Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim from C-Town

And I maintain, that her withholding of the rent was a forced continuation of a rental agreement that likely would not have been renewed had her withholding action not been in force. So in my mind, her rent may have been reasonable in 1984, but nowhere near reasonable in 2012. She had no right to expect to continue to pay that price. She evidently talked to a smart lawyer who told her what to do.


28 posted on 06/14/2012 8:56:40 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Gaffer
Apparently she started with holding rent only after problems occurred and repairs not done. This is what the court believed and I also believe it.

Had the landlord addressed and corrected the p[problems, she would have been forced to make restitution in the form of back rent and interest. As is the case, the landlord was forced to accept zero rent for several years totaling 35K as restitution to the renter of the property. He has also been orderred to correct any problems.

She used the only recourse available to her, with holding rent. That is a moral and legal way to handle a reluctant landlord in almost any area of the country.

33 posted on 06/14/2012 9:20:40 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson