaps legally responsible for something, and being "negligent" in a non-legal manner which is more akin to irresponsible. It's personally pretty irresponsible to not have homeowner's insurance in most cases...but that kind of "negligence" doesn't somehow make Ava responsible for the actions of the criminal. It's just not a smart thing to do. Just like a lot of us think a lot of things folks do are "negligent" in a personal sense, but not in a legal sense. Likewise if you tell me the landlord was negligent in a personally stupid sense to not change the locks and take extra precautions so that the tenant didn't commit a crime against him...absolutely. But I also think people who go to parties and get black-out drunk, or people who move in with someone they barely know, or people who aren't careful with personal information are personally negligent/stupid. That doesn't mean that if someone commits a crime against them I think they're legally negligent/responsible for the outcome of the crime.
|
|