It's NOT OVER! The Fair Housing Lawsuits against The City of Saint Paul continue on.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
posted by Bob at Thursday, January 08, 2009
Custom Search
Thursday, January 08, 2009
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- Because the night!
- Run Away
- St. Paul looks for squatters in foreclosed homes
- Citizens of Saint Paul -vs- The City of Saint Paul...
- The Citizens of Saint Paul -vs- The City of Saint ...
- The EGGHEADS of E Democracy speak out on Fair Hous...
- Little Canada gets tough on apartments
- Minnesota greed: From white collars to prison stripes
- Merry Christmas to ALL from A Democracy Town Hall
- Fire engulfs a 64-unit building in Burnsville, for...
37 Comments:
There maybe copy errors.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et. al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW
OF PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF
City of St. Paul, et. al., MOTION TO ALTER AND
AMEND JUDGMENT DATED
Defendants. DECEMBER 19, 2008
Sandra Harrilal, et. al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs in Steinhauser, III, et al., and Sandra Harrilal and Steven R.
Johnson in Harrilal, et al., through their undersigned counsel, submit this Joint
Memorandum of Law in support of their motion to alter and amend the judgment
entered by the Court against Plaintiffs on December 19, 2008 (ECF Doct. 264,
Steinhauser, et al.; ECF Doct. 243, Harrilal, et al.) and for reconsideration of both
the Judgment and the Court’s Order for judgment dated December 18, 2008 (ECF
Doct. 263, Steinhauser, et al.; ECF Doct. 242, Harrilal, et al.).
2
INTRODUCTION
Moving Plaintiffs request that the Court alter and amend the judgment
entered against them wherein the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs’
Federal Fair Housing claims contained within Count III of the Third Amended
Complaint of the Steinhauser, et al. plaintiffs (ECF Doct. 60 filed 10-19-05), and
within Count III of the Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Sandra Harrilal and
Steven Johnson in Harrilal, et al. (ECF Doct. 65, filed 5-4-07).
Moving Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider the judgment and order
for judgment under the provisions of Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, on the basis that the Court made manifest errors of fact and law by: (1)
holding that Plaintiffs had belatedly raised their claim that Defendants’ conduct
challenged by Plaintiffs had violated Defendants’ duty to affirmatively further fair
housing (“AFFH”) under 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.; and by (2) failing to
resolve on the merits Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants’ conduct violated their
AFFH duties under the standards applicable to summary judgment motions.
FACTS
The Court’s Order dated December 18, 2008 (ECF Doct. 263, Steinhauser,
et al.; ECF Doct. 242, Harrilal, et al.), provides in footnote 4 on page 11, the
following:
Counsel for Plaintiffs argued for the first time at oral argument that the
federal HQS preempts the City’s housing code and that Defendants’
conduct violated their duty to affirmatively further fair housing. As
3
Plaintiffs did not raise these arguments in their motion papers (despite
describing the duty in their recitation of the facts), Defendants have had no
opportunity to address them. Plaintiffs’ belated claims of preemption and
violation of the duty to affirmatively further fair housing are insufficient to
avoid summary judgment.
See Exhibit “1,” attached to Affidavit of John R. Shoemaker dated January 6,
2009 filed herein (hereinafter referred to as “Shoemaker Affidavit”).
Other than the comment referenced in footnote 4, of the Court’s 53 page
Order of December 18, 2008, the Court did not address any aspect of Plaintiffs’
claim that the conduct of Defendants challenged by Plaintiffs constituted
violations of Defendants’ duties to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”)
under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and Amendments thereto (Federal
Fair Housing Act), 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq. See ECF Doct. 263,
Steinhauser, et al.; ECF Doct. 242, Harrilal, et al.
Plaintiffs filed and served their Joint Memorandum of Law twenty days
prior to the Court hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment held on
September 12, 2008. See for example ECF Doct. 255, Steinhauser, et al, filed
August 23, 2008.
Defendants received a copy of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum through the Court’s
electronic case filing system on August 23, 2008.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Joint Memorandum of Law on August 25, 2008
because Plaintiffs had exceeded the word count restrictions of the local rule. See
4
ECF Doct. 258, Steinhauser, et al.; ECF Doct. 237, Harrilal, et al.). Defendants
raised no objections to any aspect of Plaintiffs’ filing of either version of the
Memorandum of Law.
In Plaintiffs’ Joint Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Summary
Judgment (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law”), Plaintiffs specifically
detailed their claims that the challenged conduct of Defendants constituted
violations of Defendants’ duty to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”)
under 42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et seq.
Plaintiffs did expressly state in their “Argument” section of their
Memorandum of Law that Defendants conduct violated Defendants’ AFFH duties:
Despite knowledge of [ ] the City’s higher code standard, Defendant City,
Mayor Kelly, Director Dawkins and Defendant inspectors, vigorously
applied that code in violation of their affirmative duty to further federal
housing policies. This is reason alone for this Court to deny Defendants’
motion and send this case to the jury.
See e.g., Exhibit “2,” attached to Shoemaker Affidavit, “Plaintiffs’ Joint
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Summary Judgment – Amended,” pp. 39,
second to last paragraph (emphasis added).
A second example of Plaintiffs’ express statement of their claims and
arguments that Defendants’ conduct violated their AFFH duties is set forth on
page on page 56 of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in the heading,
5
CITY’S REQUIREMENTS OF ‘CODE COMPLIANCE’
CERTIFICATION VIOLATES THE MINNESOTA BUILDING
CODE, IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING, THE
CITY’S AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO FURTHER FAIR HOUSING,
AND AS SUCH VIOLATED A CLEARLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, p. 56 , Exh. 2, Affidavit of Shoemaker
(emphasis added).
Plaintiffs expressly referenced the Court to the Supplemental Expert
Opinion of Plaintiffs’ expert Don Hedquist as supporting Plaintiffs claims that
Defendants had violated their fair housing duties including AFFH duties by
illegally requiring “code compliances” to “present code” in violation of State
Building Code. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, p. 57, last full parag.
(Hedquist’s expert reports, Second Affidavit of John R. Shoemaker, ECF Doct
251, Steinhauser, et al., parag. No. 7, Exhibit 145).
A third example of Plaintiffs’ express statement of their claims and
arguments that Defendants’ conduct violated their AFFH duties is set forth on
page on pages 68 and 69 of their Memorandum of Law:
Kelly’s ‘high quality’ housing standard was contrary to purposes of HUD
funding and certifications by City officials and employees – there was no
real disclosure of how high the standard actually was in comparison to
HQS, or that the actual applied standard to those without political power
was in violation of the State’s Building Code. Moreover, the City and PHA
failed to conduct a fair analysis of whether consistent application of a
higher City code in the inner city that had vulnerable low-income,
6
‘protected class’ housing, would be an impediment to fair housing.
Plaintiffs’ Joint Memorandum of Law, pp. 68-69, Exh. “2,” Affidavit of
Shoemaker (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs also made arguments in the “Introduction” and “Facts” section of
their Memorandum of Law that Defendants had violated the AFFH duty. For
example, see pages 2-3 of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law wherein Plaintiffs
stated:
… Defendants failures to disclose federally mandated ‘analysis of
impediments’ (AI) to affordable housing related to Defendants’ affirmative
duty to further fair housing (AFFH).” In over four years of discovery
herein, Defendants have failed to produce, and Plaintiffs have been unable
to discover, any evidence that Defendants ever conducted an AI for
disclosure to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and the public related to whether the ‘protected class’ was adversely
impacted by the City’s application of its “heightened code enforcement
standard” and illegal policy of removing ‘grandfathering rights’ under the
Minnesota State Building Code through ‘Code Compliance’ inspections
and certifications applied to older inner-city housing stock
disproportionately occupied by ‘protected class’ members. This issue is not
to be taken lightly, as falsification of AFFH certifications in return for
hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding and spoliation of
documents related thereto through destruction of internal documents,
7
including e-data and e-mail communications, have serious implications.
Defendants spoliation of written communications, including e-mails and
other e-data for the years prior to 2005, has left Plaintiffs, HUD and the
public without the key evidence HUD required the City to maintain related
to the Defendants Fair Housing certifications and obligations. HUD
regulations require the City to conduct a full and fair analysis of
impediments to fair housing in the City, to identify those impediments,
including those based on the City’s legislative code, rules, procedures and
practices related to fair housing and ‘protected classes,’ its illegal demands
to the private market landlords in the City to meet expensive ‘code
compliance’ inspections and its creation of other barriers to fair housing.
The City’s illegal “Code Compliance” requirements subverting
grandfathering protections for older buildings in violation of the State
Building Code, brings into question whether the City falsified its
certifications to HUD through material non-disclosures.
Exh. “2,” Shoemaker Affidavit, pp. 2-3 (emphasis added).
In Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, Plaintiffs set forth in great detail a
multitude of conduct by Defendants that Plaintiffs claimed violated Defendants’
AFFH duties. See for example pages 2-23, 27-28, 35-51, 56-57, and 68-69, Exh.
“2,” Shoemaker Affidavit.
As part of the March 2008 submissions in support of Plaintiffs’ renewed
motion for sanctions, Defendants’ and the Court had once again been apprised of
8
Plaintiff’s continued claims that Defendants’ conduct challenged by Plaintiffs was
“in direct contradiction to the affirmatives made by City officials and Defendant
City on an annual basis to HUD that the City was furthering fair housing and
following all applicable HUD regulations.” See Exh. “3,” Shoemaker Affidavit,
parag. 7, pp. 4-5; see also parags. 5-7, pp. 3-5, Id.
ARGUMENT
The Rules of Civil Procedure provide several methods by which judgments
may be re-examined by the Court at the request of a party. One available vehicle
to a party is a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P.
The rule does not specify the reasons that will support such a motion and provides
only that such motions “must be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the
judgment.” The ten-day time period begins to run the day after entry of the
relevant ruling, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), and weekend days and legal holidays (here,
Christmas and New Year’s Day) are excluded from the period. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)
(2) and (4).
Here, the Court’s Judgment was entered on December 19, 2008. After
excluding weekends and Christmas and New Year’s Day from the period for filing
such motion, the ten-day time period expires at the end of the day on January 6,
2009.
Any motion which questions the correctness of a judgment is functionally a
Rule 59(e) motion. See Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.O.T. Assocs. of
the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998).
9
Rule 59 (e) “was adopted to clarify a district court’s power to correct its
own mistakes in the time period immediately following entry of judgment.” 141
F.3d at 1286 (citations omitted). Rule 59 (e) motions seek a substantive change in
a judgment. BBCA, Inc. v. United States, 954 F.2d 1429, 1432 (8th Cir.), cert.
denied, 506 U.S. 866 (1992).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted a standard of review of
Rule 59(e) motions that provides a district court with broad discretion in
determining whether to grant such a motion and the decision will not be reversed
absent a clear abuse of discretion. Global Network Techs., Inc. v. Regional Airport
Auth., 122 F.3d 661, 665 (8th Cir.1997). An abuse of discretion will only be
found if the court's judgment was based on clearly erroneous factual findings or
erroneous legal conclusions. Perkins v. U S West Communications, 138 F.3d 336,
340 (8th Cir.1998).
Rule 59(e) motions serve a limited function of correcting “manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon
Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820, 109 S.Ct.
63, 102 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988).
The Eighth Circuit has stated an additional ground for granting a motion to
alter or amend a judgment: a court has the power to revisit its prior decisions when
“the initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’”
Starks v. Rent-A-Center, 58 F.3d 358 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Christianson v. Colt
Indus.Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811
10
(1988)).
However, “a motion to amend should [not] be employed to introduce
evidence that was available at trial but was not proffered, to relitigate old issues, to
advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the merits.” Fontenot v. Mesa
Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir.1986).
Here, the Court made manifest errors of fact that Plaintiffs had argued for
the first time at oral argument that Defendants’ conduct violated their duty to
affirmatively further fair housing and that Plaintiffs did not raise these arguments
in their motion papers and thus Defendants did not have an opportunity to address
the AFFH duty claims.
As can be seen above, the Court was mistaken in determining that:
(1) Plaintiffs had raised for the first time their AFFH violations claim at the
last minute at oral argument – this was clearly incorrect as Plaintiffs had fully
argued the claim in their Memorandum of Law submitted to the Court and
Defendants weeks before the hearing;
(2) Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants had violated their AFFH duties were
not raised in Plaintiffs’ motion papers despite describing the duty in Plaintiffs’
recitation of the facts – this conclusion of the Court was also mistaken as Plaintiffs
had not only detailed the AFFH duty of Defendants and all related facts in the
“Facts” section of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, but Plaintiffs had also made
the arguments in the Introduction and Argument sections of their Memorandum;
(3) “Defendants have had no opportunity to address” the violation of AFFH
11
argument – this conclusion was also incorrect as Defendants had received through
the Court’s ECF system a copy of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law weeks prior to
the oral argument. Defendants had addressed in their Reply Memorandum one
claim of many made by Plaintiffs in their Memorandum related to the violations of
Defendants’ AFFH duty. Defendants simply choose to ignore the remaining
arguments of Plaintiffs and failed to refute the supporting evidence submitted by
Plaintiffs to support their arguments and claims that the challenged conduct
violated Defendants’ AFFH duties;
(4) Plaintiffs claim that Defendants had violated their AFFH duties was a
“belated claim” – this was an error of law and based upon an errors of fact; and
(5) Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants had violated their AFFH duties was
insufficient to avoid summary judgment. Plaintiffs submit that when the Court
reopens these cases, and applies the standard of summary judgment, taking all
evidence submitted by Plaintiffs as true and looking at the evidence in a light most
favorable to Plaintiffs, factoring in Defendants failure to address Plaintiffs’ claims,
that the Court will deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Fair
Housing Claims of Plaintiffs related to Defendants’ AFFH duties.
CONCLUSION
Relief is warranted in these cases under Rule 59 (e). Plaintiffs request that
the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration to correct the clear errors of
law and fact underlying the judgment, and to prevent the manifest injustice of
wrongfully depriving Plaintiffs of their timely stated and supported claims that
12
Defendants, through the conduct Plaintiffs challenged, violated their affirmative
duty to further fair housing.
Plaintiffs request that the Court reopen these cases so that the Court can
reconsider the actual claims Plaintiffs expressly raised before the Court in
opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and in so doing and
applying the standards applicable to summary judgment motions, fully resolve on
the merits Plaintiffs claims that Defendants’ conduct violated their AFFH duties.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Dated: January 6, 2009 By: s/ John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
International Plaza, Suite 200
7900 International Drive
Bloomington, Minnesota 55425
(952) 224-4610
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et. al.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sandra Harrilal and
Steven Johnson in Harrilal, et. al.
who cares?
This is so 2008.
Who cares?
All of us citizens of St.Paul ought to care and be concerned with what has been and is happening to our city and our rights! In case you haven't noticed we all have been gradually losing our rights and our taxes are sky rocketing, if the city is held liable for these actions we will all be paying for it!
And your taxes are going to comtinue to skyrocket with the current administration. If you don't like it, do something about it next election.
Looks to me like the judge made a mistake.
Go gettum boys!
I'm disappointed the city has chosen to politicize housing inspections - something scruptulously avoided in the past with few exceptions.
Best wishes to the landlords. The city is so screwed up its like a volcano - the longer the pressures mount, the bigger it will blow up!
well, Its like the fix was in on the case. It take a lot of money to flight with city hall. Everyone rights are at risk.
I have been landlord for 17 Yrs.
Now it time to just get the hell out of business. Tenants steal from and the dity steal from Him.
My wife and me are losing every day.
We help the tenantes and still do not to pay the rent. Ok who the hell need this shit.
BoB,
I would like to thank for keep this blog going, With it information.
I agree with Les. Why even bother. This city is so over regulated and over taxed it's crazy.
I'm glad they did it. Lets see how willing this Judge is to really look like a crook. The court system is nothing but a joke.
This is pretty funny.
The plaintiffs are saying to the judge you should reconsider your decision on granting summary judgement on this entire case because when you dismissed our argument about the City's responsibility to promote Fair Housing as an angle to keep the case open it was viewed as late and insignificant....well, we don't think it was late.
Yup, sounds like you have a winner there.
The language the judge used was: "Plaintiffs’ belated claims of preemption and
violation of the duty to affirmatively further fair housing are insufficient to
avoid summary judgment."
The plaintiffs are hoping that the judge will reconsider the determination for summary judgement by arguing the claim wasn't "belated." They miss that the judge also said they were "insufficient."
Sad...
It shows you how bad the lawyering is in this case. The judge reprimands them for how they presented the information (late) and lets them know that it was considered and deemed insufficient, and all they can read is late.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
It shows you how bad the lawyering is in this case. The judge reprimands them for how they presented the information (late) and lets them know that it was considered and deemed insufficient, and all they can read is late.
REPKE: CURSORY READ MENT THE CITY ATTORNEYS "bad lawyering" Shomaker is finding Solutions http://www.shoemakerlaw.com/Paul_F_Shoemaker.htm
NANCY LAZARYAN GREAT JOB,TEAM WORK
If the judge is saying that it's insufficient in the context of the argument being "belated," then if they show the argument was not belated, doesn't insufficient become a moot issue?
Who is this Paul Shoemaker guy? The Attorney doing the lawsuits is John SHoemaker. This must be Sharon.......inaacurate as always!
11:02 read it again, even though it was belated the judge considered it and viewed it as insufficient.
What is interesting on a summary judgement is that the test for the judge is, if everything the plaintiff said was true and the defence had no response, is there enough there for this thing to go to trial and the answer was NO!
Accusations, assumptions, rumors, suspicions and conspiracy theories was all that the case ever was.
There was no evidence of either a RICO case of a Federal Fair Housing Case.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Yup its me: Just love that google apparantly John and Paul are related. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=Paul+Shoemaker+mn&spell=1
Pauls beautiful wife former Beauty Queen ?? Chuckie its never over
Pick on Nancy Sharon is the Shephard who can Sheperdize Isn't this fun.
"What is interesting on a summary judgement is that the test for the judge is, if everything the plaintiff said was true and the defence had no response, is there enough there for this thing to go to trial and the answer was NO!"
Ummm.....not quite Chuck. The Judge is supposed to treat everything as if it is true and make her decision in the best interest of the non moving party. That's the law and it not what she did.
The answer was no, but that's just temporary. The Judge will be turned around very quickly. Every arm chair lawyer knows there has to be an analysis, and you don't so it in footnotes. Who appointed this Judge anyways? Where did they find her? A second year law student would have done betetr.
An other fine day at 681 Van Buren Ave.
Renting it out on April,2007.
On Sept 31,2008. The tenant gave notice to move out. Then on Nov1,2008. The tenant Call and said
that she have the rent. I asked her What happend? She said that she not find anythings and the hoilday were coming. We send a letter to her about her rent and
whenshe move out she will have to prorate .
On Jan 04,2009, She call and said she had the rent.
On Jan 05, 2009, I called her and told her that I will be there at 7;00 P.M.. To collected the rent.
She called me by 7:00 P.M.. And said that she find a palce and she is moving out. I told her will call her back.
I claaed back and said I will be there tuesday to pick the prorate
rent.
I went there and talked to her a giving 30 notice days. Then said is not going to pay. I said that will get unlawful detaiter against.
She said I will be out here before
can get it.
I drove by the unit at 6:00 P.M..
And saw uhaul infront of the unit.
On Wednesday. At 8:45 A.M.. I went to unit and All doors and windows were open, I Knock on the door.
No Asnewr, I went in, looking around for somone. No one was there. Then I went home to called the tenant. And tell her that building need to s sequred The building.
At 1:00 P.M. went back nothing was done. No one in the place.
Then at 3:30 P.M. went back and no one there. Still the doors and windows are open.
I sequred the building at 3:30 P.M.
And called the tenant and left a messsage as before.
I used screws door and windows.
the tenate asked me to screw the basement for him. I said no.
Keep on calling me. Left messages and I pick up once and he threat me.
And My wife.
Later I went to unit. I found A female there in the unit.
She said that she stay and going to stay the nite. I said no, because you are not on the lease.
The tenant call her and she gave the phone and asked if she could stay there. I said no. He said that he will be over there, I am leaving. I told her if she stay I will call the police. Seh Left.
On Thursday Jan 08,2008, an other tenant told that That were in the At 9:30 P.M. Until 1:00 A.M..
More thing were taking out of the unit. but screw still in the door.
Then I change the lock. At 9:oo A.M.. I was there all day until
5:00 P.M..
Then today at about 12:15 P.M..
Tenate came back and strarted yelling and screaming . About thing missing. Threat me and
I called the police. He called too. He said I took things. I put things in the yard behind the fence. The ploice To that I could be charge for bur. the unit.
Told me to leave with my stuff.
Asked are thier going lock the place it will be taking of.
He said that I need to file ud.
I filed the ud. My srever went to serve them no one there and place left open. No one.
Now everyone in the world can going destruy the place.
Les advice would be to buy rentals that are not low income and rent to credit worthy tenants.And overnight walah-NO PROBLEMS!
Market Rate Landlord
Sorry to hear of your troubles Les. This kind of thing happens all to often.
We need laws to protect landlords. Also, a tenant can criminally vandalize a rental unit beyond the damage deposit, and there really isn't much a landlord can do about it.
Unfortunately, landlords are one of the toughest groups to organize. SPARL or a representative group of landlords, should be lobbying the legislature to get legislation passed to protect landlords interest.
Sparl doesn't want landlords organized. They make money off the trouble of the landlord. It's run by attornies and screening people. The tougher it is for landlords, the more money they make. It's a sham.
I don't understand why the law "Criminal Damage to Property" does not pertain to the renters and/or tenants when it is obvious that they have done just that!
Some people have no respect for other peoples property and its usually those of the low income bracket. This leaves the landlords that accept them with the high costs of keeping the apartment repaired.
As with the situation like Les is experiencing he will have to pay for the high costs of a UD, along with the waiting period to get in court, waiting period to recover the property/apartment,repair all damages, and then never recover the rent owed, costs for damages, or court costs.
Its turning out to be a losing battle being a landlord, next the city will step in and add to the costs with their not so friendly list of work orders.
It's already a losing battle. Repke and Eric want to spin it as the landlord just will not fix the property, and it would be nice if it were that simple, but it's not. Why doesn't the landlord want to fix it? Maybe because he has already fixed it 5 times this year already? Couple that to the fact that the renter knows when they damage the property they can enlist the aid of the city when they don't want to pay the rent. Just call code enforcement and you have instant documentation to use against the landlord in court because if the house is not in absolute perfect shape, the law declares it uninhabitable and you don't have to pay rent. I could go on and on about it goes from here, but why bother......it is the losing cause and not even worth mentioning......no one cares.
If Nancy is contributing here, where are her posts ?
You can control who you rent to but can't control the city if they target you.
Control who you rent to? Sounds like a case of discrimination waiting to happen if you try to control whom you rent to!
Chuck could you answer 10:37am;
I don't understand why the law "Criminal Damage to Property" does not pertain to the renters and/or tenants when it is obvious that they have done just that!
He ain't gonna answer. Him and Eric think the tenants are completly harmless in this whole landlord merry go round thing. Tennats are the perfect model citizens that need the protection of the city against all these evil landlord who pay money and take debt risks on real estate just to let them fall down on the sidewalk and lose them to the bank so they can have bad credit. In the entire history of this blog, not one of them has ever acknowledged any responsibility on the part of the renter. Why is that?
Ya well I'm thinkin Chuck shoulda be practicin what he preaches with his own rental failures and rental dump thats depreciating his poor neighbors property values
Wow - folks I have never been against landlords as a group and as some of you know I have rental property too.
I am just against this insane view of the City that there are all sorts of people around trying to steal your land and give it to PHA. That is just pure craziness.
Again at the top of this run of comments the motion is that the City is being to hard on the tenents. That somehow the City shouldn't try to enforce the code because people want to live in damaged property. That is your arguement not mine.
The problem that all landlords have with tenents is the relationship created by leasing property. When you rent to someone you turn over a whole bunch of legal rights to the property to the renter. There is nothing that the City can do to change that.
They possess the property. They maintain possession until they leave or are evicted. They may have averse possession of the property, but that is a civil matter and up to the owner to go to court to get it back. If they damage your property while you have given it to them, you could sue them for damages, but for it to be a criminal matter, you have to show they intended to do the damage, not that they are stupid, lazy or careless... because if they are one of those three, then you are just as much at fault for letting them have your property.
You agreed to let them have your belongings. That isn't the City's fault.
Renting property is not an easy job and it never has been an easy way of making money. There is a lot of work and I admire those who do it well.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
But if they rent a car, hotel room or tools from Midway Rental and those things get damaged while in the renters possession, they are held responsible for it. Why is it different when it comes to landlord that you and Eric want to portray as slumlords all the time? And there is something the city can do Chuck. They can stop being culpable in the situation by letting the tenant manipulate the system for a litigation advantage over the landlord.
10:33 because they are leasing REAL Property. The other examples are personal property and an "Inn Keeper." There is nothing any City can do to change some of the basic rights of land use that come down from English common law over the last 10 centuries.
Here is the deal... when we deal with land, first ownership is with the state (Federal Government, then the individual states). The state sells the land through a land patten but maintains certain rights to the land, it policing (zoning/health) powers and its right to eminent domain (the power to take it back). When you bought the land, the title can be traced back to the state ownership. When you lease land (or a house) you transfer certain powers over to the person you lease it to. They have the right to possess the land, maybe to farm the land, they have right to quiet enjoyment of the land... Just about everything except the ability to sell it.
When you say the lease is terminated, the City, the county and the state have no clue if the terms of the lease have been met or not until it is litigated. How in the hell would they know? You didn't invite the state to be a part of the lease agreement, why would the state know if it was violated and by whom?
Like I said it isn't an easy business and City's can change the basic rights to land.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
...can't...
Chuck Repke
Hi All,
I have a concern about the lawsuits.
Suppose the plaintiffs do win. Would a settlement have the potential to deplete city funds to the point it effects programs for the poor?
Does anyone know what programs for the poor the city supports?
They do not care if the lease was violated Chuck. They just do not want any low income people in the city, thus their forced sale policy in the inspections department.
Post a Comment
<< Home