Can I move her stuff to storage and show room?

[mark1210]

What is the name of your state? TX

I have a deadbeat tenant who has moved out 3 months early and left some of her belongings scattered throughout the home. Calls, e-mails and written correspondence go unanswered and unreturned. From my understanding I am supposed to mitigate my damages and rent the room out as quickly as possible. How am I supposed to do this when:

1. Her property is still in the home and I assume her room as well.
2. There could be damages behind the door I haven't seen as I don't know if I can enter and begin cleaning the premises.
3. Can I place her belongings in a storage unit? (Abandoned Property)

I have begun the eviction process but am being told the trial may not be held for at least 30 days. Assuming this is correct...how am I supposed to show the unit to prospective tenants?

BTW: This is a written lease if that matters.

Also..her and I were friends and crossed the line of a pure landlord/tenant relationship could this impact my case?

Thanks.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state? TX

I have a deadbeat tenant who has moved out 3 months early and left some of her belongings scattered throughout the home. Calls, e-mails and written correspondence go unanswered and unreturned. From my understanding I am supposed to mitigate my damages and rent the room out as quickly as possible. How am I supposed to do this when:

1. Her property is still in the home and I assume her room as well.
2. There could be damages behind the door I haven't seen as I don't know if I can enter and begin cleaning the premises.
3. Can I place her belongings in a storage unit? (Abandoned Property)

I have begun the eviction process but am being told the trial may not be held for at least 30 days. Assuming this is correct...how am I supposed to show the unit to prospective tenants?

BTW: This is a written lease if that matters.

Also..her and I were friends and crossed the line of a pure landlord/tenant relationship could this impact my case?

Thanks.

**A: did you ever read the Texas L/T law.

 

[JETX]

From my understanding I am supposed to mitigate my damages and rent the room out as quickly as possible.

Your 'understanding' is correct.

How am I supposed to do this when:
1. Her property is still in the home and I assume her room as well.
2. There could be damages behind the door I haven't seen as I don't know if I can enter and begin cleaning the premises.
3. Can I place her belongings in a storage unit? (Abandoned Property)

The problem you have is, you have NO legal right to enter the tenants leased property and to terminate their lease rights... until ordered by a court. Allow the eviction to proceed (and it shouldn't take 30 days, as the JP courts hear evictions in in expedited mannter). After the court has terminated her lease, THEN you can safely and securely remove her property to storage and proceed with the required notices of tenant recovery of his/her personal property. You might also ask the court to 'advise' you on the personal property as they will have heard ALL the facts.

how am I supposed to show the unit to prospective tenants?

As noted above.... you wait until the court has terminated the tenants lease.

her and I were friends and crossed the line of a pure landlord/tenant relationship could this impact my case?

OH, OH!!! Depending on the exact circumstance of the 'relationship', YES, it could impact your case.

 

[Rhubarb297]

The problem you have is, you have NO legal right to enter the tenants leased property and to terminate their lease rights... until ordered by a court.

..........................

As noted above.... you wait until the court has terminated the tenants lease.

I have my doubts you're right about that. Of course it always depends on the particular state's laws.

Virtually every lease drafted by a halfway competent lawyer is going to have provisions that cover situations when a tenant abandons the property. The notion that you have to go through an eviction process on every occasion for those tenants who have disappeared would clog the courts. It happens all the time. The court doesn't have to terminate the lease rights - the renter did that when he/she breached the contract.

Rather I would say if there is a provison in the contract covering the abandonment of the property, that should be followed. The landlord's right to re-enter and retake possession of the property comes from the langauge of the contract. Most likely the landlord could take possession of the property (put the items in storage for a period of time - this probably will be covered in the lease too) and lease the apartment again. Then the landlord could sue for breach of contract. But the landlord definitely has a responsibility to mitigate damages by re-renting.

The purpose of eviction is to "evict" - to remove from the property a renter who isn't paying and refused to give up occupying the property. If the renter has voluntarily evicted him or herself, I'm not sure why you would have to go through an eviction.

 

[BL]

Depending on your " Over the Line " tenant/landlord relationship and your actions,she may well be within her rights to move .

 

[JETX]

I have my doubts you're right about that.

Of course you have your doubts about my accurate post. After all, you are clearly assuming things that you have NO knowledge of.

Virtually every lease drafted by a halfway competent lawyer is going to have provisions that cover situations when a tenant abandons the property.

And there is your ASSUMPTION!! You don't know if this was a lease written by a competent attorney... or drawn on the back of a napkin. Further, you obviously are not aware of the FACT that Texas law favors the tenant/consumer in just about any dispute with a landlord. Simply, this means that a tenants rights, in this case to the benefits of the lease, are protected until such right is LEGALLY terminated by the tenants conduct and or the court. The fact that the tenants property remains on premises could (and would likely) show that the premises are NOT 'abandoned'.... until a court says so.

The notion that you have to go through an eviction process on every occasion for those tenants who have disappeared would clog the courts.

And of course, that is NOT what I said. In this case, the tenants property is still in the leased premises. That is NOT abandonment.

The court doesn't have to terminate the lease rights - the renter did that when he/she breached the contract.

And again, your assumption of what constitutes abandonment.... is faulty. If a tenants property remains in premises, as in this case, it is NOT abandoned.

The purpose of eviction is to "evict" - to remove from the property a renter who isn't paying and refused to give up occupying the property. If the renter has voluntarily evicted him or herself, I'm not sure why you would have to go through an eviction.

Further ignorance. The issue of 'eviction' has NOTHING to do with removal of a tenants property. It is ONLY about the RIGHT of the property owner, when allowed by a court, to recover POSSESSION of the REAL PROPERTY. If you had any legal knowledge at all, you would realize that an 'eviction' is more accurately called an 'unlawful detainer'. For your education, here is a definition:

unlawful detainer, noun
1) keeping possession of real property without a right, such as after a lease has expired, after being served with a notice to quit (vacate, leave) for non-payment of rent or other breach of lease, or being a "squatter" on the property. Such possession entitles the owner to file a lawsuit for "unlawful detainer," asking for possession by court order, unpaid rent and damages.
2) a legal action to evict a tenant or other occupier of real property in possession, without a legal right, to declare a breach of lease, and/or a judgment for repossession, as well as unpaid rent and other damages. Such lawsuits have priority over most legal cases and therefore will be calendared for trial promptly.

Your 'assumption' that a court would allow a landlord to determine the issue of tenant abandonment WHILE PROPERTY REMAINS is simply not valid. In the future, don't make assumptions... they show your legal naivete.

 

[Rhubarb297]

Of course you have your doubts about my accurate post. After all, you are clearly assuming things that you have NO knowledge of.


And there is your ASSUMPTION!! You don't know if this was a lease written by a competent attorney... or drawn on the back of a napkin. Further, you obviously are not aware of the FACT that Texas law favors the tenant/consumer in just about any dispute with a landlord. Simply, this means that a tenants rights, in this case to the benefits of the lease, are protected until such right is LEGALLY terminated by the tenants conduct and or the court. The fact that the tenants property remains on premises could (and would likely) show that the premises are NOT 'abandoned'.... until a court says so.


And of course, that is NOT what I said. In this case, the tenants property is still in the leased premises. That is NOT abandonment.


And again, your assumption of what constitutes abandonment.... is faulty. If a tenants property remains in premises, as in this case, it is NOT abandoned.


Further ignorance. The issue of 'eviction' has NOTHING to do with removal of a tenants property. It is ONLY about the RIGHT of the property owner, when allowed by a court, to recover POSSESSION of the REAL PROPERTY. If you had any legal knowledge at all, you would realize that an 'eviction' is more accurately called an 'unlawful detainer'. For your education, here is a definition:

unlawful detainer, noun
1) keeping possession of real property without a right, such as after a lease has expired, after being served with a notice to quit (vacate, leave) for non-payment of rent or other breach of lease, or being a "squatter" on the property. Such possession entitles the owner to file a lawsuit for "unlawful detainer," asking for possession by court order, unpaid rent and damages.
2) a legal action to evict a tenant or other occupier of real property in possession, without a legal right, to declare a breach of lease, and/or a judgment for repossession, as well as unpaid rent and other damages. Such lawsuits have priority over most legal cases and therefore will be calendared for trial promptly.

Your 'assumption' that a court would allow a landlord to determine the issue of tenant abandonment WHILE PROPERTY REMAINS is simply not valid. In the future, don't make assumptions... they show your legal naivete.

Well I'll have to tell my law school, the judge I clerked with and people I have associated with in the legal profession for nearly 20 years, including time spent as a real estate attorney, that I have no knowledge of the law. You're so funny. Do you any legal experience whatsoever? I mean besides being sued?

You said I "assumed" things. And you didn't? The FIRST thing any competent lawyer does is to look at the contract. You didn't even mention that. You just assumed the contract was silent on the matter...which is ridiculous since that subject is almost always covered in a lease. Then you went straight to the "law." Of course you didn't even quote any Texas law for your legal theory, it just came out thin air.

You obviously have only SOME knowledge of how evictions work. Unfortunately it's only a PASSING knowledge. Your claiming that a person can continue occupying or "possess" a property by leaving a few possessions scattered around the house, is utterly ridiculous. That whole assumption is way off base.

I was in court on a land contract matter a few months ago. I filed a motion for abandonment for my client the land contract seller because I had learned the land contract buyer had moved out and had relocated to another state. The land contract buyer (who also is an attorney) claimed at the hearing still occupied or "possessed" the property. He still had some personal items in the house (as in the scenario). Didn't matter one bit.

In that case the land contract (as do most leases) talk about what to do when there is abandonment. The court found (contrary to your half-baked theory) that he had abandoned the property and under the contract my client was allowed to retake the property. (We put his personal items in storage.) The land contract seller has now rented it out. Did we have to follow the eviction process? Of course not. Why? He wasn't living on the property, he wasn't occupying it, he wasn't possessing it. It doesn't matter if he leaves a few personal items, or even a lot of personal items lying around, if he doesn't live on the property he has abandoned it.

You can always tell the attorneys from the non-attorneys on boards like this. Attorneys have the good sense to use conditional language and say "it depends" a lot. Then you have people like you who start spouting tons of "law", making false assumptions, and sweeping statements.

 

[JETX]

Your claiming that a person can continue occupying or "possess" a property by leaving a few possessions scattered around the house, is utterly ridiculous. That whole assumption is way off base.

Where did I say that??? Your post is clearly so full of crap (claiming some type of legal 'education') that it is useless to argue with you about it. Suffice to say that the above quote is just an example of your idiocy.

If you did, in fact, have any legal knowledge, education or experience (besides watching Judge Judy in your underwear, waiting for the next welfare check to arrive), you would realize that the landlord can't just say, "Well, it is abandoned" and waive the tenants CONTRACTUAL lease rights. That can ONLY be done by a court..... AFTER the landlord has filed an 'Unlawful Detainer' suit.

 

[Rhubarb297]

Where did I say that??? Your post is clearly so full of crap (claiming some type of legal 'education') that it is useless to argue with you about it. Suffice to say that the above quote is just an example of your idiocy.

If you did, in fact, have any legal knowledge, education or experience (besides watching Judge Judy in your underwear, waiting for the next welfare check to arrive), you would realize that the landlord can't just say, "Well, it is abandoned" and waive the tenants CONTRACTUAL lease rights. That can ONLY be done by a court..... AFTER the landlord has filed an 'Unlawful Detainer' suit.

To paraphrase an old saying (I don't remember it exactly), "Sometimes it's better to keep one's mouth shut and have people assume you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." I have to admit there are a lot of lawyers and even non-lawyers who know more about landlord-tenant law, but you're obviously not one of them.

Tell you what, why don't you go to a large apartment complex and ask to set up a meeting with the apartment manager and his/her attorney. Then tell them your theory on evictions, that the language in the their leases is irrelevant - the law requires that the apartment complex go through the eviction process for every tenant who disappears leaving a few possessions behind. They would get such a laugh out of your theory. It would make their day.

 

[BL]

Attorneys have the good sense to use conditional language and say "it depends" a lot. [ QUOTE ]

Since you brought it up. why don't you tell this board how such a respectable person to do with law knowledge crossed the Landlord/tenant line. ?

Was it because you Unlawfully entered the Tennant's apartment or some other reason, giving her the right to break the lease as a Constructive Eviction.

I said it all depends, and it does .

Tell us both sides just not yours.

 

[JETX]

To paraphrase an old saying (I don't remember it exactly), "Sometimes it's better to keep one's mouth shut and have people assume you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

And clearly, you have come unarmed to a battle of wits.

If the OP were to follow your improper and ignorant 'suggestions', I can see all kinds of possible happenings... beginning with a lawsuit by the 'abandoned tenant'.

Tenant: "Your Honor, the defendant illegally and improperly entered my leased premises, removed and destroyed my very valuable antique furniture, stamp and coin collections, clothes, big screen television and other valuable property."
Court, turning to defendant/landlord, "Did you do that?"
Defendant/Landlord: "Well... yes. See, I tried to get her to sleep with me, she got mad and left. I was told by some idiot named Rhubarb on an internet forum that I could simply decide on my own that she had abandoned the premises and I had no further obligation to her property. So, after I went through all of her property (keeping what I wanted), I gave the rest to 'charity'".
Court: "The plaintiff has submitted receipts and sufficient evidence to the court to set the value of her property at $10,000.00 and the court grants a judgment against the defendant in that amount. Next case."

And the plaintiff/landlord is heard mumbling "Serves me right for listening to that lying sack of crap Rhubarb!! I should have known he was an idiot when he couldn't understand the very simple fact that there is no such thing as an 'assumed abandoned tenancy' and does NOT mean abandoned property".

 

[TaxiDriver]

My dad could beat up your dad.