Check out some similar questions!

mowingangel · Mar 8, 2007, 05:40 PM

One my handicapped tenants, with no legs, and two stubs managed to peck out scathing emails and sent them to Kentucky Housing and HUD, reporting abuse. After the police and social workers interviewed, it was decided she was using this to get attention. After the interviews, she sent another scathing email to HUD attorney telling them, she wish she could "kill them all". At the insistence and recommendation of HUD attorney and other HUD representatives, I started the eviction process. Her deadline was 12/10/2006. She did not leave, so I filed a court eviction. In the mean time, she hacked into one of the tenant's email, by "guessing" her password and sent emails. Unfortunately, she sent one to me. In addition she informed tenants of "new rules" I had made up, and tenants came streaming into my office, with things she had said, and was it true, which the things she was saying were not true at all.

The tenant's mother who does not want to take care of her (told me personally she could not be tied down now that she has "man") contacted the judge in the case. This judge passed it on to another judge, whom the family contacted again. Now the case has been deferred to a special judge. The family tells me I cannot evict her because she is handicapped, even though she violated the least. They tell me she has a temper, and is used to getting what she wants and I cannot win.

HUD has withdrawn her subsidy and she refuses to pay market rent.

The special judge has not assigned a hearing date yet. Meanwhile, the tenant who has a motorized wheelchair parks her chair in another's apartment (one whom she also accused of abuse) nearly 24/7. She motorizes all around the complex laughing because I cannot get rid of her and telling others they cannot be evicted either.

For some reason it doesn't seem fair that a tenant under eviction, who is not paying rent can enjoy the same freedom as other tenants. I would like to confine her to quarters, because she only sleeps in her apartment. But I fear this is a violation of her civil rights.

Her sister, recently re-married, takes care of ALL her needs (yes, this tenant lives alone... well, she has her own apartment anyway). Now that she is married, her husband won't tolerate her spending all day with them, which is why she opts to visit other apartments.

She no longer has her computer, so emails have stopped. Her mouth is abusive, and as I said, she is an agitator.

So, her eviction date was 12/10/2006, today is March 8, 2007... and the beat goes on.

I don't have an attorney for this case, because no on locally wants to touch it. She violated the lease, so I am comfortable with that part.

Question: Can I put ANY restrictions at all on her regarding interacting with other tenants or confinement to her own unit... something along those lines.

Whew! I'm just flat sick of this case...

Fr_Chuck · Mar 8, 2007, 06:12 PM

What does her being handicaped have to do with anything, ( nothing)

If they don't pay rent, you take them to court ( nothing to do with her disability) and evict her.

You are getting a run around, hire an attorney and have her out in a week.

mowingangel · Mar 9, 2007, 04:42 AM

Thank you Fr Chuck.

This case IS pending a third court hearing. Two judges have passed this to a special out of town judge and a third hearing has not been set yet. One of the judges, whom I know personally, admits he should have made a judgment, but didn't want to get involved. The family visited him personally and told him no one wants to take care of her because is a pain in the butt and miserable to be around.

I'm just waiting... I've tried hiring local legal counsel... so far no one wants to get involved.

Thanks anyway!

Fr_Chuck · Mar 9, 2007, 06:22 AM

Be sure and sue them in small claims court for any and all damges above the deposit, you won't be able to collect, but I would do it just to show the other tennants what will happen latter.

This is I guess part of the trouble of a small town, in a larger city they would evict her and not think twice about it.

ScottGem · Mar 9, 2007, 06:50 AM

Actually the Disability does have something to do with it. With the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) hanging over them, a judge has to be very careful that the disabled person is not being discriminated against. There is also the issue of where she can go if the eviction is granted. This is why what would have been an open and shut eviction has dragged on.

This doesn't mean that she is bulletproof. You just have to keep pushing the courts pointing out that you are the one really being discriminated against. At some point someone is going to order her out.

Fr_Chuck · Mar 9, 2007, 08:20 AM

I will disagree with scott here, the ADA only requires certain accomidatons, it does not provide free housing nor does it stop an eviction for non payment.

The court would be required to offer handicap access and the such. But handicap have no speical rights as to eviction though the ADA.

ScottGem · Mar 9, 2007, 08:26 AM

Chuck,
What if the disabled person claims they are being evicted because of their disability? My point is not that the ADA prevents them from being evicted, just that the courts are going to bend over backwards (as appears to be the case here) to make sure a disabled person is not being put upon just because of their disability. That's what I suspect is the reason behind it being bumped to a special judge and the delays.

If this person was not disabled, a sheriff would have moved her out back in December. So the disability is having a bearing on the case.

Cvillecpm · Mar 9, 2007, 06:22 PM

Tenants who are being disturbed need to call the police... this is becoming a criminal matter and YOU need to file a police report on the e-mails she sent in your name and encourage other residents to file police incident reports and keep the pressure on her... it may take some visits from the police to get her to calm down... lack of medication may also be an issue... document EVERYTHING

landlord advocate · Mar 11, 2007, 06:44 AM

You can not restrict her activities any more than you could restrict any other tenant. The special judge is in place for a reason. Let the court date come, represent yourself as you normally would do. Remember, the reason you are in court is for NON-PAYMENT OF RENT and nothing else. Is it the sister's LEGAL OBLIGATION to pay the bills for her? If so, be sure to subpena the sister. The judge may ask you if you will accept the back rent. Be sure to say no. Do not mitigate and do not accept the rent! Whether she is handicapped or not, she did not pay the rent and will be evicted. The judge may give her an additional period to find another place to live. I've seen that done many times. The result will be the same, she will be gone. The other people in the complex know who and what she is, so bide your time. She'll be gone soon.

mowingangel · Mar 14, 2007, 03:31 AM

Thank you all for your responses, they have been extremely helpful. This tenant has been using her handicap to manipulate people for years and I have witnessed temper tantrums when she doesn't get her own way.

Because of her, another tenant whom I've also evicted for non payment of rent believes s I won't force him to leave either. This tenant is believes if he makes payment in full on/before the 30 days expires he won't have to leave. He hasn't paid his rent since 12/14/2006, and his 30 days notice expires Friday, 03/16/2007.

So what I am understanding, even if the tenant attempts to make payment in full on or before the expiration of 30 day notices, the eviction still stands. Right?

Squiffy · Mar 14, 2007, 04:05 AM

I would change the locks on the apartment and put all her stuff in storage. If she has violated her lease and you have been granted an eviction you should be able to do that without too much trouble. She could try taking you to court but I doubt she would win if she has been legally evicted already and is staying there effectively illegally.

ScottGem · Mar 14, 2007, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by mowingangel

So what I am understanding, even if the tenant attempts to make payment in full on or before the expiration of 30 day notices, the eviction still stands. Right?

That actually varies depending on where you are. In some areas, paying the rental in full can stave off the eviction. At the top of this forum is a sticky note with links to state laws that you might want to check.

A tenant MAY have the right to prevent eviction right up to the time the sheriff shows up at his door. If he hands over the cash (not a check) to the sheriff, the sheriff may be required to walk away.

However, a tenant wouldn't be allowed to abuse the process by doing this multiple times. Also, the amount due when the sheriff shows should include late fees and the expenses of processing the eviction. So the tenant that pulls this will be paying penalties.

I'm not sure at what point you are in the process. Generally a 30 day notice is preliminary, the next thing is usually to get an eviction order from a court that gives 3-5 days to vacate. On the expiration of that order, you show up with a sheriff (or whatever official does this work in your area) and you put him and his beloingings on the street.

You do NOT change the locks on them until after they and their belongings have been OFFICIALLY removed from the premises.

mowingangel · Mar 14, 2007, 01:45 PM

ScottGem, thanks for your comments. I did look up Kentucky law in this regard and found this:

According to KRS 383.675:

"Acceptance of rent with knowledge of a default by the tenant or acceptance of performance by him that varies from the terms of the rental agreement constitutes a waiver of the landlord's right to terminate the rental agreement for that breach, unless otherwise agreed after the breach has occurred".

I am interpreting this to mean, if a tenant makes payment on his rent with no intentions of vacating, and I accept the rent, the eviction is waived.

If, however, the tenant is aware payment does not affect the eviction notice from the start; then payment can be accepted and tenant still needs to vacate the premises.

Am I interpreting this correctly?:confused:

ScottGem · Mar 15, 2007, 05:33 AM

I think so. It appears to give the landlord the option to accept the rental payment or not. If they do, then that breach is closed and a landlord would have to start new proceedings if another breach occurs. However, I would look further. There may be language that says the landlord must accept payment in full.