Hello everyone. I am new to this forum. I stumbled across it while goggling for the answer to my question. Here is the situation. My brother and sister-in-law are having a lot of problems with their landlord. They have been under lease for almost a year now. The lease expires in June and they have been looking for another place for a while now and have actually got a place to move into when the lease expires. Tonight, the landlord called and was extremely belligerent with my sister-in-law. She told her that she was not supposed to have a dog on the property. A few months back, someone dropped off a dog and they had every intention of getting rid of it but they have 4 children and they saw the dog before they could get rid of it and of course the kids wanted to keep it. The landlord had never provided them with a phone number to contact her directly and all the harassing phone calls they had received before came from the landlord's son. When they leased the property the landlord provided them with a phone number for a relative of hers, a niece I think, that they could contact locally for any issues that might arise. So my sister-in-law called her and explained that someone dropped a dog off in front of the house and the kids really wanted to keep it. She asked if the relative could get a hold of the landlord and inquire if it would be OK for them to keep the dog. The relative told her that it would be fine as long as the dog stayed outside, but it could not be in the house. The house is in a very rural country area on a one lane, county maintained road and the entire yard has a chain link fence around it. The closest house is barely within shouting distance. They had the dog long enough for her to have puppies. They got rid of all the pups except one and ended up giving the momma away, because she started getting out of the yard. So now they only have one pup. My sister-in-law explained to the landlord that she had contacted the relative and had specifically asked her to contact the landlord and find out if it would be OK to keep the dog because they didn't have any way to contact her and the relative gave her permission to keep the dog as long as it wasn't in the house, which it never was. That's when the landlord became extremely belligerent, started yelling at her and told her, "You are a liar". Then the landlords son got on the phone and began to yell at her, my sister-in-law, and told her that they knew they were getting ready to move out and they had better not do anything to that house or they would sue them and he knew that they didn't have the money for attorney's fees when they took them to court. Then he went on to tell her that he was in KY over the weekend and he went into the house and took pictures of it while they were gone and he would have documents to prove that they vandalized the property if any damages occurred before they moved out. The son and the landlord live in Northern Ohio I believe, I know they live in another state. That was supposed to be the whole purpose of the contact between the local relative and the tenants. This man had my sister-in-law in tears. She was tore up when she called me. She started crying when he threatened her on the phone, he told her she needed to grow up and stop being a baby. I don't know this man, but obviously he can't be much of a man to disrespect a woman like that. But anyway, I know that in the state of KY, a landlord must give a tenant 2 days notice before entering the property, unless there is an emergency situation. However, my question is, can a landlord protect themselves from this law by stipulating in the lease document that they have permission to enter the property at anytime without notice to the tenant or does the statute override any alterations stipulated in the lease? It seems obvious that the landlord is upset because she is losing her tenants. We live in a very rural community with a population of less than 2,000 and this property is less than 3 miles from my home. I am very familiar with the history of this property and the owners. I tried to dissuade my brother from renting from these people, but they had just lost their home and needed a place right away and didn't want to live in a mobile home park. They assured me it was all they could find and I assured them that it would end up being a nightmare. I wish I could say I was wrong. The house rents extremely high for the local economy and there had been no tenants in the property for more than 2 years before my brother and his family moved into it. The house is a newer construction, less than 10 years old, and I also know that the owners do still have a mortgage on it. I'm sure they don't like the idea of it sitting empty for 2 more years. The only complaints they have on them are petty. The dog in the yard and when they first moved into the property, my sister-in-law specifically asked the landlord herself if it would be OK for her to take the cooking stove out so she could use her own stove and the landlord had no problem at all with it. Tonight, she went off on her because she took the stove out and was using her own. My brother and sister-in-law brought the dog to my house until they can get out of there just to keep the landlord and her son off their back. The son also told my sister-in-law that he was coming back to KY tomorrow and he would be keeping an eye on the house until they moved out. Now my brother and sister-in-law are worried that he will come in and do something to the house and try to hold them responsible. They have had all kinds of problems since they moved in there. They hadn't been there 2 months and the kids three wheeler got stolen and recently, within the past couple of months, they came home after being at work and school all day and the screens were out of two windows. It's just a very bad situation. So please let me know if anyone is familiar with the landlord-tenant statutes in KY and any advice would be greatly appreciated. I advised them to go to the county attorney's office tomorrow and my sister-in-law's brother is married to a lawyer so they are supposed to call her back tomorrow. She talked to her brother tonight, but his wife is in FL and he won't be in touch with her until tomorrow. I told them they should talk to her about suing them for breach of contract and make them pay their attorneys fees and reimburse them for relocation, unless there is a stipulation in the lease releasing the landlord from the notice requirements. I don't know if they will or not, but in my opinion, people like this should be held accountable for their actions and manners of business. Anyway, let me know what you all think.
Thanks

Ok, first while we usually ask for the whole story, there is sometimes too much info and this is one of them.

Bottomline here is that they have a crude landlord who doesn't know a thing about landlord tenant relationships. They have a new home so they will be getting out. The best thing for them to do is sit tight. You keep the dog until then.

The other thing they should do is document the condition of the home. Make a video tape or better yet, have a 3rd party do it, that shows the condition of the house. Also make an inventory of all their possessions. Then make another video or photographic record once the movers have left. Again, with someone impartial to attest to it.

All tennants are responsible for damage they do to a home, and of course with prior notice a landlord can come in and inspect a home.

If the lease does not say they can't have a pet, then they an have a pet, at this point they even had permission for a pet.

When tennatns move out, bad landlords try to keep all the depoists, and good landlords only keep for actual damage.

All they can do is what Scott said, merely move out when the lease is up, understand that the son has emotional issues and they picked a bad house to live in ( most likely others in a small town already know this) and as noted have a third party do a walk though and photo and video tape what it is like when you move out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Ok, first while we usually ask for the whole story, there is sometimes too much info and this is one of them.

Bottomline here is that they have a crude landlord who doesn't know a thing about landlord tenant relationships. They have a new home so they will be getting out. The best thing for them to do is sit tight. You keep the dog until then.

The other thing they should do is document the condition of the home. Make a video tape or better yet, have a 3rd party do it, that shows the condition of the house. Also make an inventory of all their possessions. Then make another video or photographic record once the movers have left. Again, with someone impartial to attest to it.

---

Well...I apologize if I was to descriptive and this became confusing. However, my question is, can a landlord eliminate the standard 2 day notice of entry in non-emergency situations, by placing a stipulation in the lease agreement allowing them entry without the tenants knowledge and consent? I know that if the tenant refuses the landlord entry they can get an injunctive relief to compel access, or terminate the lease agreement. But that is not the situation here because they were never notified that the landlord would be accessing the property. The son left a nasty voicemail on her phone saying that he went into the property over the weekend and took pictures. So they do have proof that they entered without notice. But again, can they alter the standard notice required by placing a clause in the lease allowing them access without consent?

I had already told them that they needed to take photos themselves and told them that it couldn't hurt to walk through with a camcorder as well. I didn't tell them to have a 3rd party do it, but I will definitely recommend they do. The dog is here until they move out, at least. Thank you for your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

All tennants are responsible for damage they do to a home, and of course with prior notice a landlord can come in and inspect a home.

If the lease does not say they can't have a pet, then they an have a pet, at this point they even had permission for a pet.

When tennatns move out, bad landlords try to keep all the depoists, and good landlords only keep for actual damage.

All they can do is what Scott said, merely move out when the lease is up, understand that the son has emotional issues and they picked a bad house to live in ( most likely others in a small town already know this) and as noted have a third party do a walk though and photo and video tape what it is like when you move out.

---

I appreciate your insight. It's pretty obvious the son is very overbearing. But like I said, I tried to tell them there was a bad reputation. We actually knew the last renters who lived there. We picked their son up often and took him to ball games and practice. So we did have a good idea as to what they were getting into. I guess you just have to live and learn though. At this point, they don't seem to be as concerned about the deposit as they are about them accessing the property when they aren't there and without their knowledge. Thank you again for your response.

I guess I am not up on KY law, what "standard 2 day notice of entry"

I know in several states for sure there is no such thing, I guess this is in KY if you are aware of it. What is standard most places is the very vague term " reasonable notice" and at most this has been determined to mean 24 hour notice.

If the law specifically states a minimum tow day notice, then it would override any lease provisions. But that would seem to be very much against SOP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

I guess I am not up on KY law, what "standard 2 day notice of entry"

I know in several states for sure there is no such thing, I guess this is in KY if you are aware of it. What is standard most places is the very vague term " reasonable notice" and at most this has been determined to mean 24 hour notice.

---

I obtained the information stating 2 days as the amount of time which a landlord must give a tenant before they enter the property from a link in this forum.

Chart: Notice Requirements to Enter Rental Property, State by State - Findlaw for the Public -

As for the terms I used, standard, I simply used it loosely in my grammar. Such as the norm or normal. If you would prefer to state it as "a reasonable notice of 2 days" that would sum it up as well I suppose.

I'm really sorry, I didn't realize my grammar was so confusing.
:)

Here is the actual statute:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/383-00/615.PDF
KY seems to be pro-tenant more than most states, but there are some qualifications to the 2 days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

If the law specifically states a minimum tow day notice, then it would override any lease provisions. But that would seem to be very much against SOP.

---

I just found this today:

KRS 383.615 Access.

(1) A tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premise, make necessary or agreed repairs. Decorations, alterations, or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workmen, or contractors.

(2) A landlord may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the tenant in case of emergency.

(3) A landlord shall not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant. Except in case of emergency or unless it is impracticable to do so, the landlord shall give the tenant at least two (2) day's notice of his intent to enter and may enter only at reasonable times.

(4) A landlord has no other right of access except:
(a) Pursuant to court order;
(b) As permitted by KRS 383.665 and 383.670(2); or
(c) Unless the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
Effective: July 13, 1984
History: Repealed and reenacted 1984 KY. Acts ch. 176, sec. 23, effective
July 13, 1984. -- Created 1974 KY. Acts ch. 378, sec. 24.


In my opinion, this landlord is clearly in violation of the Landlord - Tenant Act. I'm not sure if they have a case against the landlord or not as far as any punitive damages, but it appears to me that they have breached the lease agreement. After finally listening to the voice mail that was left on her phone for myself, there is definitely no question in my mind that they obviously don't even realize that the Landlord - Tenant Act even exists. Or they are simply only fimilar with the landlords rights and have no interest in the tenants rights. He blatantly stated that they were in the house over the weekend on a recorded device and took pictures while they were there. He was cursing and spoke in a very threatening tone. There is no damage to this property and it is well maintained. Which means the tenants are not in violation of KRS 383.665. The tenants have never been away from the unit more than one night. When they were away for one night, they had my daughter and her boyfriend stay over because they had been having so many problems with theft and signs of attempted forced entry. So they are not in violation of KRS 383.670(2). I don't know how this will work out. They have asked me several times what they should do and I'm not sure what to say. I think these people are completely out of line and mad because they are losing their tenants. It just doesn't seem right to me. Thank you for your help and insight.

Yep 2 day notice, I was surprised, that a few states had it,

And in the end most times it works out in court. Some people do not need to be landlords,
Good luck