Since we just moved into our new home, we have brand new tenants living below us. They’re people we didn’t choose, and that we’d never met until just a few days ago. I’m happy to say that they seem to be a better fit than we’d likely find on our own. He’s a fourth year resident at Saint Louis University, and she’s a nurse who’s temporarily staying home with their two young children. They’re a cute family, and they seem very nice. I’m confident they’ll be good tenants for as long as they decide to stay.
We’ve been lucky in recent years when it comes to tenants in our other rental property as well. We’ve had the same tenants for about three years in that property. They rarely ask for anything, and usually fix things on their own when things need to be fixed. They pay their rent on time, and I almost never hear a peep out of them. That property has been around 6 driving hours away from us for the last 4 years – now we’re around two hours from it. So that’s another nice thing about moving to StL.
Having two sets of tenants has the “worst case scenario” part of my mind working hard, though. What if they default and refuse to pay? What if they both break their leases and move out? What if both places stay empty for extended periods of time, and we’re stuck paying the extra mortgage/taxes/insurance with no income to show for it? What if I have to evict someone (I have once)?
I’d like to briefly digress into a little bit of land ownership theory. I think one of the most difficult jobs the government has is trying to decide who to help. I typically trumpet a free market view point, but if you’re making the law too beneficial for landowners it puts them in a position where they can potentially mistreat tenants, especially in poorer housing situations. If I mistreated my tenants, they would just go somewhere else. My location in St. Louis has lots of available housing. It’s a desirable area to live near a popular park and lots of popular restaurants, but they could find another place to live, and, if they had to, spend more money. Not every tenant is in such a powerful bargaining position.
Do you make it easy for the tenant to force the landlord to do things? Or do you let the landlord do what he will and let the market for housing play out? One of the difficult things about letting the free market decide questions like these is that it could potentially leave some people without homes, or without a refrigerator that works, or plumbing, etc.
Turning back to the actual subject of the post, what are the general types of eviction? This isn’t a how to (though that might be a good idea for a later post), but rather just a primer on eviction in general. There are four basic types:
1. Actual – For an actual eviction to occur, the landlord must wrongfully keep the tenant from having physical possession of the property they’re leasing. The landlord has to physically exclude the tenant from the property. If the tenant is kept out of part of the property, it’s an actual eviction. Ex. the landlord changes the locks while the tenant is away.
2. Constructive – This occurs when the landlord’s bad acts keep the tenant from being able to benefit from being able to use and enjoy the property. There’s a catch to this one, though. The tenant has to leave the property to be able to claim that he or she is a victim of constructive eviction. I think an example of this might be if the landlord refused to fix the only toilet and the tenant moved out. In either constructive or actual eviction, I believe the tenant would have a right to quit paying rent (as always, I’m not your attorney – get legal advice from someone licensed in your jurisdiction).
3. Retaliatory – This basically is a doctrine that states that if a landlord can be required to do something by the tenant, like fix something, the landlord can’t then evict the tenant for the tenant’s decision to report the landlord for doing whatever it is that he or she did that isn’t in compliance with a housing or other authority.
4. Self-help – most jurisdictions have statutes in place that require that a landlord use a judicial type of eviction to get rid of his or her tenants. A couple states allow you to use self-help to get the tenant out of your house (like changing the locks when the tenants are away). The risk, for landlords, is that while the eviction process is underway, the tenants could be trashing the place. You don’t want to walk into a place you just evicted a tenant from without a Hazmat suit on. Even the states that allow self-help require that it be peaceful. There aren’t any wild west provisions out there that allow you to physically throw the tenants out of your house.
Do you notice anything about those types of eviction? I don’t know about you, but I would say they’re set forth in a way that is designed to protect the tenant (and not the landlord). Sure, a landlord can go through a judical eviction procedure, where the Sheriff goes over to the house and asks the people to leave, but by the time you’ve given the tenant notice and gone through the procedure, your house might be in substantially worse shape than before.
Then again, tenants need to be protected from “slumlords” who let their property go to waste. It’s a fine line, and one I don’t know exactly where I come down on. As a landlord myself, I want to be protected, but I also don’t want people in a less advantageous position to be taken advantage of.
I usually fight the urge to write about things like this. If this bored you to tears, let me know by email or in the comments. In any case, I’ll try to do better tomorrow. Thanks for reading.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
