 |
I live in FL, Can a landlord evict only one tenant for non-payment of rent, even though there are 2 people who signed the lease? She filed a non payment eviction against one person but not the other, is that an automatic grounds for dismissal for the case?
It depends on how the lease was worded and the relationship of the tenants. But it could be legal.
In any case it wouldn't be grounds for automatic dismissal. But the eviction could be applied against both tenants. Also the landlrod could evict both, then turn around and rent it to the tenant they want to keep.
It's a standard lease, with 2 signatures on the lease, 2 names. Can she only evict one for non payment of rent? It's a pretty simple question.
You may think it's a simple question, but its not. Also what you think is a standard lease may not be. We would need to know how the clause that lists the occupants is worded. There are different ways that it might be worded that would allow a separate eviction or prohibit it. As I said, the relationship of the occupants matters also. For example, if the occupants are husband and wife the answer would be no.
I agree... not a simple answer.
The best thing to do is read the lease with a fine tooth comb, as well as your state's landlord / tenant law. There's a "sticky" at the top of this forum with a link for each state.
The exact language of the lease matters, as does the exact language of the eviction filing. And, in many cases, it basically comes down to the interpretation of the individual judge hearing the case.
May be grounds for a dismissal, but it's not an automatic. Are you one of the parties? Have you tried calling the court to inform them that you believe the case was filed improperly? You (or whoever the eviction is filed against) should certainly show up on the hearing date and offer whatever defense there is. Some judges will go for stuff like this, others will say, "has the rent been paid?" and make their decision based on that.
We live together with our 2 year old daughter. There is nothing in the lease that states the landlord can evict one of the tenants for non payment of rent.
It may not say in so many words that they can, but it may also not say that they can't.
What's the bottom line? Are they trying to get rid of just one of you, or both of you? Have you not paid rent?
For the most part, especially in landlord friendly states, you're going to have a hard time making an eviction go away on a paperwork technicality. You may, I'm not saying you won't or can't - it's just not a slam dunk. And, best case scenario (for you) it will just postpone the inevitable.
If you care to share what's going on we may ber able to provide some more, specific advice and details.
Did you edit the original post? I don't recall you mentioning it was for non-payment of rent. But that makes the wording of the lease even more important. The lease could be worded so that each tenant is responsible for the whole rent, or it could be worded that each tenant is responsible for their share of the rent. If it's the latter, then yes only one tenant can be evicted.
In the end, if there is no payment of rent, they will get the eviction,
I would ask why they are just naming the one person, do they believe this person is the cause,
I doubt it will cause case to be dismissed, but it will either not be inforceable
If 2 people are on the lease, than, 2 people are reasonible for paying the rent, therefore, one can't be evicted for non payment. It must be 2 people being evicted for non payment. It just makes sense. Doesn't it? I also, failed to mention, this lady hasn't paid her mortgage since sept 07, rented the home to us anyway, now the home is in foreclosure, a hearing is set for sometime in Nov.
The foreclosure is a side issue. As long as the landlord continues to own the home the lease is in effect.
You seem to have a block on understanding this. Maybe if I ask the question this way. Does each tenant pay their rent directly to the landlord or do they pool their money and pay one sum?
Orig. Poster, I understand your point. And technically, according to what should happen, etc, assuming your lease is worded and structrued that way, you're right.
The point I want to get you to understand is that Justices of the Peace, Magistrates, whoever hears these cases in your area, have a lot of wiggle room for interpreting and ruling on things.
I understand your LL hasn't paid the mortgage since the cow jumped over the moon and you're ticked as heck about it. I would be, too. But that, and the fact that only one of you was served on the eviction may not get this thrown out. It may, but it's not an automatic.
In the court that hears the majority of my eviction cases the JP asks the LL, "When was the last time the tenant paid their rent? What do they owe?" Then they ask the tenant, "When was the last time you paid your rent?" If both answers are that there's rent due and unpaid she rules for eviction. She doesn't listen to any excuses or reasons the tenant hasn't paid. She just rules. She just basically doesn't listen to anything. If someone claims they've paid then they must show proof of the payment, or she rules for eviction. I can guarantee if you were to bring up this issue that only one of you was listed she would say, "I don't care, have you paid the rent?" And when you then brought up the fact that that the LL has let the house go into foreclosure she would say, "Have you paid?" BOOM (that's her gavel on the dest)... eviction ruling.
My advice... if you want to make it about the "who was / wasn't served" issue, I'd take a copy of your lease and a copy of the papers you were served in to the court PRIOR to the trial and explain to them that it wasn't served properly and ask that it be thrown out.
If you're going to argue on the foreclosure issue, then I'd file a countersuit against the landlord for whatever provision of your lease you believe they are violating. Then the judge kind of has to let you say your peace about that.
One more "way of saying" what I'm trying to say, maybe... if your lease or your state law specifically STATE, "if there are two people on the lease, then BOTH parties must be served for eviction." and you can print that out and take it in to show the Judge you may prevail. If (as I believe is the case) that is just implied by the law, then the judge gets to INTERPRET the law. They may agree with you, or they may not. That's the point I'm trying to get across. Hopefully you'll get a judge who's willing to listen to tenants arguments and excuses. The ones I deal with aren't . (I'm in TX, which is probably the most similar to FL in terms of being very LL friendly.)
Do you understand what I'm trying to say so I can quit harping on it? I'm not saying YOU are WRONG... I'm just saying that it doesn't always work out the way it SHOULD. Judges tend to not like it when tenants try to use technicalities to get around legitimate issues like not paying rent.
Fl is very pro landlord in their laws. And the foreclosure has nothing to do with the eviction, in FL as long as the landlord still owns it they can evict for non payment
That wasn't the question. The question is, Can you evict only ONE tenant that has 2 TENANTS on the lease for non payment of rent? It doen't state anywhere on the lease that both parties must pay half there share of the rent.
Ok, this will be my last post on your thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizziemari20
Your answer is YES. I've seen it happen many times.
It's up to the judge. One judge may not. The next one may.
Sorry, you're dealing with human judges. It's not a black and white answer.
I'm not sure how to get through to you on this. There are several ways a lease can be worded. Depending on how its worded, each tenant may be treated separately or they have to be treated together. The lease is not going to use those words. Its going to use legal terms that mean that. So your saying it doesn't say that doesn't mean anything. You need to tell is what it actually says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizziemari20
It might help if you answer my question about whether each tenant pays the landlord directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Scott, (I lied - I said my last post would be my last, but I'm annoyed that this poster isn't listening)
I 100% agree with you. AND, as I've tried to point out to the OP, EVEN if her lease dictates that they be treated together, IT IS STILL UP TO THE JUDGE. They have the descrection to interpret the lease and the law and the intent of the parties involved.
Guess maybe she'll get it around the time the sherriff is setting her stuff on the curb. Hers and her roomate's...
We signed the lease together. It doesn't have any wording in the lease that would treat us separate.
She simple filed the eviction so that it would ruin my name to rent from another. She's evil. She has been paid rent, however, the rent has been paid for from the "other" tenant.
I don't have to prove anything, because she did not list the other parties name on the lease, which, I would think, in turn, would dismiss this case.
I hate posting on these things, you people get way out of hand.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 PM. |