Hacker News Reader

Comment by DaiPlusPlus | Hacker News Reader

> you probably would have had to completely ignore probably a dozen of these documents for at least 6 months, not paying your mortgage all along.

Fun-fact: thems the benefits of being a mortgage holder.

If you're a tenant that's renting, you get no such legal protections - let alone discretion from whichever faceless entity actually owns the property: where I am in King County WA, I think, at most you can get 30 days' notice tops (and that's if nonpayment is the only thing they allege; it's trivially straightforward to make it a 3-day nuisance eviction, honestly).

The whole thing doesn't feel right (I don't want to say "class warfare", but I haven't heard a better explanation for this double-standard).

View on HN

Indeed. When I lived in an apparent, got a very angry knock at the door. Before I even got up, manager already was unlocking the door without asking, with a formal eviction notice in hand.

Every month I faithfully put my rent check in an envelope, deposited the slot at the office.

That month they accidentally threw away the check after opening the envelope.

They really didn’t believe I had paid, despite being a good tenant for years, always on time. Never caused any trouble.

Marched me to the office and they discovered they had photocopied my check but didn’t deposit it (threw it away).

That all happened in one month — no prior notice/warning/call about being late on rent.

I’m still shocked at this treatment many many years later. Can’t even chalk it up to any type of prejudice… just utter stupidity.

No amount of laws can protect renters from a stupid landlord :)

I could certainly see places where using a master key without authorization is a stupid move.

Some landlords have a HUGE superiority complex which makes them look down upon or even despise their tenants for no reason at all.

Logically thinking: if you are a landlord, most of your interactions with tenants aren't with easy tenants who pay on time and don't make unreasonable demands.

A stupid landlord might not realize that easy tenants are worth gathering.

Yeah, I’m more inclined to think they hear ‘I paid my bill!’ from every single person that’ll then stop paying going forward.

Landlords have a financial incentive to dehumanize their tenants. Every repair or improvement they make directly affects their take.

This is probably the #1 reason I haven’t bought a second house or investment property, despite it being the easiest way for me to kickstart some passive income. 20 years of renting has really embedded some class warfare into my psyche.

I think this is part of the reason people don't want to live in big city condo buildings with co-ops or communal fees/maintenance. Even if you own your place you don't really own it and these other entity that care nothing about, your bill situation, etc you can impact your housing situation.

If I have a place in the burbs I only have to worry about the soulless local government.

The whole point of a housing co-op is that you do have an ownership stake in what would otherwise be a landlord and/or property manager - meaning that you, and your fellow residents, can compel that other entity to care entirely about your bill situation and so on.

The more common reason people often don't want to live in big city condo buildings is simply because they offer less space than single-family homes. There's a balance to be struck between space, affordability, and proximity to work/amenities, and while everyone prioritizes those three factors differently, a lot of people end up finding that balance to lie in the suburbs.

> If I have a place in the burbs I only have to worry about the soulless local government.

Unless/until there's an HOA, in which case you're in the exact same predicament, at best.

That sounds indeed not right.

Here in the Netherlands the renters have the right, but mortgage holders do not. I was renting a place the owner had mortgage. For some reason the bank wanted to sale the place but couldn't evict me. Since this was the owners fault the bank's lawyers helped me to get like 6 months of rent back to agree to leave. The bank even offered me to buy the place, which in the hindsight, I should have done.

Long story short, what you guys have in US feels wrong and it's not always like that in the rest of the world.

It's very local location dependent. You can find lots of horror stories from both the renter and the landlord side. And, in a lot of cases, renters can probably get off with a lot unless the landlord is willing to take extreme illegal measures (which they may).

I don’t think it’s obviously “wrong” that renters don’t automatically get the right to occupy a property indefinitely once they move in, but rather only have that right for an agreed-upon term. Or that the owner has the right to decline to renew a lease after said term with a notice period (well maybe the standard 30 or 60 days notice is a little short…)

The “3-day eviction” is that if you break the law in specific ways, the landlord can immediately terminate the lease and start court proceedings with 3 days notice. It still takes months for the eviction to grind through the courts just like it would in the Netherlands.

This is why the "if you have a loan you're just renting from the bank" people aren't right - sure, in a way it's true but there really IS a legal difference, and it DOES come into play when things go south.

Yes, of course, there is a huge difference between having a mortgage (you are the owner but the investor has a lien on your property) and renting.

Yeah and it goes both ways. When someone gets hurt in your front yard or something you're the one that's liable, not the bank.

Unless they are a trespasser. Generally, you owe no duty of care to trespassers other than to avoid intentionally harming them, unless it’s a kid and you have a pool.

Homeowner’s insurance covers it.

> If you're a tenant that's renting, you get no such legal protections

In the USA. Many countries in Europe have renters protection similar to that of mortgage holders.

Depends on where you are in the U.S. Some places have extreme renter protections. Tenants can refuse to pay rent for months before you can even start an eviction proceeding. Then it takes months more. E.g. New York. https://www.reddit.com/r/Landlord/comments/15nn6o0/landlordu.... Landlords may forgo six months of back rent just to get the tenant out of the unit.

There's a renter here in Seattle that's not paid rent in two years and hasn't been evicted yet. It's not an uncommon issue.

https://www.newsweek.com/squatter-forces-landlord-out-home-w...

Meanwhile in Alabama the only recourse you have against a landowner who rents you something not habitable is to move out. American law generally is very bad at compelling a party to uphold a contract.

In my experience, the worse the winter weather, the stronger the tenant laws. The goal is to prevent eviction during winter months.

How long can renters go without paying their rent in those countries?

In Germany, the process to evict may start after three months of unpaid rent.

The eviction process itself takes about two years.

Real question: Do landlords resort to "hired help" to encourage non-paying tenants to leave more quickly? Two years sounds crazy. Many people who only own a second home for rent might go bankrupt without rent to pay the loan.

I think that may be the point: to discourage owning a second home for rent.

In Poland, they sometimes do. For example, they rent the property to another person (they claim that it’s legal), who is a goon. The goon moves in with the original renter, and makes his life hell. Other paths are to disconnect electricity from the property, by cancelling the contract with electric provider. However, some people are ok with living without power, if the apartment is free. Next steps are - disconnecting water and/or heating, although these are less legal than disconnecting power.

There also was a tragic case of an older lady who resisted being evicted from a building in Warsaw bought by a new owner, who in turn kidnapped her, drove to city outskirts and burned her alive to get rid of her.

For a bank, evicting someone from a house is expensive and the departments they have to handle it are very understaffed, their risk is so spread out that not getting 6 months payment is barely a blip. For a landlord, any loss of income for 6 months could be catastrophic, so there is much more urgency behind their action, and many act rashly and without compassion.

While there are certainly asshole landlords, I don't think this situation happened because of a systematic class warfare, it's just landlords tend to be smaller institutions that have a much higher risk profile than banks. Add to that that renters tend to have less political power, and you end up with a situation that greatly prefers mortgage owners.

Depends on where you live in King County and on the property. In Seattle, certain property owners must inform the City 90 days prior to sale (“Intent to Sell” city ordinance).

These laws are hyperlocal and making a sweeping statement about the County, State, or the US will ultimately be providing incorrect information.

Yes, you are correct; though I got my info from the King County website; there wasn’t any indication it varies.

The bank will recover the money it lent you at the foreclosure sale; there's only the time-value-of-money element to whether they see it sooner or later.

The landlord will never be reimbursed for the months of rent not paid, and is paying the mortgage out of their own pocket during this time.

TLDR: You pay for the benefits of being a mortgage holder, when you make the down payment.

Think of it from the bank's point of view. A bank can afford to be patient with mortgage holders because there's an underlying asset. There's a $300,000 house and the owner still owes you $150,000. If you repossess right now as opposed to a few months from now, either way you're getting repaid from the value of the asset, minus the cost of dealing with everything.

Whereas when renting, if someone misses rent one month, if you evict them immediately you're out a month's rent. If you wait two more months before evicting, now you're out three months' rent. The longer you delay, the more it costs you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com