Cambridge landlord complains of re-renting
By adamg - Wed, 09/23/2009 - 11:37am.
John Ford reports on an apparent scam in Cambridge: A single guy rented half of a two-family house, then re-rented it - at a higher rate - to, natch, college students, and is now teaching others how to do this via that wretched den of scum and villiany known as Craigslist:
... Perhaps worst of all, the landlord wanted a single or couple living in her unit upstairs and now "I have drinkers, smokers and partyers who dance until two o'clock in the morning, keeping me up at night." ...
- Add new comment |
- Send to a friend |
| 
| 
Assuming the sub-renters are
Assuming the sub-renters are not on the lease (and the lease has a standard "only the people on the lease can live here" clause), can the landlord call the cops and have them removed for tresspassing?
Eviction process has begun
Click through the link provided in the post above, and you'll see that the eviction process has already begun.
True, but those people are
True, but those people are sub-leases are trespassing, not being evicted, since they didn't legally rent from the original landlord.
Wasn't there a scam a while back on Beacon street of a person in a brownhouse leasing out an apartment he didn't even own or rent from?
I think a fraud charge is in
I think a fraud charge is in order.
Violation of the lease?
Most leases that I've seen say that the landlord has to approve any subletting.
What Ron said
I scanned the article and didn't see mention of a lease at all, much less the details.
This is a major pitflall for a landlord not having a lease with all the correct fine print. Another problem is this (from the article):
"Perhaps worst of all, the landlord wanted a single or couple living in her unit upstairs and now she has “I have drinkers, smokers and partyers...."
If a landlord wants a single tenant or a couple, put THAT in the lease too. "The number of tenants shall total no more than two" . Another way they could have protected themselves.
-----------------------------------------
who and the what now?
Pretty sure they can't do that legally...
...those pesky "Fair Housing" laws ;-)
as a former landlord in massachusetts...
... i do believe you have the right to set occupancy limits.
you can't discriminate, and there are issues about limiting babies and children, but you can limit adult people just fine.
Yep
Fed and MA Fair Housing Law
Yep indeed
Yes. Limiting the number of people who can inhabit a rented property is not rental discrimination. Two tenants can be two seniors, one parent & child, a couple, two platonic roommates, any ethnicity(ies) etc.
-----------------------------------------
who and the what now?
this really sucks for the
this really sucks for the college students living there.... i hope the landlord is at least being decent enough to realize that while not his ideal tenants they are victims here too, and hopefully is giving them ample time to find new accommodations.
MA eviction proceedings
MA eviction proceedings provide more than ample time (months) to find a new place and move out.
Nope because nice people get
Nope because nice people get screwed. The second he shows even the smallest amount of compassion it will be seen as accepting the situation and endorsing the tenants and will make it that much harder to kick them out.
Why?
Had they behaved themselves like responsible adult human beings, nobody would have cared.
In the meantime
If they're being loud and keeping the woman up, she should call the police.
Also, if she's not suing the first guy for breach of contract, she should also be doing that.
Finally, what exactly does it matter that the guy she rented to is turning a profit on this? If she feels like she's getting ripped off, then she should have charged more in the beginning since she could get it evidently. How much the guy is making by sub-letting is besides the point.
Otherwise, if everything else is above the board regarding the lease, etc, then lesson learned. You'll get your unit back in 1 year, play everything back to the letter of the law and do better next time.
My rental is a reduced price
My rental is a reduced price rental per my promise that I will be quiet and will pay my rent on time. If I were to become a jerk I am not sure how much he can do other then to kick me out at the end of my lease and bad mouth me to our mutual friends who connected me. Rent prices are so high in some areas that the only way people who want to live there can afford rent is if they cram into the units or the land lords give people a break. My land lord for instance lives in a unit and has owned it for many years. All he wants to do is sit on his porch in the morning and go to sleep at a reasonable hour. His past tenants have been noisy and crammed into the unit. They must have been bad because I can be loud and have had friends over and I have not heard a peep from him and his wife still tries to force food on me.
If a land lord wants to reduce the number of people by reducing the price they should be able to do so. It is not fair for the landlord to give this person a reduced rate only to have him turn a profit by doing what the land lord was resisting in the first place.
Then
Then don't allow for sub-letting in the lease agreement. It's that simple.
If it's legal for the initial renter to sublet the place and he can turn a profit while doing so, then so be it. He might be an ass for doing it, but there were ways to avoid this problem in the beginning. The landlord should have figured out what they wanted in the first place and gotten it in writing.
That having been said, the initial renter still has responsibilities to the initial lease. If his sub-tenants are problematic, it's his problem to deal with and not doing so could void his initial lease (through the eviction process).
But if subletting is legal in that lease and neither the initial renter nor the sub-tenants are breaking that initial lease, then there's nothing they can do to stop it other than terminate the lease at the first available point (likely in 1 year).
The landlord has all the power over the number of tenants and pricing and can stipulate as such in the lease. They just can't put *more* people in the livable space than is legally allowed, but they can limit it to fewer. Is the initial renter taking advantage of what sounds like a loose lease agreement? Sure, it does sound like it at this point. But that's a lesson learned. Get it all in the writing or someone might be mean and use you.
RE: WHAT DOES IT MATTER?
Of COURSE it matters that this man "turned a profit". The creep sublet without the owner's knowledge and pocketed money. The owner pays taxes, maintains the property, likely makes mortgage payments, and this jerk played "piggy back" on her hard work and efforts and took advantage of her, not to mention screwing up the lives of innocent student-subleters. The owner rented to one man. That was her intent, and he did not ask if he could sublet. Telling her to sue isn't helpful. Most rent scam cases don't go to court because victims must retain lawyers at their own expense, with little chance of getting their money back.
EAST CAMBRIDGE RENT SCAM
Would anyone knowing the name of the scammer or victim please contact me, or forward this message to the victim?
We believe the scammer to be Raphael Holoman-Franklin, a multi-state rent scammer, liar and thief who stole thousands of dollars from Cambridge residents in 2008 in the same manner.
See our victim's blog at: www.holoman-franklin.blogspot.com
If it is in fact Holoman-Franklin, we'd like to add this story to our ever growing blog. This man does this sort of thing again and again with seeming impunity, as rent scamming is treated as a civil matter. Victim's must hire lawyers at their own expense, with small chance of remuneration.
Hans Jaegerstatter
Cambridge
jaegerstatter@hotmail.com