My comments are about the incorrect heading. The family wasn't evicted because they didn't pay the $100. in dispute.

.

You have an amazing avatar.

$100 could have saved the tenant from being evicted.
:2 cents:

I read the story as the order for evection had been granted, THEN the tenant paid all but $100. In which case the debt was almost settled but order of evection will still be carried out.

.

Look at all the shit hey have... there is $100 in there somewhere they could sell.
People always have options, they just don't think about it.

the answer is no i want 5 (your sig)

I have a friend that bought a house a few years ago as an investment and rented it out to pay the mortgage. His first tenants were a couple with two kids. They paid for a few months and then stopped paying.

He relied on receiving the rent money to pay his mortgage and since they stopped paying he told them to leave and they left on their own accord. He then used a realtor to screen tenants with the hope of finding someone more reliable. They placed a single, 60 year old woman. She stopped paying rent after three months and refused to leave so he had to go through the eviction process all the while receiving nothing towards his mortgage.

Eventually he fell too far behind his mortgage due to non paying tenants and his $250,000 house was foreclosed on.

There really is two sides to this problem and both sides need to fulfill their obligations for the deal to be successful. Saying this is all just over $100 is misleading and a cheap way to spark emotions.

so your friend, through no fault of his own, lost his investment, probably $10k+ AND had his credit ruined for many years... while the tenants who really are the ones at fault here, when all is done, will just move to some new place like nothing happened... (and will probably get a month or 2 of free rent in the process too :thumbsup)

but of course the socialists on gfy view the landlord as a greedy asshole, while the tenants are victims in this situation...:error

there is always a grey area who says these people are not douchbags tho ?

the article is nothing but bs spin to make headlines.

are you an idiot ? the tenants could have owed 5k and paid most of it hoping not to get kicked out who the hell would want people like that for tenants ?

without knowing more then this bs article says only an idiot would take the tenants side.

Out of this particular situation, I find somewhat funny that a few that posted in this thread don't have those $100 but they have all the answers to life, economy and what not :upsidedow

I mean... fiddy Gods of economy and life planning! :thumbsup

Im not the idiot here "buddy", my reaction was to peoples way of reacting to something like this.....oviously you are no different.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I count quite a few as well lmao

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Co...otoblog900.jpg

"No, this isnt a fucking yard sale!"

In a civilised country no family would be allowed to put on the street.

Housing is a basic human need and right. Not a way of making a profit.

If Capitalism can not house and feed the people we need a better system.

fantasy island? :helpme add root beer fountains and free burgers :)

In which planet is this civilized country you speak of?

fuck you america fuckers who fuck american people

Stalin or Mao type system?

.

Big stack of shit on the front lawn for someone who can't find $100

The communist countries are slowly turning to capitalism and the socialist countries are violent cesspools. Utopia has been working well.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

.

This may have just been the "final act" in a long string of non-payment issues with this tenant. I'm sure that the landlord doesn't want an empty house. But, eventually, anyone would get fed up with a deadbeat tenant. Even so, there might be other issues with this tenant that were not mentioned causing the landlord to want him out.

Pay the fucking rent on time !

That kayak is probably worth a couple bucks.

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security
Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American security, and that America's place in the world depended upon how far these and similar rights had been carried into practice. Later in the 1970s, Czech jurist Karel Vasak would categorize these as the ?second generation? rights in his theory of three generations of human rights.

yep, that will depend on the State itself...

A few years ago I noticed someone nosing around the house across the street. Turns out it was the owner, and he was surprised to discover the family renting his house had moved out. They didn't pay their rent for a few months, and they failed to take his calls. They moved out without telling the owner. The owner lost four our five months worth of rent, and that was too much for him to afford. He ended up loosing his house.

The house sat vacant for years until a few months ago when someone bought it.

This looks bad for the family, but I'm guessing there is more to this than meets the eye.

Happens all the time, sadly. The only factor that makes this one look sad to more people than usual is fairly obvious, and it's not the two kids or the $100.

yep he's broke :1orglaugh pabst blue ribbon get that guy some change :helpme

You dont pay the landlord you get evicted
you dont pay the bank you get foreclosed on

Not much simpler then that :)

I don't understand putting the property in the front yard. It's still on the owners property, he can't mow the grass. Obviously the ability to re-rent the property is now on hold. The ex-tenants are hanging around which could lead to confrontations should the owner show up to work on the inside of the house, etc ....

Is there now a time limit on them removing their belongings. Who cleans up what's left behind? When I lived in the DC/Virginia area I would see sheriff's evicting people and their possessions were put on the curb to be claimed by the tenants, anyone driving by or the garbage men on the next scheduled run.

Putting everything in the yard seems to make the situation more confrontational than before.

.

LMAO. Housing is a right? So if someone can't work and house their own family taxpayers like me should pay for their house? Because it's their right to have a house? Even if it means that others should support them? Or do you have some wisdon of another method whereas their "right" is guaranteed?

the court order you have to release the dwelling when the law shows up. i think its 24hrs to remove your property

The issue is not about the family being unable to pay $100 in rent.

The issue is the family simply did not want to pay the $100 in rent.

Look at all that junk they poured out of the house...he cant sell that leather recliner for $50 and that canoe for $50? And do they have any cars? They could easily get title loans to cover the $100 if they truly wanted to pay the $100.

The fact is they did not want to pay, not that they were unable to pay.

And of course I feel sad for the kids...it's their dumb parents who put them in that situation.

You guy's realize that's Will Ferrell from the movie "Everything Must Go" right? :1orglaugh

.

Unless this was some crazy oddity, you don't just get evicted overnight. Nothing special about this family, but I'm pretty certain he was evicted for more than just $100.

Just because he paid at the last min doesn't mean the landlord has to accept it, specially if the guy has been slow to pay prior to this or had had other issues.

There are always 2 sides to every coin and you are only seeing 1 side here. Perhaps the landlord can't afford to not get paid the rent he is due for several months and I'm sure going through the eviction process wasn't free either.

I went back and looked at all that shit really close and I wouldn't pay $100 for
all their shit combined.

:1orglaugh

can you imagine the homeless population if there were no social support systems out there?