Evidence Needed to Establish Existence of a Bona-fide Tenancy Under PTFA

[Searchertwin]

paid or were required to pay? You know as well as anybody else, just because a tenant is delinquent in their rent doesn't mean they are no longer tenants.

And you know as well as anybody else, if one doesn't pay rent would they still be your tenant? Of course not.

Would a LL want a non-paying squatter living in their rental, I don't think so. If so contact Sandy, she knows a couple that needs a place.

 

[justalayman]

Look up PFTA and it clearly states, “Bona Fide Lease or Tenancy
“The lease or tenancy requires the receipt of rent”

You look up tenancy, I don’t have time.

All three cases did not pay rent, which means, "No receipt". Simple.

Your wanting to defend Sandy, (kiss kiss), I am not talking about the whole issue, just that the rent was not paid, there was no tenancy.

You are stretching the truth a little here, “The PTFA defines "bona fide tenancy", but as noted, it's questionable whether the tenants in this particular scenario would qualify.”

Your trying to justify/rationalize your point, rather than sticking to point of tenancy.

Take Care

a tenancy does not cease simply because rent owed is not paid. In this situation, they tenants were paying, or at least accruing rent debt. It is simply proving that that becomes the sticking point.

(b) BONA FIDE LEASE OR TENANCY.—For purposes of this section, a lease or tenancy shall be considered bona fide only if—
(1) the mortgagor or the child, spouse, or parent of the
mortgagor under the contract is not the tenant;
(2) the lease or tenancy was the result of an arms-length
transaction; and
(3) the lease or tenancy requires the receipt of rent that
is not substantially less than fair market rent for the property
or the unit’s rent is reduced or subsidized due to a Federal,
State, or local subsidy.

I have to suggest that the "receipt of rent" is not describing the actual delivery but that basic actions required under a landlord tenant situation. The landlord does receive rent. It may be late or delinquent but the basic statement is; the LL receives rent in exchange for providing the use of the rental unit.

 

[Searchertwin]

Look up PFTA and it clearly states, “Bona Fide Lease or Tenancy
“The lease or tenancy requires the receipt of rent”

You look up tenancy, I don’t have time.

All three cases did not pay rent, which means, "No receipt". Simple.

Your wanting to defend Sandy, (kiss kiss), I am not talking about the whole issue, just that the rent was not paid, there was no tenancy.

You are stretching the truth a little here, “The PTFA defines "bona fide tenancy", but as noted, it's questionable whether the tenants in this particular scenario would qualify.”

Your trying to justify/rationalize your point, rather than sticking to point of tenancy.

Take Care

I am sorry if I seem a little rude, but if you knew me, you would have taken it in the humor that it was intended for.
But looking at it, not knowing, I can understand how it would be an insult. I will admit, it was just a little, of an insult, but not a whole lot. Take Care

 

[Searchertwin]

a tenancy does not cease simply because rent owed is not paid. In this situation, they tenants were paying, or at least accruing rent debt. It is simply proving that that becomes the sticking point.

And that is what made them lose. They were accruing, but still not in the LL pocket.
The main word here is "at least" which cast the doubt of, "where is the receipt."
Which than disclassified, (sticking point), them under a being a bona fide tenant

I never said no different.

As far as a tenancy goes, I can understand your thinking, but in the end it will cease due to failure of not paying.
Even the "clients" that Sandy took upon herself, their tenancy ended because they did not pay.

I have to suggest that the "receipt of rent" is not describing the actual delivery but that basic actions required under a landlord tenant situation.

I will agree with that.

It may be late or delinquent but the basic statement is; the LL receives rent in exchange for providing the use of the rental unit
The landlord does receive rent

Disagree on this. That's not always true.
That why we have court and than it's an "iffy" after judgement to get money owed.

Take Care

 

[justalayman]

And that is what made them lose. They were accruing, but still not in the LL pocket.
The main word here is "at least" which cast the doubt of, "where is the receipt."
Which than disclassified, (sticking point), them under a being a bona fide tenant

I never said no different.

As far as a tenancy goes, I can understand your thinking, but in the end it will cease due to failure of not paying.
Even the "clients" that Sandy took upon herself, their tenancy ended because they did not pay.


I will agree with that.


Disagree on this. That's not always true.
That why we have court and than it's an "iffy" after judgement to get money owed.

Take Care

well, then I guess any tenant that fails to pay rent when it is due is simply no longer a tenant and the LL can just toss them out the door, right? That is what it comes down to if you argue delinquent rent means there is no longer a tenancy. Failing to pay a contracted fee does not terminate a contract. It allows the recipient party a cause of action in court and the possibility of terminating the tenancy but that is it.

 

[Searchertwin]

Usually, I won't answer back when I end with "Take Care".
But when you get a stupid answer, I can't resist.

It allows the recipient party a cause of action in court and the possibility of terminating the tenancy but that is it

Just streeeeecccchhhhinnnnggggg what I was saying only to meet your wording so you can have the last word.

Who said that you can kick them out if they are delinquent without proper procedure? Only you.
And yes, delinquent rent means there is no longer a tenancy. Time for them to go.

well, then I guess any tenant that fails to pay rent when it is due is simply no longer a tenant and the LL can just toss them out the door, right? That is what it comes down to if you argue delinquent rent means there is no longer a tenancy.

Will you accept a tenant to live in your place if they are not paying, and delinquent in paying you?
Or let the tenancy continue because you feel it not a good reason to let the tenancy end?
Contact Sandy, she got the best couple for you to rent to.
I wouldn't.

I will end with
"Take Care"

But we all know you have to have the last word So make it a good try to cut down that a tenancy will end if they don't pay.

 

[justalayman]

Who said that you can kick them out if they are delinquent without proper procedure? Only you.
And yes, delinquent rent means there is no longer a tenancy. Time for them to go.

well, if they aren't tenants, you can remove them as trespassers if they will not leave willingly. Anything else requires a court to evict the former tenants.

Will you accept a tenant to live in your place if they are not paying, and delinquent in paying you?
Or let the tenancy continue because you feel it not a good reason to let the tenancy end?

Of course not but as a LL, at most I could issue a pay or quit. If the tenant doesn't pay, I have to avail myself of the courts assistance. The tenancy is not terminated simply because they don't pay. They continue to owe the rent.

Let me ask you this; have you ever sued a tenant for past due rent?

If so, how could you? Your own words:

And yes, delinquent rent means there is no longer a tenancy.

so, no tenancy, they don't owe you any rent. According to you, the moment they are delinquent their tenancy ends and as such, so does their obligation to pay you.

But we all know you have to have the last word So make it a good try to cut down that a tenancy will end if they don't pay.

a tenancy does not end until somebody terminates the tenancy, whether it be the LL or the tenant. If a tenant does not pay their obligations, it just means they are tenants that owe the LL more money than they have paid him.

 

[ecmst12]

I don't think the nonpayment of rent is why they lost the case. I think they lost the case because the former owner was not legally allowed to have tenants at all, because there was no CO.

 

[CourtClerk]

I guess my question is, if the tenants know the landlord isn't allowed to legally have tenants, what are they trying to accomplish? Are they attempting to stay in a property they know they aren't legally allowed to, as tenants? Are they asking the court to allow the landlord to have illegal tenants?

If they've withheld rent all this time, where is that rent money? Was it in escrow? Surely there's a rather large nest egg somewhere that allows them to immediately find alternate housing.

 

[Searchertwin]

I guess my question is, if the tenants know the landlord isn't allowed to legally have tenants, what are they trying to accomplish?

That's why I mention that "someone" pushed them into this giving them bad advice.
And I am not referring to the attorney.

Take Care