The landlord, whose name is Chuck, told FOX Carolina he enforces that rule for all his tenants.
Since Bolt’s name is not on the lease, even though he is a spouse visiting, the landlord said he is not allowed to stay. Bolt said the landlord threatened to press charges and double his wife’s rent if he stayed.
“He stated to me that he didn’t care about our situation, he didn’t care about me being in the military,” Bolt said
12 comments:
They probably didn't put the husband on the lease to save a little money.
Probably not enforceable, but a young mom with a baby in cheap housing could be worse off with an angry landlord. And would she have the emotional resources just now to fight that battle? Yes, the landlord sounds like a jerk, and most of us would love to see him get hid due, but her resources are probably better spent on an alternate solution. That's why the bad guys win too often.
Besides, he may be battling renters who take advantage. If his rule comes from 12 people try to live in his one bedroom units with the attendant noise, wear and tear on facilities, extra vehicles in the parking lot, etc, he truly cannot grant her an exception and stand firm with others. Not enough information.
The place is a student apartment community, with roomates and shared kitchens, etc. The management has posted this statement about this situation:
THE GROVES CLEMSON RESPONDS TO ACCUSATIONS
We are a military family and we welcome veterans and others who follow proper procedures to stay in our community which is federal law regulated. We are an exclusive student community that takes pride in the country we live in and our veterans who serve past, present and future. We are also a business that runs by rules, regulations and contracts. It is our responsibility to provide the safest environment possible to our students/tenants. Proper procedures were explained to both the tenant and the gentleman living there recently. The particular section that applies to this couple was set aside and initialed by the tenant as part of a signed contract. As it stands right now the tenant and her guest have refused to comply with a very simple procedure. Parents, guardians and grantors respect and appreciate our guest polices for the safety of their students who choose to live in our safe community. It is our goal to provide all of our tenants the same treatment no matter what gender, race, age, school or career they are or have chosen. Safety is our ultimate goal and we can not and will not jeopardize it.
We apologize that the media has misrepresented this entire situation based solely on the statements of only one individual and made it appear to be something it is not.
This is completely unenforceable and frankly I'd let 'chuck' try it and then destroy him in a civil suit. Dare him.
"Safety is our ultimate goal and we can not and will not jeopardize it."
This is a more telling statement. Everything in the name of safety becomes justified. Safety Safety Safety. Thank you lawyers for turning a once proud people into whimpering, simpering buffoons afraid of their own shadows in the name of litigation due to safety concerns.
This is her husband. I can't think of any federal standard that would deny him access to be with her regardless of time.
It does sound like a policy meant to keep people from just moving in. It's not a bad policy, particularly if there are room-mates and shared facilities.
They've got student housing here now where each person gets a bedroom with a bathroom but shares the kitchen and living area with three other students. If I were living there and my roomie essentially had her man, married to him or not, take up permanent residence I think I'd be pissed. Particularly if you don't get to *choose* your room mates.
It really shouldn't matter if they're married or if they're not married.
Maybe they should have tried to arrange an extension at the beginning of his stay. Explained the deal at the beginning and given an end-date to his visit and gotten permission... which keeps the landlord in a position of authority so that he doesn't loose the ability to evict the scumbag lecher living rent free.
The latest:
"On Saturday, Bullock* said his wife finished final exams at Clemson and they would be going to visit family.
They are planning to arrange to sit down with the landlord and a mediator to discuss how to change the lease to suit both parties. Bullock said they are hoping to find legal representation or someone from the university who will act as a mediator."
*Bullock is his actual name, although some sites say "Bolt". Weird.
So when she signed the lease, did the tenant ask how she could arrange for her husband to stay there when he came home on leave?
For some reason this story reminded me of my parents home. There were three available guest bedrooms, our old bedrooms.
One of my sisters keeps an exceedingly cluttered home in Omaha. When her family visits every single flat surface in the whole place immediately becomes cluttered with all their crap they bring with no concern for keeping thins sorted. They bring their two dogs.
All other relatives take up temporary residence at a nearby hotel.
One time Mum had an ironing board set up, she was between laundry loads or something at the moment they arrived, boom, all countertops completely covered with groceries they picked up on the way in, mostly sugary breads, breakfast cinnamon buns what have you, Things regular people don't normally eat. Every chair (there was considerable furniture all over the place) piled up, multiple sofas, covered with traveling bags, games, electronic equipment. Even art supplies and things children's activities. It was if a tornado had suddenly blown through. When I told my brother that even the ironing board that was not folded and put away was immediately piled up with their coats as a makeshift table, like a trailer park buffet, another collapsable available flat surface, he howled and bent over laughing. Because that is the reason they take up elsewhere even though the place is huge.
And the haunting memory of that prevents me from being more inviting to guests. I do have the room but I don't think I could take other people's clutter and their incessant demands on my time and attention and conversation.
"...he [the landlord] may be battling renters who take advantage."
That was my guess.
It's nice when people are accommodating and voluntarily let someone violate a contract with them, but nobody should expect that. The whole reason for contracts is to assure that people do what they agree to even when they would prefer not to. Personally, I would let him stay, but I'm not willing to say that is the only right position. If the landlord got sick and needed money, I doubt if many tennants would be willing to pay higher rent just because it would be nice. They would be pointing at that contract just like he is.
I'm going to side with the landlord on this one.
The rules are, as Synova indicated, likely to stop someone from signing a lease for one person and then having a bunch of freeloaders move in.
If he allows one person to skate on the rules then everyone will want to do so and his property will become a chaotic flop house.
The man and his wife know ( or should have read the lease) that this is the rule and now want to be special exemptions.
I feel for their situation and that he his sacrificing many things by being in the military. Maybe someone could set up a special fund for him so that when he is on leave, they could get a nice suite in a local hotel.
Where are the charities that are set up to help veterans?
I strongly suspect the landlord got involved because the other residents were miffed. Six months away, then back with his wife, close quarters = uncomfortable roommates.
And they are paying money for a specific living situation and so probably would have a case against the landlord if he didn't respond.
What's up with all these 3rd amendment haters attacking the landlord?
Post a Comment