Arkansas law jails tenants who dont pay their rent


By Patrick   Follow   Sun, 10 Feb 2013, 11:57am   2,456 views   91 comments
In Menlo Park CA 94025   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/09/arkansas-law-jails-tenants-who-dont-pay-their-rent/

Pay the Rent or Face Arrest: Abusive Impacts of Arkansass Criminal Evictions Law, hundreds of tenants each year are taken to court, fined and jailed under the state’s “failure to vacate” law. “The failure-to-vacate law was used to bring charges against more than 1,200 Arkansas tenants in 2012 alone,” read the report. “This figure greatly understates the total number of people impacted by the law. The vast majority of tenants scramble to move out when faced with a 10-day notice to vacate rather than face trial and with good reason.” The report continued, “Making matters considerably worse, the law strongly...

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 52-91 of 91     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    116 threads
    4,363 comments

    52   11:18pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    Why the heck do you think all the publicity about squatting foreclosed houses? Those houses have been vacant for nearly half a decade.

    You've answered your own question there. The houses have been kept vacant for years, restricting supply. Eventually, squatters move in. The crazy thing is when you start blaming tenants when the problem is created by TBTF banks (and bubble buyers who borrowed more than they could repay). If the banks had rented the houses to tenants, the houses would have been occupied, and squatters would not have been able to move in. But, if those places had been sold or rented onto the market, then they couldn't be carried at artificially high valuations on TBTF balance sheets.

    I don't see any "laws enabling squatting" other than TARP and ZIRP, which enable the TBTF banks to keep delinquent or vacant houses on their books instead of selling or renting.

    I do agree though with Roberto's point about limits on security deposits. When I was just starting out as a tenant, I offered to prepay the first year's rent. I had to travel and didn't want to worry about checks getting lost in the mail. I suspect the limits may be intended to divert such tenants into using deposit $ as a down payment on buying so they can be transformed from savers into mortgage debtors.

  2. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    53   11:33pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    curious2 says

    You've answered your own question there. The houses have been kept vacant for years, restricting supply. Eventually, squatters move in. The crazy thing is when you start blaming tenants when the problem is created by TBTF banks (and bubble buyers who borrowed more than they could repay). If the banks had rented the houses to tenants, the houses would have been occupied, and squatters would not have been able to move in. But, if those places had been sold or rented onto the market, then they couldn't be carried at artificially high valuations on TBTF balance sheets.

    We know you are obsessed with TBTF banks, and keen on recruiting volunteer home improvement guys for the TBTF banks. Now, can we get back to the original topic regarding tenants not paying rent as they agreed?

    curious2 says

    I don't see any "laws enabling squatting" other than TARP and ZIRP,

    Any law that impedes the speedy removal of tenants refusing to pay rent has the effect of enabling squatting in violation of rental agreement.

  3. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    116 threads
    4,363 comments

    54   11:37pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    We know you are obsessed with TBTF banks, and keen on recruiting volunteer home improvement guys for the TBTF banks. Now, can we get back to the original topic regarding tenants not paying rent as they agreed?

    Again, you are the one who digressed into "squattering" restricting supply. I don't see any particular obsession, but PatNet is about the housing bubble, which was brought to you by the TBTF banks, which are retrying to reflate it - in part by restricting supply.

  4. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    55   11:42pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    Again, you are the one who digressed into "squattering" restricting supply. I don't see any particular obsession, but PatNet is about the housing bubble, which was brought to you by the TBTF banks, which are retrying to reflate it - in part by restricting supply.

    "Squatting" in this thread refers to people who moved into a property as rent paying tenants, but stopped paying rent. The people such squatters are hurting directly are small time property owners, not TBTF banks. This kind of squatting does reduce supply as otherwise the unit would be on the market available to other renters.

    The people "squatting" TBTF owned vacant properties have nothing to do with this discussion. Did you not see the word "Tenant" in the topic? People squatting TBTF owned vacant houses are not tenants, as the bank never leased the house to them to begin with. There is no conflict between this type of squatter with the TBTF banks yet, as the latter are not even taking them to court, yet. In fact, I suspect the TBTF banks want them move in, to fix up the properties for the banks for free, hence so much publicity by the bankster controlled media on the subject.

  5. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    116 threads
    4,363 comments

    56   12:45am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    "Squatting" in this thread refers to people who moved into a property as rent paying tenants, but stopped paying rent.

    You didn't read the article, did you? The abuses recounted in this article included a woman who had bought her house and was falsely accused of being behind on rent that she didn't even owe. Anyway you're positing a false choice between (a) being allowed to squat forever vs (b) being sent to jail. In 49 states, tenants who don't pay rent can get evicted, and once the court orders eviction they must leave or else the sheriff will remove them - and might even arrest them based on having overstayed after receiving a court order. Somehow landlords have not gone out of business, in fact on PatNet they brag about how much $ they're making, and tenants have been able to find available housing. In Arkansas, alone among the 50 states, the judicial eviction proceeding has been replaced with incarceration even in cases where there had never been a judicial eviction order. That doesn't help landlords really, it only enables corrupt officials to abuse their power.

  6. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    57   1:06am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    You didn't read the article, dihttp://www.patrick.net/d you? The abuses recounted in this article included a woman who had bought her house and was falsely accused of being behind on rent that she didn't even owe. Anyway you're positing a false choice between (a) being allowed to squat forever vs (b) being sent to jail. In 49 states, tenants who don't pay rent can get evicted, and once the court orders eviction they must leave or else the sheriff will remove them - and might even arrest them based on having overstayed after receiving a court order. Somehow landlords have not gone out of business, in fact on PatNet they brag about how much $ they're making, and tenants have been able to find available housing. In Arkansas, alone among the 50 states, the judicial eviction proceeding has been replaced with incarceration even in cases where there had never been a judicial eviction order. That doesn't help landlords really, it only enables corrupt officials to abuse their power.

    Like I mentioned before, this particular woman's case has nothing to do with tenant not paying rent. It's a case of fraud, either the seller's committing fraud or the woman/reporter is. I find it hard to believe the story as it is told: for the simple reason that home ownership transfer involves a deed. If she is the rightful owner of the property as a consequence of buying the property, how can the court arrest her for not paying rent? Didn't whoever brought the case have to show ownership of the property?

    There have been plenty landlords who went out of business because the eviction process takes too long while the mortgage payment had to be made. In fact I have bought properties at bargain basement prices in those situations. The net result is that experienced landlords in jurisdictions where eviction takes a long time would have to maintain a higher cash reserve and charge more rent to all tenants as a statistical insurance against eviction cost.

  7. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    116 threads
    4,363 comments

    58   1:24am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    "unscrupulous landlords are able to exploit the credulity with which many prosecutors treat their assertions to wrongfully evict or otherwise harass tenants. The criminal evictions process is initiated by the landlord filling out an affidavit, and many counties issue arrest warrants and file criminal charges purely on the say-so of the landlord, without any further investigation. Human Rights Watch documented one case where a landlord had her tenant hauled up on criminal charges even though she only gave her three days to vacate rather than the ten required by law. In another case, a man in West Memphis managed to get criminal charges filed repeatedly against a woman he had actually sold a house to by claiming that she was a tenant who had stopped paying rent."

    Ask yourself why these prosecutors would be so eager to file charges based on so little evidence? Might they be - ahem - supplementing their income?

    Reality says

    experienced landlords in jurisdictions where eviction takes a long time would have to maintain a higher cash reserve and charge more rent to all tenants as a statistical insurance against eviction cost.

    Landlords who are investors, not speculators, do maintain sufficient reserves to meet foreseeable contingencies including weather events etc. Landlords who are over-leveraged speculators should not be encouraged as they are now. And, as Roberto explained previously, landlords do not "pass along" their costs, landlords charge the market rental value. If the value is more than their cost, they make a profit, otherwise they make a loss. You don't have a guaranteed right to over-leverage or profit. You DO have a right to due process of law, at least in the 49 states outside Arkansas.

  8. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    59   1:46am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    Ask yourself why these prosecutors would be so eager to file charges based on so little evidence? Might they be - ahem - supplementing their income?

    Have you thought the possibility the story as told is incomplete? Perhaps it's a rent-to-own situation where the buyer-tenant is late on payment? It's ridiculous to think even the most corrupt public prosecutor would repeatedly file the same charge against the woman if she could prove her ownership even if only once.

    curious2 says

    Landlords who are investors, not speculators, do maintain sufficient reserves to meet foreseeable contingencies including weather events etc. Landlords who are over-leveraged speculators should not be encouraged as they are now. And, as Roberto explained previously, landlords do not "pass along" their costs, landlords charge the market rental value.

    You obviously don't understand what market value is or how market price evolves. It's not magic, but determined by supply and demand. As landlords charging insufficient to account for eviction costs go out of business, what do you think happens to rent prices? As all remaining landlords hearing the mishap of someone being dragged into bankruptcy due to the eviction process and decide to raise rent as a precautionary reserve, what do you think happens to rent prices? Like I said, while landlords compete on the services that they offer, they do not compete on tax or regulation costs. They just pass that cost along to consumers because they know all other landlords have to charge too.

    If the value is more than their cost, they make a profit, otherwise they make a loss. You don't have a guaranteed right to over-leverage and profit.

    What do you think happens to rent prices when landlords not charging enough to have a reserve for eviction go out of business? Even more housing units are taken off the market is the hapless landlord charging too little is foreclosed.

    You DO have a right to due process of law, at least in the 49 states outside Arkansas.

    Of course you have the due process of the law in Arkansas: the owner of the property proves his ownership, and he doesn't want you on his property, and you have no proof of fulfilling your end of the rental agreement thereby entitled to be allowed on the property. Police arrests trespassers and home invaders in all 50 states every day. Arkansas just has a faster legal due process than the other 49 states on ex-tenants . . . because let's face it, the most politicians in other states are like the banksters, they just like extend-and-pretend.

  9. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    116 threads
    4,363 comments

    60   1:51am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    What do you think happens to rent prices when landlords not charging enough to have a reserve for eviction go out of business?

    The over-leveraged landlords get replaced by better capitalized landlords, and rents continue to reflect fundamental market forces, e.g. local incomes.

    What do YOU think happens when prospective tenants read about abuses like what's happening in Arkansas? Anyone with a choice says, "I'm not renting there." They buy, so realtors and mortgage brokers make more commissions, but landlords get less rent. Be careful what you wish for. Tilting the playing field so far that no one wants to play with you is a bad strategy.

    Reality says

    Of course you have the due process of the law in Arkansas: the owner of the property proves his ownership....

    You didn't read the article did you? The charges are filed based on affidavit, i.e. the landlord's "proof" consists of his say-so without further documentation.

  10. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    61   4:34am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    robertoaribas says

    Who the hell would ever want to own rental property,

    The question is who would ever want someone to own a rental property. All rentals do is destroy neighborhood property values and ruin neighborhoods. It's a scourge that should be discouraged in every way possible by the government, by HOA's and by residents.

  11. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    62   4:40am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    Why the heck do you think all the publicity about squatting foreclosed houses? Those houses have been vacant for nearly half a decade.

    Don't leave them vacant for half a decade. Duh.

  12. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    63   4:45am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    We are talking about the property rights of ordinary property owners.

    No, we're talking about opportunistic scum.

  13. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    64   4:56am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    Laws enabling squatting is essentially rent-control at $0, and has the same dire consequences for the renters (especially the younger generation), the owners, and the local social dynamics.

    Dire consequences. What a load of crap. Society would be better off without slumlords period. The only landlords that have problems with squatters are slumlords. Now go crawl back under your rock.

  14. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    65   4:59am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    In "many states"? Please, name three.

    Can't you see this guy is trolling you. No one is that clueless.

  15. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    66   5:31am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Reality says

    What is a "non-recourse lease" or "recourse-lease"? What does that have to do with eviction?

    What I mean is that in a state with draconian laws like arkansas, tenants will learn to only sign a lease if there's a clause in it stating that they won't get thrown in jail if they have problems paying the rent. That would be a good selling point for a smart landlord too. Rent from me and I won't put you in jail.

    Let the other moron's properties stay empty because they're too dumb to know how to pick a good tenant and too dumb to know how to keep their tenants happy.

    People squat to recover money they feel is owed to them, to get back at the landlord for bad service or just to make it hard on them for being an asshole. The landlord of course is clueless that they've done anything wrong so they look on the tenant as the deadbeat, when in reality they are the deadbeat.

  16. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    67   7:10am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    curious2 says

    The over-leveraged landlords get replaced by better capitalized landlords, and rents continue to reflect fundamental market forces, e.g. local incomes.

    Nope, on two levels:

    1. It's not a matter of better capitalized. Someone would have to pay for the reserve fund, and that ultimately would be the tenants. Landlords do not compete on cost of doing business that every other landlord in the every also face; it would be just like a sales tax, directly passed to the consumer.

    2. As market concentration increase on the supply side, the prices go up. It is in the interest of the renters to have the units in any given area spread out in as many different and competing landlords as possible. Laws that have the effect of concentrating ownership would only end up hurting the renters.

    What do YOU think happens when prospective tenants read about abuses like what's happening in Arkansas? Anyone with a choice says, "I'm not renting there." They buy, so realtors and mortgage brokers make more commissions, but landlords get less rent. Be careful what you wish for. Tilting the playing field so far that no one wants to play with you is a bad strategy.

    I'm very surprised by your last sentence. You are arguing that someone occupying the property against the owner's wish, and somehow that person should have the right to stay. Does that apply to any other property owners? or should the law be especially tilted against housing service providers? Should you get to stay for weeks if not months if you don't want to leave a hotel or a restaurant?

  17. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    68   7:14am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    ELC says

    The question is who would ever want someone to own a rental property. All rentals do is destroy neighborhood property values and ruin neighborhoods. It's a scourge that should be discouraged in every way possible by the government, by HOA's and by residents.

    This line of bankster thinking would have been more convincing in 2007, before the crash. How do you like the foreclosures instead of rentals in your neighborhood? Rentals serve a very valuable service: they provide housing without requiring long term commitment, and reduces the dramatic impact on housing prices by changing interest rates.

  18. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    69   7:19am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    ELC says

    Don't leave them vacant for half a decade. Duh.

    Do you bankster lovers live in a make-belief world? They have been vacant for half a decade. It's a statement of fact, not some wish-full thinking. If you are against rentals, then the houses would be devoid of legit occupants for even longer.

  19. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    70   7:22am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    ELC says

    Reality says

    We are talking about the property rights of ordinary property owners.

    No, we're talking about opportunistic scum.

    That's very funny. Tell me you work for free. Responding to a business opportunity is catering to someone else' wants. That's a heck lot more respectable than over-educated couch potatoes who are too lazy or too chicken little to do anything themselves and get jealous towards someone else who do actually work when opportunities arise.

  20. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    71   7:26am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    ELC says

    Dire consequences. What a load of crap. Society would be better off without slumlords period. The only landlords that have problems with squatters are slumlords. Now go crawl back under your rock.

    I don't cater to low income tenants myself, but to think that squatting is only a problem with low income tenants is like saying both you and curious2 and all those in favor of squatting are slum-dwellers.

    BTW, I have sympathy for property owners who have the courage to cater to low-income tenants. It's a much more difficult market . . . and low-income people need housing too. Where do you suppose they should live? in government run housing? We know that doesn't work. Government run housing would indeed drive down property value, and more importantly raise crime rate in the neighborhood.

  21. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    72   7:36am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    ELC says

    curious2 says

    In "many states"? Please, name three.

    Can't you see this guy is trolling you. No one is that clueless.

    All right, here's a list of caps on deposits (not just security deposit but combined with last month total in many states) allowed in various states:

    Alabama: one month's rent
    Alaska: two months
    Arizona: 1.5 months
    Arkansas: 2 mo
    California: 2 mo
    CT: 2mo
    DE: 1mo
    DC: 1mo
    HI: 1mo
    IW: 2mo
    KS: 1mo
    ME: 2mo
    MD: 2mo
    MA: 1mo
    MI: 1.5mo
    MS: 2mo
    NE: 1mo
    NV: 3mo
    NH: 1mo
    NJ: 1.5mo, no more than 10% increase year to year
    NY: 1mo in NYC (where most rental units are ) for units built before 1974
    ND: 1mo
    PE: 2mo first year, 1mo subsequent years
    RI: 1mo
    SD: 1mo
    VA: 2mo

    Now go to a mirror, and tell the person in there he is trolling and clueless.

  22. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    73   7:50am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    ELC says

    What I mean is that in a state with draconian laws like arkansas, tenants will learn to only sign a lease if there's a clause in it stating that they won't get thrown in jail if they have problems paying the rent. That would be a good selling point for a smart landlord too. Rent from me and I won't put you in jail.

    Would the next idea be landlord promising not to take the tenant to court either when rents are not paid? I have never had the need to take any of my tenants to court, usually finding creative solutions that can help the tenant find a less expensive housing . . . however there have to be legal recourse when basic property rights are violated, just like tenants have the right to tell unwelcome guests to leave.

    BTW, do you guys actually believe landlords prefer to see the cops or sheriff showing up at the house? The percentage of tenants getting arrested for not paying rent has to be very small in Akansas.

    Let the other moron's properties stay empty because they're too dumb to know how to pick a good tenant and too dumb to know how to keep their tenants happy.

    I'm all for offering better services to tenants. Most tenants stay in my properties until their job/personal circumstances change; some even move from one of my properties to another when they relocate. OTOH, I also understand that in order to keep the good tenants, sometimes it is necessary to tell the occasional bad ones to leave. Squatters tend not to be good tenant, not just to the landlord.

    People squat to recover money they feel is owed to them, to get back at the landlord for bad service or just to make it hard on them for being an asshole. The landlord of course is clueless that they've done anything wrong so they look on the tenant as the deadbeat, when in reality they are the deadbeat.

    That's ridiculous, it's like saying robbers only rob if they are hungry when it is the society owing them a meal. There are bad landlords, but there are also bad tenants who just can't resist stealing from other people.

  23. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    914 threads
    11,690 comments

    74   8:25am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    And you guys are all pro rent.
    Geesh!

    I'll take the terms of a bank's mortgage, over being at the mercy of scumbag landlord any day.

  24. leo707


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    11 threads
    4,088 comments
    Oakland, CA
    leo707's website

    75   9:27am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    robertoaribas says

    curious2 says

    I have never heard of a six eviction month delay in MN, but reportedly they have no limit on security deposits:

    I'm not sure. the person who told me is referring from someone else, who might be an idiot... I've obviously never rented in minnesota, so this is 12th hand info...

    In MN there are basically 6 months out of the year when nobody moves. There might not be a law, but a landlord would have a very hard time filling the rental, and it may be difficult to get a court to throw people on the street in sub-zero temperatures.

  25. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    76   10:23am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    CaptainShuddup says

    And you guys are all pro rent.

    Geesh!

    I'll take the terms of a bank's mortgage, over being at the mercy of scumbag landlord any day.

    There's a time for both: renting vs. ownerhship, even when one is not concerned about relocating or marriage status. I sold my own house in late 2004 and rented till early 2011. The total rent outlay was about $180k over a little more than 6 years, but saved me probably over $200k compared to mortgage interest payment, taxes, water, insurance alone and over $500k if counting real estate price drop in those years. . . back on-board owning my own home in 2011, now considering selling again to capture the tax free gain capped at $250k for single, in order to restart the clock. We divorced when we were still renting, but I helped her buy a house too in 2011, a couple years after divorce. I may consider renting for a while or moving into one of my rental units for a couple years if one opens up. Some "slum" I'm running that I'd be comfortable living in myself.

    My landlord was making something like 3% or less net on the value of the house when I was renting. Of course, he bought the house way back in the early 1980's, but even using his original purchase price, not adding the major renovation cost done just before I moved in, his net return was only about 10%, nominal!. Obviously 2004-2011 dollars were worth much less than the early 1980's dollars.

  26. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    166 threads
    5,475 comments

    77   12:11pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    Peter P says

    Folks, this is about illegal occupation, not failure to pay a debt.

    Now you are just changing the words to make it sound more humane, adding a nice sounding soundbite. But that doesn't change the fact that it is about prison for debt. And prison for debt is highly un-American because government and bankers control debt levels in this nation.

  27. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    116 threads
    4,363 comments

    78   12:30pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality, sometimes I like your comments and learn from them, but other times you seem to venture off into a parallel world.

    Reality says

    You are arguing that someone occupying the property against the owner's wish, and somehow that person should have the right to stay. Does that apply to any other property owners? or should the law be especially tilted against housing service providers? Should you get to stay for weeks if not months if you don't want to leave a hotel or a restaurant?

    Reality says

    curious2 and all those in favor of squatting...

    Who is in favor of squatting? You go too far in mischaracterizing others' arguments. All 50 states have eviction for non-payment. Arkansas stands alone in adding the level of abuse and corruption singled out by Human Rights Watch. BTW, HRW are a highly respected organization with a reputation built up over decades. If a landlord leases property to a tenant, neither party can simply change his mind with no rights for the other party. Gee, this lease is now "against the owner's wish?" Before you can get an eviction order, you need to prove the tenant broke the lease, e.g. by not paying rent. The tenant has a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard, e.g. "I did pay the rent and here's a record from the bank." You can't simply change the locks or charge the tenant with a crime for staying in a place where he had a right to stay, until you get a court order saying he doesn't have a right to stay there anymore. That was the law in 50 states, remains the law in 49 states, and ought to be the law in all 50.

    But, since you brought up TBTF banks and squatting, the BofA story above about adverse possession merits a mention. For centuries, the doctrine of adverse possession has applied; after a certain number of years, squatters may acquire title. Among the many consequences of the TBTF bailout, suddenly we are seeing huge numbers of empty properties acquiring squatters, partly because there are clouds on the title history because of illegal mortgage transfers (MERS) and defective foreclosures. You say the banks need to clean up the property to make it livable; actually the bigger problem can be cleaning up the title to make it marketable.

  28. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    79   12:55pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    Reality says

    curious2 and all those in favor of squatting...

    Who is in favor of squatting? You go too far in mischaracterizing others' arguments.

    You may want to read some of curious2's writings. He apparently thinks squatting is justified because all the money TBTF banks took enabled the banks to hang onto those houses instead of putting them on the market for liquidation. I may or may not agree with him on squatting vacant properties owned by TBTF banks on that reasoning . . . however the "squatting" in this discussion refers to something altogether different: the property owners being transgressed against are not the TBTF banks but ordinary small time property owners who may well be victims of TBTF banks to begin with by having to pay a large mortgage.

    curious2 says

    If a landlord leases property to a tenant, neither party can simply change his mind with no rights for the other party. "Gee, this lease is now against the owner's wish?"

    Likewise, the tenant can not simply change his mind with no rights for the other party: "Gee, I don't feel like paying this month"?

    curious2 says

    Before you can get an eviction order, you need to prove the tenant broke the lease, e.g. by not paying rent.

    Or there may not be a lease to begin with, or the lease has expired, and the person has no right to be there to begin with.

    curious2 says

    The tenant has a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard, e.g. "I did pay the rent and here's a record from the bank." You can't simply change the locks or charge the tenant with a crime for staying in a place where he had a right to stay, until you get a court order saying he doesn't have a right to stay there anymore. That was the law in 50 states, remains the law in 49 states, and ought to be the law in all 50.

    IMHO, the law is extremely tilted against the house owner in most states. If you were in a hotel or a restaurant or even a B&B that allows stay up to a month, the owner's proof of ownership is sufficient to have the unwelcome guest removed. If the removal had been in error, the upset guests would have every right to sue the property owner afterwards, including multiple times the actual damage. Because the property owner has the property sitting there to be attached, such a lawsuit is very much feasible if the owner wrongfully remove a guest. That alone checks the property owners' desire to abuse the system.

    Whereas in the case of housing service longer than 1 month, the usual operating procedure in the other 49 states seems to be putting the burden on a party that would have a hard time recovering from the at-fault party losses due to procedural delays simply because that party has no asset to be attached even in the case of a judgement, not to mention in the overwhelming majority of eviction petition casess the landlord is ultimately found to be the correct one. So the net result is irresponsible tenants counting on the legal process to drag out and get free rent, i.e. "squatting," thereby transferring the cost of their own housing ultimately to other tenants.

  29. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    80   1:07pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    FortWayne says

    Now you are just changing the words to make it sound more humane, adding a nice sounding soundbite. But that doesn't change the fact that it is about prison for debt. And prison for debt is highly un-American because government and bankers control debt levels in this nation.

    No, it's not prison for debt. They are not arresting people who have already left the property and owe back rent. They are arresting people who are continuing illegal occupation and insist on not leaving.

  30. jvolstad


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    1,112 threads
    1,505 comments
    San Antonio, TX
    jvolstad's website

    81   1:08pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    Wonder if they have cells for Realtor's?

  31. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    82   1:16pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    I may consider renting for a while or moving into one of my rental units for a couple years if one opens up. Some "slum" I'm running that I'd be comfortable living in myself.

    Slumlords are first slumlords in their mind. Then they find other people in the same downtrodden mental state who are willing to dance their slummy dance with them. Of course you would have no problem living in a slum. You take your slum with you everywhere you go. Why pay for a nice place?

    Understand? Nope. Not likely.

  32. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    83   1:22pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    ELC says

    Reality says

    I may consider renting for a while or moving into one of my rental units for a couple years if one opens up. Some "slum" I'm running that I'd be comfortable living in myself.

    Slumlords are first slumlords in their mind. Then they find other people in the same downtrodden mental state who are willing to dance their slummy dance with them. Of course you would have no problem living in a slum. You take your slum with you everywhere you go. Why pay for a nice place?

    Understand? Nope. Not likely.

    Did you miss the part about my rent having been about $180k in a little over 6 years? I don't know how much you are paying for your own rent, but $2500/mo is not a slum. That's the amount I paid when renting, and about the amount I collect from each rental unit that I own, give or take $500.

    Stop acting like an idiot who can't make anything of oneself but insisting on wasting time tearing down others.

  33. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    84   1:25pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    That's ridiculous, it's like saying robbers only rob if they are hungry when it is the society owing them a meal. There are bad landlords, but there are also bad tenants who just can't resist stealing from other people.

    Bad analogy. Birds of a feather flock together. A bad landlord won't be able to weed out a potentially bad tenant because they are either greedy, needy, or dumb.

  34. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    85   1:29pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    ELC says

    Reality says

    That's ridiculous, it's like saying robbers only rob if they are hungry when it is the society owing them a meal. There are bad landlords, but there are also bad tenants who just can't resist stealing from other people.

    Bad analogy. Birds of a feather flock together. A bad landlord won't be able to weed out a potentially bad tenant because they are either greedy, needy, or dumb.

    Must be something that you are familiar with.

    With an attitude like yours, you'd be among the first ones that I weed out, both for rentals and for ultimately give-aways. People like you are not capable of keeping a house even if given one for free.

  35. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    86   1:34pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    it's like saying robbers only rob if they are hungry when it is the society owing them a meal.

    Most robbers rob because they're addicted to drugs/alcohol/crack. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

  36. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    166 threads
    5,475 comments

    87   1:54pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Reality says

    No, it's not prison for debt. They are not arresting people who have already left the property and owe back rent. They are arresting people who are continuing illegal occupation and insist on not leaving.

    That's what evictions are for, not jails. This is an abuse of human rights, prison for debt. And even as article points out, highly abused by local landlords.

    Another woman was repeatedly charged under the law based on false reports from the man she bought her house from, even though she had paid for it in full. In another situation, “Human Rights Watch interviewed one tenant whose landlord got an arrest warrant issued against her just three days after ordering her to move out.”

  37. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    88   2:11pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    FortWayne says

    That's what evictions are for, not jails. This is an abuse of human rights, prison for debt.

    Not a prison for debt, because it is not arresting people who have already left and owes back rent.

    And even as article points out, highly abused by local landlords

    Another woman was repeatedly charged under the law based on false reports from the man she bought her house from, even though she had paid for it in full.

    This story reflects very poorly on the reporting. The way it is written, the woman is obviously not a tenant, nor the man a landlord. So the relevance of the story would be? I have a hard time even believing that woman's truthfulness. Home ownership is not exactly a he-said/she-said situation: there is a deed recorded with the county when she pays in full for the house, usually at the closing lawyer's office. Do you honestly believe the sheriffs would be repeatedly arresting her if she can show that deed just once? I think it's someone either lying or caught up in a really messed up case of fraud: she may think she bought the house, but as far as the county registrar is concerned she never did. The proper solution for her would be seeking legal recourse against the man who took her money, not squatting what is legally still his. Go get a judgement for fraud, and throw his ass in jail!

    In another situation, “Human Rights Watch interviewed one tenant whose landlord got an arrest warrant issued against her just three days after ordering her to move out.

    I wonder how many rent payment she missed and how long she had been living rent-free before the landlord saught and was issued the arrest warrant.

  38. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,152 comments

    89   2:19pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    ELC says

    Most robbers rob because they're addicted to drugs/alcohol/crack. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

    Exactly! Likewise, non-payment of rent that would lead landlord seeking eviction is usually not due to repair issues but simply something happening in the tenant's life. It's heck lot easier for the landlord to do the usual repairs than to seek eviction. An arrest would be a crime report entry. Why would a normal landlord want cops to come onto the property if there are other solutions to the problem. It has to be last resort, one that is nonetheless necessary in order to fully defend property rights. Jurisdictions that take months to evict a squatter are not fully defending property rights.

  39. ELC


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    3 threads
    738 comments
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    90   3:27pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    Stop acting like an idiot who can't make anything of oneself but insisting on wasting time tearing down others.

    I got carried away. I appologise.

  40. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    166 threads
    5,475 comments

    91   3:35pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    Reality says

    I wonder how many rent payment she missed and how long she had been living rent-free before the landlord saught and was issued the arrest warrant.

    Just because you don't like the argument that invalidates your point doesn't make that argument invalid. Selective hearing does not solve problems.

    Reality says

    Not a prison for debt, because it is not arresting people who have already left and owes back rent.

    So they only arrest some people now for some debt, but not all at once. It's a slippery slope from there. It's still prison for debt, you owe and you go to jail for it while the landlord pushes his costs of doing business and failure to screen tenants onto taxpayers.

« First     « Previous comments    

Premium member Patrick is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 191 milliseconds to create.