• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

last question - drug free housing

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

pigpen

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Mississippi

"tenant, any member...guest...shall not engage in criminal activity, including drug-related...illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, use or possession...violation shall be a material violation of the lease and good cause for termination of tenancy...Unless otherwise provided by law, proof of violation shall not require criminal conviction, but shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. In case of conflict between the provisions of this addendum and provisions of the lease, the provisions of the addendum shall govern."

I can certainly understand the motive for this attitude, but being a responsible occasional recreational pot smoker with a good job and a clean record, I am hardly a troublemaking drug dealer or addict. Since I usually only partake when I am out on the weekend, or at a party at a friends house and not here at home, I am mostly curious of the practicality of this clause. What proof is needed to enact this? If criminal conviction is not necessary, is word of mouth of a neighbor enough? Could something like rolling papers visible inside my car be adequate? Is this just intended to intimidate the wrong type of people from living here? Once again this clause does not bother me, but when I read it I was interested to know how exactly it would be enforced, without evidence about which one could call the police.
 


FarmerJ

Senior Member
You have asked a question that is hard to answer because in each locality your gonna see different responses . See where I used to have rental property the local police dept used to tell LLs in community safe programs that If the LL makes report with police dispatcher and can get file numbers to help create provable records to use against the tenant in court where the LL is trying to prove a breach of lease . Honestly even then there is no promise to a LL or tenant they will win for example In the rural county I live in the court seems to be more rigid on EVERYTHING civil and criminal . YET at my last place of residence in Mpls the Judges in that counties branch of the court in the city did things like allowing tenants to stay in units where the LL was contacted by the city attorney re the tenants being busted for illegal drug activity and the Judge refusing to find for the LL and complete the eviction . thus letting the tenants stay . ( for a time I used to attend meetings of a group in minneapolis and met the LL who they did that too ) mpls became a very very hard place to have rentals and glad i got out when I did . there are a few instances of BS with mpls property and the city here at this url http://www.orangeparty.org/MPRAC.html so yeah i got long winded on you but it really varies alot according to where you live and how tenant friendly courts are when push comes to shove . NOW if your LL doesnt take the time to prove a eviction for Illegal substance use in the unit you rent they just might choose to not renew the lease with you and if your a month to month tenant its simpler yet . your LL will just give you notice to move .
 
Last edited:

JETX

Senior Member
I disagree.... and the answer to your questions are in the lease clause you cite.

"What proof is needed to enact this? If criminal conviction is not necessary, is word of mouth of a neighbor enough?"
*** Though unlikely, it could be if the landlord were to determine that it constitutes "a preponderance of the evidence".
preponderance of the evidence
n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

"Could something like rolling papers visible inside my car be adequate?"
*** It could be sufficient enough to cause a larger suspicion.

"Is this just intended to intimidate the wrong type of people from living here?"
*** Of course no one can answer that since we don't know the managements history of applying this rule (if any).

"Once again this clause does not bother me, but when I read it I was interested to know how exactly it would be enforced, without evidence about which one could call the police."
*** Simple suggestion, don't create ANY situation that would make you suspect to review as to your use of illegal drugs.
I am curious though, why didn't you have this concern BEFORE you signed the lease??
 

pigpen

Junior Member
JETX said:
I am curious though, why didn't you have this concern BEFORE you signed the lease??
like i said, im not concerned, because i rarely smoke, and when i do its not at home...i just wondered how this kind of thing works...it doesnt seem right to be able to kick someone out of their home for criminal elements without having any proof...and maybe i misunderstand preponderance, but for a witness to say "i think i saw him smoke a joint yesterday" and that be enough to evict someone is ridiculous
 

JETX

Senior Member
Ridiculous or not, it could happen. Whether it actually would or not, would be up to the apartment management.

Lets say that your scenario "i think i saw him smoke a joint yesterday" were to happen. The management could decide that is sufficient and then give you a 'Notice to Terminate'. You would then have the option of accepting or challenging. If you challenge, then the management could file formal eviction (unlawful detainer) action against you. Then, you would have to appear in court and be prepared to show that their (managements) actions were not valid. Would you really want to take a chance with all that time, money and ordeal?
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
I agree with JETX and add that there need not be any preponderence of the evidence as the writer by his own admission has violated the provisions of the lease addendum.
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
pigpen said:
actually it says on or near the property so i havent
**A: "near" the property could be defined as anywhere in the world.
Now Mars would be considered not near.
 

pigpen

Junior Member
i have never met a lawyer so predictable and close-minded...what are you really, somebodys secretary or paralegal, right?

p.s. it did not stop me from getting my cpa...not every smoker is like the irresponsible school-age druggies that walk around high and stupid all day. you should not believe everything you read, especially if it comes from the ONDCP! ;)
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top