Constructive Eviction Claim

Tirado’s husband, an army veteran, was denied the stipend owed to him because of a clerical error, which took months to sort out. During this time, their family moved and the system pegged them as receiving benefits for the state they had departed and were not able to get the benefits transferred to their new home state, so they couldn't qualify for food stamps. With this trouble, Tirado and her husband had to scrape together and budget enough from their minimum-wage jobs to put themselves at low-end private landlords in order to avoid public housing. One day, the rental quarters flooded and ruined everything they had, and the landlord refused to treat the mold that had began to spread after a lousy clean up job. Since Tirado could not afford to find another place to rent, their family moved into a motel. Upon moving out of the mold-infested rental, the landlord had sued them for breaking the lease. With no

Eviction, while it hurts the family the most, also takes a toll on the communities in the form of ingroups and outgroups. In his book, Evicted, Matthew Desmond says, “Eviction even affects the communities that displaced families leave behind. Neighbors who cooperate with and trust one another can make their streets safer and more prosperous”(p. 298). To make those streets safer and to develop trust and a sense of security, in-groups are created by those in the neighborhood who talk to each other often and form a friendly relationship. Eviction can break that relationship and sometimes result in the removal of the security and trust in the ingroups. It also creates worry about what the next renter will be like. When that renter moves in they

Because rent control sometimes ends or the rent can be raised when a tenant is evicted, landlords may abuse the right to evict tenants. Most cities that have rent control laws limit the reasons for an eviction. A landlord can’t give the tenant a 30-day or 60-day notice that the tenant must leave. The landlord must have a good reason for the eviction such as nonpayment of rent, breach of the rental agreement like pets that aren’t allowed, or illegal activity.

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, Debra Nathan-Nenn, on her own behalf, and on behalf of her minor son, Grey Hoffman. The Amended Complaint alleges in general that Ms. Nathan-Nenn executed a written lease to rent a house from the insureds starting on June 1, 2013. The plaintiffs further allege that starting on the day the plaintiffs took possession of the house, the drain in the kitchen sink was not working and the insureds failed to correct this condition. The complaint continues to allege additional deficiencies in the rental property such as mold growth in one of the bedrooms and in various locations of the house due to excess moisture and failure to patch exterior openings, insufficient heating, holes in the exterior walls, an unfinished deck, insufficient weather sealants, vermin in the crawlspace, frozen pipes and lack of running water. The plaintiffs further allege that the insureds have failed to address and resolve the above issues. The most serious claim is that the mold present throughout the house caused the plaintiff and her minor son to become ill.

1) the husband owned less than $4,000 of assets at the time he transferred the property into tenancy by the entirety,

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

R/s the contractors stated that they can’t work in the home because there is too much crap in the home. R/s contractors said that there is clothes, food, pot and pans everywhere. R/s there is so much stuff throughout the kitchen you can’t see the counter. R/s he filed for eviction of the family and the court date is September 6th.

First off, I was extremely surprised about how many landlord-tenant cases take place. However for a majority of the cases, the defendant failed to appear in court resulting in numerous default judgments. For instance, the plaintiff: Stadium Drive Apartments made three attempts to deliver notices, one being a personal delivery attempt, and the defendant Joyce Russell failed to appear in court. The result, a default judgment, fines of $1149 and $139.74 totaling to 1288.74. There was another instance where a defendant Ramsey had 2 months of unpaid rent, which were grounds for eviction. The landlord began the eviction process, serving multiple nonpayment of rent notices, and later a Demand for Possessions for Nonpayment of rent. These lawful eviction procedures require completion prior to going to court, therefore the plaintiff did everything they were entitled to. Subsequently, in court the plaintiff filed for termination of residency. The defendant astoundingly did not appear in court, and yet another default judgment was made. The judge ordered either a sheriff or a court

In the review of the case of Sam Stevens concerning the agreement to deliver 1,000 units of a dog barking machine, an evaluation will be made to determine if a valid contract was created and if a quasi-contract or a promissory estoppel was formed. Also, Sam has received an eviction notice from his apartment due to noise complaints, and for running an illegal business. Therefore, the rights and obligations under the lease agreement will be evaluated to determine if Quinn had grounds and defense against the eviction.

If you receive an eviction notice because your landlord states you have violated terms of your lease agreement, the eviction notice is only valid if you have been warned of these violations before.

941 So.2d 396 (4th DCA, 2006), “The elements of a breach of contract action are a valid contract, a material breach, and damages.” Mr. Jenkins, Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Cooper consciously and voluntarily entered into a contract with the Landlord. By signing a written lease agreement, they agreed that the words of a contract are clear, definite and must be understood according to their ordinary meaning. By breaking a lease agreement before the expiration date, the defendants failed to perform their obligations according to the valid contract. In consequence of a breach of contract, the plaintiff was harmed by that failure and caused a financial damage by receiving only 2/3 of full monthly payment.

Blow v. City of San Antonio, 236 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that in a failure to promote claim a plaintiff must show

The investigation revealed that Complainant and Respondent Montgomery were involved in an argument which the police were subsequently summoned. Respondents maintain that Complainant called Montgomery a “lying slut,” cornered and intimidated her; which Complainant denies. By Complainant’s own admission, the police warned him to avoid Montgomery or he might be subjected to going to jail regarding his behavior. No independent evidence has been presented which shows that any tenant, who was non-American-American under 40 years old, without any disabilities and does not receive any governmental subsidies, called any of Respondents’ employees a “lying slut” and cornered and intimidated them whose was treated more favorably. Respondent has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for issuing a 10 Day Notice to

Those who have experienced evictions are forced into multiple logistical housing situations. Due to the stigma associated with a court-ordered eviction, landlords would often engage in rent screenings to ensure that potential renters not only have a “clean” criminal record but also an eviction “free” record (Desmond, 2016). As Desmond discusses (2016), the landlord’s double barrier screening is shielding their neighborhood from criminality and poverty. Correspondingly, some landlords knowingly do not engage in these screening practices as a “business model” to potentially profit off of the poor (Desmond, 2012a). As the person who is evicted fall into the bottom of the rental market, the housing fate of the evicted