A young family with three children just moved out of an apartment they couldn't afford.

[no_hypocrisy]

They left behind a LOT of "stuff" which is essentially garbage, e.g., a Barka lounger, a Queen bed, a fish tank, kids' bicycles, various furniture. And they have no intention of returning to their former premises to remove it from the landlord's property. (Disclaimer: I am NOT the landlord.) If 1-800-GOT-JUNK comes, more than one truck will be necessary and each truck costs $875.

Now here's the rub: the unit was rented without a Certificate of Occupancy (making it illegal), without a Lease, and has a dry well (meaning, no water). The former tenants believe they're entitled to just leave their stuff, but the repairs to the unit and the removal of their stuff is going to come to about $2,500+.

Who should pay for this: the former tenants or the landlord?

[Croney]

1. Doesn't sound like garbage to me. If you put that stuff on the street

where I live, it would be picked up in a flash.

But to answer your question, the landlord pays. There's no enforceable alternative. No lease, so no security deposit to keep.

[Renew Deal]

17. Put it on the street and post something on a Facebook community group.

That will make it go even faster

[NJCher]

2. Former tenants

Usually you have to give them 30 days notice that you’re throwing it out. Then you go after them in court. Even if they pay it goes in a rental record and makes it next to impossible for the renters to rent again.

[Croney]

4. Since the rental was illegal, the landlord wouldn't get far in court.

[obamanut2012]

25. They are a slumlord renting an illegal dwelling

I hope they do take the people to court!

[FBaggins]

3. Should? Or will?

Two different answers

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Should

I don't see how the landlords can force them to either clean up their mess and damages or pay for someone else to do it.

Plus the security was paltry ($660) and used to pay for a new pump for the well. (Tenants used too much water. But then again, when they first moved in, they had only one child. Their family and water usage increased.)

[FBaggins]

10. New issue

Can’t use the security deposit to fix the well - that would have been the landlord’s responsibility unless the tenant physically broke it (with a hammer, not just from using it for water). But it sounds like there are plenty of legit places to spend it.

But it’s unlikely that the landlord can force much of anything if the property wasn’t legal to rent in the first place. Or is the lack of a CO a recent occurrence due to the water?

[no_hypocrisy]

11. No water was the precipitation for the tenants to move.

Couldn't bathe, couldn't flush toilets, had to buy water to drink and wash dishes.

Clusterfuck

[mtngirl47]

20. How old was the pump?

Well pumps have a life span. It’s true that running it incessantly will shorten it’s life—however, as the owner of a well you have to monitor it. Usually my switch goes out when usage is up. Then I look for leaks. Then I might add a pressure tank.

How many bedrooms does the house have? A well and pump should be able to service the size of the house. I tell my tenants to let me know when there’s a change in pressure or frequent losses in pressure.

Sounds like the landlord didn’t do their job. And as a landlord you have to be prepared to clean up and fix up when tenants leave.

[obamanut2012]

26. I hope the tenants take the landlord to court

And get the ILLEGAL DEPOSIT back, and compensation for living in a place with no water, which is also an illegal apartment, rented by a criminal.

Yeah, they didn't use too much water, and what is it with the child shaming???

[MrsCoffee]

49. This.

[JHB]

6. Might depend on the state, but for an illegal apartment with no lease...

..."should" is irrelevant. The landlord has to shell out clear and fix up the space. He or she can try suing, but that will be a crapshoot with its own expenses and limited likelihood of recovering much if anything.

That's the risk of such informal arrangements.

[markie]

7. "the rents too damn high!"

can't afford rent, can't afford the time nor money to properly take care of stuff, is it irresponsibility or dire need? I know it doesn't matter.

Seems the renters have a case if the landlord goes after them (illegally rented out) the "should" should have come long before the renters moved in... it is immoral to rent out a home not up to code and it is immoral to be irresponsible with 'stuff'

in my life I've been a renter and a landlord... I would never rent out a place not suitable or legal... I say the landlord is on the hook

[Sherman A1]

8. I would think

That if the landlord rented to them without the proper documentation that it is the landlord who is on the hook for the expenses and I believe rightfully so.

[obamanut2012]

29. It isn't even a landlord

The person is literally a slumlord breaking the law by renting out illegal dwellings.

[Sherman A1]

32. What ever you choose to call them

They, in the end will pay for the clean up.

[obamanut2012]

34. Yup!

[Captain Stern]

9. The "Landlord"

Sounds like this was an informal agreement between folks.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the courts aren't big into enforcing illegal agreements.

You pays your money and takes your chances.

[NJCher]

39. if it's not a formal lease

in many states, it goes to a month-to-month tenancy which is a 30-day notice to leave by either party plus whatever minimums the state puts out there for a residential rental arrangement.

Re CofO, those are town building and zone enforcement issues and often only apply to three units and up.

There seems to be an assumption this is an illegal tenancy but the key question above is did it have water when he rented it? If so, then it would seem legal to me, as long as it is not a multiple unit building.

Furthermore, all the landlord has to do is take pictures of what they left behind and he can go after them for the cost to move it. That can be an exorbitant cost which they could eventually have to pay. If they don't pay, then the landlord gets a judgment. That judgment immediately goes into credit records and like I posted above, makes it virtually impossible for them to get another rental.

The smartest thing for these people to do is go back and move those items. That will at least relieve them of the exposure to a court judgment.

[obamanut2012]

40. It is literally an illegal apartment

The OP even stated there was no COO, thus it was literally an illegal apartment "rented" by a slumlord.

A lease only goes month-to-month after the end of the initial lease terms, but there was no lease since it literally was illegal to rent.

There were literally no tenants. The poor family living there had no water, none. They were buying water to drink, bathe, and clean in, as per the OP.

No judge in any court would give the slumlord a cent, and would probably fine them and possibly have them arrested, depending on local and state laws.

[NJCher]

63. there are just so many things wrong with your post

that I can't even begin to address them.

You missed the finer points and you are also generalizing when there actually are differences state to state. That's all I have time for with you.

[kcr]

65. The OP specifically mentions the lack of a Certificate of Occupancy and says it was illegal.

Illegal is illegal. The laws of other states are irrelevant.

[NJCher]

66. in some states

Certificate of Occupancy only means you can't collect back rent. Check it out.

[kcr]

81. The OP clearly stated the apartment was illegal.

Check it out.

They can't collect back rent because they shouldn't have been collecting rent in the first place.

[obamanut2012]

68. I am so very hurt you dismissed me

hahahhaha not really, because this is also something I know about, and there are just so many things wrong with your post, including ignoring what the OP actually said.

But you have a nice day, and bless your little heart. You showed me my place, so I'm going to put aside the IP/copyright report I'm writing and instead little ole me will go cook a nice loaf of homemade bread for my sweetie!

[NJCher]

70. good, I hope you

don't mess the loaf of bread up like you do your understanding of the law.

Last time: CofO doesn't mean the same in every state. It doesn't mean you can't rent; in some states it merely means you can't collect back rent.

But this is over your head, so I'll quit now.

[Hortensis]

12. Tenants leaving a bunch of junky possessions behind, and

usually rent unpaid, is a very common situation. In practical terms, even if it was a legal rental, it'd fall the landlord, whether it should or not. Have to get it fixed up and producing income asap, try to collect what's owed later.

In this case, illegal, no water (!?), serious sanitation issues, tenants who can't afford to pay and are willing to walk away? I'm guessing the landlord might well regret trying to pursue legal remedies.

[Tikki]

56. The landlord can write some of the expenses off...but not sure

how an illegal dwelling sits with the IRS or City/County/State laws.


Tikki

[Scrivener7]

13. NO WATER??? Does that mean what it sounds like? Like NO WATER?

If so, screw that landlord.

[dingosatemyusername]

15. IKR?

sound to me more like the family was forced to abandon their household goods due to the apartment being unlivable

[FSogol]

21. Seriously, the "landlord" should go to jail.

Fuck him.

[ShazzieB]

23. Agreed.

[dsc]

14. you have to have clean hands when you come to court

and the landlord's hands could star in a lava commercial.

[no_hypocrisy]

16. OK, the consensus seems to be

a big difference between legally obligated and ethically obligated.

Legally, the landlords have created a situation for constructive eviction, where not providing an essential service such as power, heat, and/or water forces tenants to move.

Ethically, the tenants should not have left the premises in such a state of disrepair and property left behind, but they did.

Looks like the Landlord eats it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Ethically the landlord should not charge rent on an apartment that has no water. End of story

It the tenants blew up the water pump with explosives, that's a different matter, but they didn't.

[no_hypocrisy]

19. Technically, the tenants did blow up the water pump.

When they moved in 8 years ago, they had one child. Landlords were specific in telling them the water pressure was low and too many people would kill the well, and then the pump. They had two more children and the system was overwhelmed.

Enough blame for everyone, landlords and tenants.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Then the landlord was trying to enforce China's old "one child only" policy.

That was untenable from the start, If nothing could be done to mitigate the water issues for that illegal unit, the landlord should have only rented to those above child bearing age. A young family having two more children in eight years is nothing out of the ordinary. It that landlord was concerned about the eventual collapse of that water system, s/he should probably have tried to work with that family at some point years ago, probably after the first additional child was born. For example offering them a substantial rent decrease for a six month period while they in turn sought different housing during that time might have worked. But the best choice would have been not to rent to a young family in the first place if water was that much of a problem.

[TexasBushwhacker]

27. But technically, it never should have been rented without a Certificate of Occupancy

My guess is the owner could not get a COO because of the low water pressure. He collected rent for 8 years illegally. If there was no lease, there is no agreement that they leave the place pristine. The owner can suck it.

[Lancero]

28. The landlord knew it was a problem for 8 years, and refused to act.

Can you point out what laws give landlords the right to determine how many children a family is allowed to have?

[obamanut2012]

33. You keep not understanding there were no tenants

The family weren't tenants.

[greenjar_01]

36. It's incredible that the OP refuses to grasp this

Smart dude otherwise, but a real conceptual blockage here. Too close to it, I'm gonna wager.

[obamanut2012]

37. Yeah, I agree

Re: closeness. Like you, I know the OP as a decent person, so like you, I find the refusal to grasp out of character.

[Scrivener7]

38. If two children "killed the well" that STILL means the apartment was unlivable.

And that he didn't find an alternate supply of water STILL means he is a slumlord scumbag.

[sarcasmo]

51. LOL. Illegal rental and the failed water pump is the renters fault, LOL.

[cinematicdiversions]

58. Nonsense. The Landlord was to cheap to fix his water situation.

The so called landlord is to blame. This reminds me the people defending illegal basement sublets in NYC where all those people were killed.

The city or county needs to clamp down on illegal sublets. Both because of the tax evasion. (He should be paying more property tax if he is renting it out as a commercial property and he needs to pay income tax on his illegal gains. And for health and safety reasons. (Children living in a house without proper water.)

[kcr]

60. Sounds to me like the pump was defective in the first place.

This is all on the slumlord, no matter how you try to twist it. The family had to flee due to unliveable conditions, yet somehow it's their fault? Ridiculous.

[Bettie]

75. So, in that 8 years, it was never even in the plans to

oh, I don't know, replace the pump, so that it would work properly?

Or is this just an excuse to shame them for having kids?

[moriah]

80. If you saw my post, I've lived with a touchy well.

As Arkansas is quite rural, many people here have wells instead of city water.

I've also lived with the hippies, on a piece of land that had a well -- but there was only so much water we could rely on for it. Also, the guy who decided to outfit that cabin with "running water" preferred to use waste materials from other people's projects whenever he could instead of buying stuff.

So the "water pump" was actually a hand water pump -- the valve on it was fixed once with the leather from a pair of Birkenstocks since a dog chewed one of them up. The "up and down " action was performed by a windshield wiper motor pulled from a junk car, and hung above the well pump on a tripod. The water was pumped into two barrels in the attic (and all the "plumbing" was from waste PVC pipes), and only started pumping when the water level got low in the first barrel. Then there was a pipe from the second straight to the water heater in the bathroom (so essentially three containers of water were always stored in the system). The motor was powered by a car battery that was charged by a solar panel.

This was also not a property that came with a real sewer system. We had hot and cold water for cooking, dishes, and bathing. All products (shampoo, soap, dishwashing liquid) had to be nature-friendly, so I got used to Dr. Bronners as a body soap. The "grey water" was pumped through the back of the property into a sorta-kinda French drain system.

So we also had an outhouse, set up where a toilet seat covered a hole that had a 5 gallon bucket in it. Because of that well being our only souce of water, we didn't want to contaminate it. The materials for "humanure" were hauled when the bucket was full to a specially lined pit faaaaaaaaaar away from the well.

----------

So yes, I've lived in a property where one had to be careful with their water. However, we were still able to be the last house on the road with both power and a hot shower -- so that system probably gave 15 hot showers a day on occasion. There were at least six people living on that property at all times, and despite being hippies we DID shower regularly. The well was never killed.

It sounds like the person put a regular pump in a questionable well in order to try to get this apartment to "code". There ARE pumps that are designed for wells that do not necessarily produce a lot of water at once. There are ways to draw and store water from such a well so that it is never overwhelmed. The landlord might not have had experience with such systems, but if one wants to lease a property with a questionable well, they should look up the best ways to keep the well active/producing.

------

I'm not going to blame a couple for reproducing, though. Sorry if that sounds mean, but it's my opinion. Having children should be recognized as a protected right, just as not having a child if one becomes pregnant should be a protected right.

And because this was an oral lease and not a written one, I hate to say it, but the landlord is still going to look that good when they come before a judge to ask for "damages" that involve leftover furniture. Yes, when people move they often do leave things they don't plan on taking with them. or can't. Especially when an emergency of some kind (like no ability to bathe) makes them have to move quickly. A friend of mine helps the landlords in most of the apartments nearby clean out all the junk left by tenants who moved/are evicted. (In Arkansas anything left is considered "abandoned" and the landlord may sell or trash any of it.)

If you are friends with the landlord, I would tell them to bite the cost this time, and in the future use written leases (if he's able to repair that well -- if it's just a blown pump vs the well needing to be drilled deeper/another site should be considered for a well and drill there, that's an easier fix than I thought -- even lowering a pump isn't that hard if there is water somewhere in that well).

And if he can't get it up to code, and there's some acreage along with this apartment (even 5 would be great I bet out there, people here go fo 10-40 on the average), then I'd try to sell the property to some hippies.

[obamanut2012]

30. The tenants were bound by no laws or ethics

You don;t have to be ethical with an abuser, and renting out an illegal apartment that literally should be condemned because of NO WATER is being an abuser.

And, screw saying they ahd no right to have additional kids. wtaf

[Demsrule86]

62. There was no water...the place was illegal...the landlord is at fault period...and there

was no f'ing water so he got what he deserved. He was the unethical one, not the tenants.

[obamanut2012]

24. It's an illegal apartment, so the landlord

Hell, they could sue him for no water, etc. and win, and I kinda hope they do.

This "landlord" is a gouging slumlord, and since they wanted to eschew the law and do whatever the hell they wanted and have an illegal dwelling not fit for habitation, they can eat the damned cost of removal and fixing up. Know why? Because they are a slumlord with illegal apartments with no legal recourse. Because they are LITERAL criminals, and immoral, and a lawbreaker.

Since they are an actual slumlord, who rented a place without WATER, I doubt there was too much to ruin.

[karynnj]

31. this is unbelievably sad

The apartment they can not afford is not fit to live in as it is. The "junk" they left behind are likely things they had no place for in their probably homeless current existence.

As to who should pay, I would assume that even if the family had the money, they should use it to get housing or other living expenses. Morally and ethically, they must provide for their kids in a really impossible situation. The slumlord seems to have operated outside the law but may have some legal rights, but there may be no assets available to win.

[bigtree]

42. absolutely right, karenVT, about the tenant's resources, and the state of their likely homelessness

...this is what poverty and despair look like.

I know this well.

[MissB]

57. .

[karynnj]

61. In my signature I noted, without changing my user id, that I more accurately am in VT

having retired there.

[Totally Tunsie]

64. Oops, totally missed your sig line. I'll delete.

Thank you!

(Good move, by the way IMO!)

[greenjar_01]

35. The owner illegally rented a space and wants to collect money from the people who lived there?

ROFL.

There are no former tenants in an illegal rental.

[moriah]

41. I don't think the landlord/sublandlord who took rent for this place will be happy.

As always: I am NOT a lawyer, nor am I from California. I'm speaking from my layperson's understanding of most contract law (and I'm from a state that has zero "warrant of habitability" laws on rental units -- we have almost no protections here.)

-------

First, I'm looking at California's code.

(a) A dwelling shall be deemed untenantable for purposes of Section 1941 if it substantially lacks any of the following affirmative standard characteristics or is a residential unit described in Section 17920.3 or 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code:
(3) A water supply approved under applicable law that is under the control of the tenant, capable of producing hot and cold running water, or a system that is under the control of the landlord, that produces hot and cold running water, furnished to appropriate fixtures, and connected to a sewage disposal system approved under applicable law."

Even if the place was totally trashed, there's no way for the landlord to repair a dry well -- it's pretty much impossible. So whether or not a burden to fix it would have applied (aka, landlord attempts to prove that THEY made it impossible to repair, not him/nature), that pretty much means he was leasing an uninhabitable property.

I probably wouldn't be that squeaky of a wheel if I knew I had illegally leased residential property to a family via an oral lease by taking money after I knew there wasn't even enough water to do a "hand pump pumped by windshield wiper motor hanging from a tripod in just the right place, triggered to only operate when the water got below a certain level in the two attic barrels, run off a 12 volt battery powered by a solar panel" gig like some hippie genius I knew crafted in order to set up at least hot/cold water for dishes and bathing (we still had an outhouse so it was greywater only, and not one dug, either -- 5 gallon buckets were hauled to a lined pit FAR away, as we didn't want to contaminate that well).

They're also going to have to prove that the tenant agreed to remove all of their belongings, if they wish to pursue hauling household furniture as "damages". They're going to have to prove the original condition of the property if they attempt to sue for actual damages to walls/etc.

There may be more protections in an oral lease in California, but I doubt many of them are in favor of the landlord. Here, renting without a written agreement is insanity, because there ARE no tenant protections. I have a written agreement with my friggin' roommate because my mom's estate owns this property still even though he didn't ask for one, and I also inquire with him if there's anything I need to do to make things better for him. For any future roommates, I've already decided we're gonna sit down and write their lease agreement together, so that what they are most concerned about is included, and what *I'm* most concerned about is included as well.

But for the landlord (aka, the person who took money for the property) to get any money out of this situation from their prior tenants, they're going to have to be the ones bringing the situation before a court. Without a written lease, it's going to be very difficult for them to prove any agreements -- paying rent itself is not necessarily proof of an agreement to haul off stuff or be responsible for damages, let alone that they agreed to rent an uninhabitable residence. It is simply proof they didn't want to break their part of whatever THEY say the agreement was.

Again, I'm not a lawyer or a Cali resident, but if I were the landlord I'd bite the costs.

[sarcasmo]

44. Illegal rental the slumlord is on the hook.

[CrackityJones75]

45. I am confused.

Sounds like it was an illegal rental but the focus is on the coat of the stuff that the people left behind. Slap that bill on the slumlord and get a court order keeping them from running a slum ever again or they can rent their own space in jail.

[obamanut2012]

46. If I knew the family, I would instruct them to sue

And help them find a pro bono tenant rights attorney, of which many states have. They would have a legitimate case for damages.

[CrackityJones75]

47. Agreed.

Slum lords are disgusting.

[obamanut2012]

48. Jesus, just cash for keys if you want them out

But, if they were too cheap to drill another well...

[CrackityJones75]

50. Cheap and lacking all morals and ethics

We have created a society where preying on others is a gainful method of making a living. Completely fucked up.

[CrackityJones75]

52. Also....

Also… This is where the breakdown of the social contrqct really starts and where the downfall of our society really takes root. Our laws and enforcement should he there to guard against that breakdown. Without the social contract no amount of enforcement or authority can save save us.

[obamanut2012]

53. I agree with you

I have a real problem with passive investment with no upkeep output, like so many "landlords" like this do. I find it disgusting, and, as you said, it breaks the social contract.

[obamanut2012]

54. to add

Especially with things like food, shelter, heat, water. Things you literally die without.

[kcr]

59. The slumlord should pay n/t

[RobinA]

67. Security Deposit

used to replace the pump? THAT doesn't fly based on the facts given.

[Withywindle]

69. Wow. When I saw the header, I thought it was going to be about ways to help

this young family that's struggling and possibly just became homeless. I would have been supportive of that.

They probably ditched that stuff because they have NOWHERE TO PUT IT.

And you think the slumlord should be able to try to squeeze even more blood out of that stone? After already taking rent for an illegal unit with NO WATER? Lol no. The landlord can choke on it.

[LanternWaste]

71. The tenant was renting out a place that did not meet code or legal requirements, eh?

Sounds like he created his own nightmare, and shared that nightmare with others who had fewer choices than he did.

[no_hypocrisy]

72. Not exactly. The rental lease started out without a problem.

Water, water everywhere.

It's only been the last 6 weeks there's been no water. And they left after 3 weeks of no water.

[Lars39]

74. You said yourself in OP that

it had no certificate of occupancy. It was illegal from the get go.

[Bettie]

73. If they moved out because they couldn't afford the

illegal apartment with no water...well, they probably didn't take the stuff because they are living out of their car or had to move to a place without room for anything beyond the basics.

As a kid, we left things behind regularly when moving, not because we didn't want to take them, but because a moving truck is expansive when you can barely pay rent.

We never, during my childhood, moved to a better place. It was always smaller and worse.

It is harder to make ends meet now than it was then.

So, maybe some empathy for a family on the edge could be warranted.

[Withywindle]

76. +100

I was thinking about those kids having to give up their bicycles. Maybe they had to kill their pet fish because they couldn't take it with them (also, of course, no water). This is traumatic for the children. If you can look at the wreckage of a family's life like that and not feel the slightest shred of empathy but just think only of how "junky" their possessions are and who's going to pay to haul it away....yikes

[Bettie]

77. Everything we had when I was a kid was "junky"

to middle class people. It was stuff we got from garage sales or found on the curb, but could manage to get a little more use out of it.

Our bikes? Junk, by the standards of most people. Most of our furniture was stuff other people threw away.

Stuff like this makes me so angry.

[ismnotwasm]

78. Landlord

[Arazi]

79. Landlord

Take pics of stuff and post it for free on Craigslist and Offer Up. People will come remove it

If the well pump was failing when these folks moved in, then shame on the landlord for refusing to replace it.

The whole situation stinks of illegality which is 100% on the landlord