I was reviewing law tonight for an up comming eviction.
I ran into this ;
18-16-104. [Repealed.]
This section, concerning the penalty for enticing a renter away, was repealed by Acts 2005, No. 1994, § 560. The section was derived from Acts 1883, No. 96, § 8, p. 176; 1905, No. 298, § 1, p. 726; C. & M. Dig., § 6570; Acts 1923 (1st. Ex. Sess.), No. 34, § 1; Pope’s Dig., § 8600; A.S.A. 1947, § 50-524.
I know what enticing a renter away is but what does it mean since its repealed. Does this mean this state is right now with out this law ? Or am I going to have to research all those references?
Tim
Replies
first sentence is what the law is now: repealed, so it is no longer law.
second sentence is what the old law was based on.
since I can't imagine you need to use this law in an eviction, the fact you are asking about it makes me think maybe you need a lawyer :)?
It means it is now no longer law. The references are to the "session laws" which is to say the actual bills that were passed. The code compilers then take these session laws and update the codified sections so you have a single state code showing the current laws.
If you aren't familiar with your state's implementation of the landlord/tenant laws, it might be useful to look up the first session law citation listed to see if in addition to the repeal of this particular section, there were other laws added which in effect replaced some of the provisions elsewhere.
If you have an "annotated" set of the code, it would also be useful to read any recent court decisions affecting the statute to see if some ruling gave rise to the repeal (not terribly likely, but may be important to know).
One other bit of info...if you own the rental property through a corporation or other limited liability entity, most states will require that the entity be represented by a lawyer...you can represent yourself, but a corporation or other entity usually has to be represented by a lawyer. Many state specific exceptions, though. --Ken
That was a pretty cool answer.
Enticing renters away is more successful that the court system if its legal.
Thank you.
Tim
You got some pretty good advice from Bob, too.
In your state you may find a firm which deals exclusively in representing landlords (or very nearly exclusively). In my area there are quite a number who do this. Many have a fee arrangement where they do evictions for a flat fee, and typically bundle this with a relatively small annual retainer which provides some other benefits such as a review of your lease agreement to be sure it complies with your state's forceable eviction and unlawful detainer statutes.
Sometimes it takes a while to find the right lawyer for you. Ask your RE buddies who they're using. --Ken
You're asking in the wrong place.
Yes, that particular section is repealed, but that doesn't mean it is now OK.
At a minimum you'll have to review "Acts 2005, No. 1994, § 560" to see if they are merely relocated, or if the leg addend a similar provision elsewhere.
You'll also have to review the related caselaw to see if there are any cases which have effect on how that area of law is implemented. Don't forget the slipcases. A glance at the full legislative history (not just the cryptic note you found) might help in charting your course.
You should also probably go to law school to make sure you understand all of the terms used and ways that the subject matter can be impacted by laws, regulations and court decisions.
Or, maybe you should talk to a lawyer.
Usually that is a little cheaper than going to law school and not as expensive as hiring a plumber <G>
Actually when I made this thread I was thinking about you and Shag.
The first thing I learned is I didnt ask a stupid question from you.
What I learned last night is that I needed some classes to understand what in the heck they were referring to in other sections I found my self in which I finally figured out they didnt apply anyway. That was good . <G>
My problem with talking to a lawyer is not about money because its not that expensive to just discuss for an hour . ,{This may end up being a good thread}
One problem is that they recommend their way and that's it . My experience. I guess their opinion is what Im paying for but that lawyer is not paying for my experience in dealing with it , so Ive got more invested. I wish they would give all the options but I realize that would jepardize their principles. I still leave the office wanting to know and Im carrying a bill from them.
While I put this problem in the hands of legal justice the clock is ticking and bills are adding up. By the time the system gets around to it and I too have involved my time I get justice. Justice means that sometime in the future I will get my property back at a cost to me , not the renter. So many of our stories are the same dealing with this issue that we dont receive a dime after judgement. We receive damages we have to prove and win in court , plus all damages incurred from loss of rents. Meanwhile we hired a lawyer and end up paying that bill as well. The final result is that the renter moves and that's the justice we receive. We are supposed to get a settlement in money if we are in fact successful , but no money comes . If they dont pay they are supposed to have their paychecks garnished but we dont see that either.
I called a person yesterday and went to see another one that both have over 100 rentals apiece. Their story is the same as the one Im telling . One that I went to see showed me a stack of eviction notices and many judgements all from 2005. From all the judgements he has won , he hasnt received one dime . I dont know if that's the truth , but that's what he told me . The other one advised that I rent a storage building for one month in their name and pay to have the renter moved. Or offer the renter a settlement of money to get them out in a timely matter only payable after they have moved. He told me its cheaper , quicker , and much easier than the court system.
The other ways I wont talk about here but they are effective most of the time . Enticing a renter to leave is a broad area . Some distasteful and some not , but most off color .
One legal way is padlocking the doors after judgement preventing access which is bypassing forceful eviction. They break in and are charged with criminal trespass . If a crime is committed at that residence the prosecutor can have their things removed in a few days . That one may speed things up but still at a cost to the landlord. The lady that told me a story where she did just that this year costing 2000 dollars worth of damage from that experience alone from a mad renter. Legal but costly. She got all that done in 14 working days and got her property back however.
I guess that's enough but certainly not all told.
Sometimes we need to make a decision off all the facts for a particular case. I need to know what it will cost me if I entice a renter to leave. So Ill do the research. But a lawyer wouldnt advise it , so hes not an option.
Thanks for helping me and I dont take any negatives off your advice to hire a lawyer. I expected the latter.
One thing I found out free as ignorant as I am about law in this state . If I dont send letter with documented damages in lieu of returning deposit with in 30 days , I will owe double the deposit back to the renter in a court of law. So the effort doesnt seem in vain to do some reading. I understand most of it but learned from you that I need to run down those references if its important to me . Thanks again.
Tim
Edited 11/18/2005 10:56 am by Mooney
Edited 11/18/2005 12:29 pm by Mooney
Tim, you should join a real estate investment club in your state. There's a wealth of applicable "realworld" information (both legal and questionable) gleaned from hanging out once a month with others that are in your shoes. Is there any in your area?
blue
There is a local rental assoiation that would benifit me probably.
This is the first time Ive been unsuccessfull as yet . Normally I geter done by talking them out but this has circumstances that threw us in stalemate. They actually have no money at all and apparently no where to go. Hard luck story that appears to be true , but doesnt offer any help to me with any solution other than paying them out short of legal means which doesnt provide any winning shots either. Right now its a Chess game. If they can secure a place to live or stay with relatives , Ill move them and pay for a storage unit if necesary which believe it or not is cheaper then legal methods and bunches quicker. This is not a case to inflict hard azz principles on my part since it doesnt seem its intentional. There is three kids there too. As yet theres just no where for them to go unless Im being lied to. I believe there is no money at all.
Normally a relative steps up when kids are involved , but no one has stepped up at bat on this one.
Ive scared them with facts more or less but still no bite on the hook. I conclude they dont have anything to bite with at all. So , Ive failed so far,...
I pretty much know my boxing ring and Ive talked to three high scale lanlords who are friends . I havent learned much I didnt know except their advice on this case. But thats a gut call anyway. One thought I should wait them out for money since they have a record of 1 1/2 years with me . The renter also believes that too. She thought the history would stand in this case. She never dreamed I would not accept when she called to tell me she couldnt pay. I always figgure money behind accepted is dead and opens a trail.
Tim
I was able to get it done .
The parents stepped up to plate tonight and met me . After a long discussion they agreed the best thing to do is move them and this weekend. The house is a nice rental thats a filthy mess right now . I didnt walk it but its bad enough Im happy they are leaving this weekend. They agreed for me to start work Monday and try their best to turn it ovrer to me Sunday night . If not I still start work on it Monday by agreement .
Let the legal system suck eggs another round on someone else.
Tim
But then there is that old joke about a lawyer being presented with a plumber's bill:
"Five Hundred dollars! That's Two Hundred and Fifty Bucks an Hour! I don't bill Two Hundred and Fifty bucks an hour!"
Plumber: "When I practiced law I didn't bill two fifty, either....."
--Ken