How is not paying rent for a year not legal grounds for eviction? That's what's wrong. I can see being delinquent a coupe of months or three but a freaking year?
But in this guy's case, because he was renting out an unregistered AirBnB, and for a term of greater than 30 days, it was treated as a normal tenancy rather than as a short-term stay, and thus normal landlord-tenant laws apply.
Generally, one of the main rules of rental law is that tenants cannot be evicted for nonpayment of rent if there are habitability and compliance issues with the unit, which it appears there may be. (EDIT: also, it appears the unit itself was never permitted for occupancy, so he shouldn't even have been renting it out on AirBnB. This is probably why he didn't register it as a short-term rental.)
Basically, she's the tenant from hell...but he's also made a number of serious mistakes which let her take advantage of him in the first place.
Regardless, I don't think this should matter for the eviction, although the city could imposes additional fines for the landlord if they wanted to. "You rented it illegally therefore I don't have to pay rent and I can stay here for as long as I want" is obviously not reasonable.
Fact is the services were rendered and that some bureaucratic procedure may not have been entirely correct, something she did not suffer any damages from, is frankly none of the tenant's business but between the city and landlord.
This has all the hallmarks of someone intentionally trying to find flaws to exploit (also see the whole business with the shower).
If there’s any language regarding the dwelling being habitable, then the lack of a license makes it by definition not a habitable dwelling and thus the he never fulfilled his end of the agreement, making it necessary to refund the rent paid.
In other words, services might be rendered, but not the services as agreed upon in the lease.
The secondary matter would be if occupying someone’s property is an allowable remedy until the payment is made, which is a bit more thorny, on the other hand, occupation notwithstanding, it’s not uncommon to maintain possession of someone’s property until payment is made as a form of leverage (e.g. keeping a customer’s laptop until they’ve made payment for repairs made on said laptop).
What’s interesting is that he’s a Netherlands native, but then acts stumped about LA’s Just Cause requirement.
In the Netherlands leases for consumers are always under a Just Cause principle and pretty much the only way to cancel a lease as a landlord is non-payment.
End dates in leases are void, landlord wanting to occupy the property themselves is not a valid reason to cancel the lease, sale of property is not a valid reason to cancel the lease (lease gets transferred over to new owner).
Basically the only way to get a tenant out is if the tenant cancels the lease themselves or if there’s a significant period of non-payment.
The legislature has to choose who gets the power in rental relationships and i see the arguments for either choice.
By which definition of "habitable"? Because I've never seen a definition of "habitable" that involves legal licensing issues.
It’s a wrong analogy.
Shame on such city leaders who care only for votes.
this is FALSE and also typical of uninformed commentary
this is FALSE, and typical of the kind of table-talk among older landowners
1. Otherwise good tenants just without means who would otherwise be homeless.
2. Hellish tenants without means who also would be homeless.
3. Hellish tenants with means who play the "But I would be homeless" card as an excuse to cheat landlords.
The tenant in question here is 3. rather than 1. A judge cannot side with everyone as 1, must treat everyone equally with the given facts but should not enable those refuse to pay or exploit technicalities to create a situation without relief.
The landlord didn't understand the law, was too generous, and failed to hire a lawyer.
If the judge does not evict (1) then state should pay the rent for them.