Does Texas allow for landlords to collect rent when the building is unliveable? In mass I believe the landlords have some time to try and repair property in the event of a catastrophe like a hurricane but they don't get to collect rent off of something they are no longer providing
"Under the Texas property code, if a rental premises is “totally unusable” due to an external disaster then either the landlord or tenant can terminate the lease through written notice. But if the property is “partially unusable” because of a disaster, a tenant may only get a reduction in rent determined by a county or district court."
However, there's not a provision for living rent-free; only lease termination or rent-reduction.
So would a state ordered evacuation count a unliveable? I don't see how one arm of the government would be able to say that everyone in an area needs to leave while another arm can state that the premises are liveable and pretend that they are using any sort of logic
Not mutually exclusive. Evacuations are typically due to imminent risk, not necessarily that the housing is unlivable once that risk passes. An evacuation can even be ordered when the house sustains no damage, as a precautionary measure. Evacuation != condemned property.
That is true, but if the government orders you to no longer be in that area then you are legally unable to live in it, correct? On whose side does the damage fall when this occurs in Texas is my question. The tenant who has to pay rent for a good they can no longer use, or the landlord whose investment can no longer make money
I appreciate the sentiment, but not every landlord is a tycoon. Houston doesn't have the real estate crisis other cities have, so you may charge about 2x the mortgage. (Not to mention the mortgage you eat when a property sits vacant, which is pretty common .. again, there's not the real estate crisis here you see other places where rentals get snatched up quickly) So a month or two without income means the property may be in the red, and as there are many landlords without substantial capital to float a non-paying tenant, that tenant may find themselves in a foreclosed property, where everyone loses.
My dad was a middle class landlord. He bought the duplex we lived in and rented out the other side and eventually moved into a better place and rented both sides. People move out. People become delinquent and have to be evicted. If you can't handle unexpected periods without rental income then you've blundered into the business of owning rental property. He had all kinds of problems and periods without rent coming in. He always found a way to keep in the black with the bank.
Shoulda bought that flood insurance for the mortgage. I don't have much sympathy for rent-seekers when the renters probably can't even work right now. This hurricane has really been bringing out the worst in humans; $20/gal gas, $100/case water, scam robocalls to flood victims, this, etc. This is what happens when you put money before humanity.
> Shoulda bought that flood insurance for the mortgage.
Flood insurance is hard because flood plain data is notoriously inaccurate. We would need to require everyone to buy flood insurance.
"Water Damage From Hurricane Harvey Extended Far Beyond Flood Zones"
"About 40 percent of the buildings estimated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to have been flooded in Harris County, Tex., are in areas considered to be “of minimal flood hazard.”
> IMO, any landlord who demands rent on properties that are not suitable for human habitation should be locked up and have the key thrown away. Then all their assets should be seized under RICO.
Take a mental snapshot of that emotion. It's what drives all vindictive (versus harm reducing) policy making. Understanding it will bring you clarity in discussions around drug use penalties and other debates.
That is ridiculous. A lot of us are middle class people who have rented our house and we have to pay mortgage. It makes perfect sense to demand rent for the month.
This "lock the people up I dont agree with" is called fascist attitude.
The other dude is crazy because no reasonable person would call for jail time in such a case. However, I also do not support a landlord asking for rent in a place that isn't fit for human habitation. A good contract, in my opinion, would stipulate that the landlord loses the rent on a pro rated basis till they fix the place up. I sympathize with their mortgage obligations, but I'm sure that's an added incentive to get the place in shape quickly.
> A good contract, in my opinion, would stipulate that the landlord loses the rent on a pro rated basis till they fix the place up.
So something like:
> ...if a rental premises is “totally unusable” due to an external disaster then either the landlord or tenant can terminate the lease through written notice. But if the property is “partially unusable” because of a disaster, a tenant may only get a reduction in rent determined by a county or district court.
...? Because that's the current situation under the Texas property code according to the article.
Where it will get tricky is the legal distinctions of what usable means in this context. An apartment that is fine but has no working plumbing or power? A house that's fine except for the floors and carpets? Are the tenants storing things there? Can the property owner exercise their ownership rights by having parties or renting the place to the red cross or by kicking off a renovation?
These issues impact both sides of the agreement... Paying money secures rights for tenants/leasers. For every sad story about someone who can't pay their rent right now I bet we could put together bad legislation to make a hundred sad stories about people who lost their rentals and property because of market conditions favored them being kicked out during a flooding episode.
Renters insurance continues the payments on the property, maintaining their legal claims in the event of disasters, which was the suggestion I was responding to: that renters not have to pay _anything_ in situations like this.
Floods and other natural disasters tend to sneak past most common insurance coverage...
Regardless, the underlying demands for payment, and to what extent, as posited by OP and detailed by the local laws, are not addressed by insurance alone.
> A good contract, in my opinion, would stipulate that the landlord loses the rent on a pro rated basis till they fix the place up. I sympathize with their mortgage obligations, but I'm sure that's an added incentive to get the place in shape quickly.
Perfectly reasonable in my opinion. In fact my rental agreement has a similar clause which gives tenant 30 days to vacate and find another place OR I can provide 30 days of another accommodation for "Free" and then fix the place in those 30 days.
Both landlords and tenants are perfectly normal human beings with compassion and all that. They are not evil people. I was only triggered by "arrest these people" comments which in my opinion do not belong on a civilized forum like HN.
With a mortgage, if your house broke down you still have to fix it. With a landlord, you're paying their mortgage. It's a service. They fix stuff for you. End of the day you're paying them for a place to stay. If you can stay there, then you don't pay. It makes no sense to demand rent for a service you can't provide.
If they want, they can get insurance to cover the mortgage.
A stupid analogy would be going to a shop to get ice cream, but they ran out of ice cream since it's a hot day. But you still get charged because the shopkeeper still has to pay his mortgage.
It's over the top for sure, but if I knew someone charging rent to people when those properties were flooded out I would completely cut them off from my social circles- legal or not, they're crappy people and worse at business.
Here's why you shouldn't have to be charging those renters: you have the appropriate insurances in place, and the appropriate amount of cash in the bank to cover a couple months of float. If you don't have those things, then you're just doing it wrong and you're trying to get SOMEONE ELSE to cover your own mistakes.
Anecdote: I was 25 and had my first rental house. Neighbors house burned to the ground, doing a bit of damage to mine and causing a ton of smoke damage. It was tight the first month, second month was fine, third month I had more cash than if nothing had happened at all- I actually came out ahead.
Good for you! Now please don't mistaken your string of success as the norm for everyone else. You never know if someone started out with "couple months of float" and then circumstances (like a spouse getting cancer) wiped that out. Don't look down on someone without fully understand the circumstances surrounding their situation.
Even if bad luck happened to coincide, charging people rent for an uninhabitable domicile is unconscionable in my book. You can have bad luck and still be a good person. And if you're truly running it as a business, you should be mostly covered by insurance.
I believe someone who would charge rent in this situation is immoral and uncharitable. They've sent clear signals that either they value money over people, they don't care to help others when they can, and/or they're selfish. I want no part of that person.
Tenants are not paying for your mortgage. They are paying for a habitable home. If you cannot provide that product, then you cannot charge for it - it's pretty simple.
As someone on the opposite of the fence (renter not a landlord); I'm unmoved by your concerns. I do agree with your comments that we should keep this strictly in the legal realm and not the realm of feelings. So, let's look at the legal side:
Texas tenant/landlord property rights
After serving you notice of the damage (not caused by them and thus your responsibility under Texas law), either by certified mail or 2x hand delivered copies, your tenant can take you to justice court where the court can reduce your tenant's rent for the loss of value and use of the rental unit [what do you think a flooded house is worth in the rental market?], or require you to pay back a month of rent and $500, or award the tenant the amount of actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees.
So, I think you could have a little more humanity, and realize your tenants are also dealing with a nightmare and potentially strapped for cash; or you can be a self-centered asshole and have your tenants and the court system ream you for it.
> As someone on the opposite of the fence (renter not a landlord); I'm unmoved by your concerns.
But you and the rest of HN should be; every time I read arguments about NIMBYism, housing stock availability, etc, this train of thought is why people don't want to be a landlord, want to buy and hold their property, and don't want to allow more housing to be built to protect their property values.
If being a landlord is financially precarious, investors will simply buy and hold, and there is never going to be enough political will to force them to rent nor to force their hand through a land tax.
> So, I think you could have a little more humanity, and realize your tenants are also dealing with a nightmare and potentially strapped for cash; or you can be a self-centered asshole and have your tenants and the court system ream you for it.
Agreed. This is what insurance is for.
Disclaimer: Landlord, but with insurance to cover loss of rent if disaster strikes.
Are Texas courts that landlord friendly that they are able to evict people this fast? It's the 4th, so assuming the rent is due on the first, that seems pretty nuts. Or are landlords illegally evicting people and I missed that part of the article?
I own rental properties in Texas, and yes, it is landlord friendly. I've had two evictions for non-paying tenants and they were out within a month, with judgments slapped on them.
Eviction notices can't be sent out before 30 days of being late which means, before the hurricane, the eviction process was already in process. I can't speak for the first story, but the second wasn't well researched.
Yup. Did this when my heat didnt get fixed for a month one winter. Was an easy case. Got a city inspector to come out and write it up first, but that might be harder in the case of floods.
Given the landlords are contracted to provide accommodation they ought in fact to be obliged to arrange a suitable alternative at their own cost for the duration of the notice period or until the original is made fit.
The 2008 financial crisis was sort of the beginning of -- or acceleration of -- a shift in home ownership from individuals to larger institutions who bought up distressed properties and put them on the housing market.
As this unfolds, I would be interested to see analysis of how rental property ownership breaks down in the affected area.
And to the extent it is large property and financial institutions that are impacted, my sympathy is going to be rather low.
They took advantage of the economic crisis -- one the big banks engendered -- to profit off of financially distressed mortgage holders. Now, they find themselves in a situation where they feel squeezed due to their own distress, in this case caused by a natural weather event -- and a lot of poor planning with manifold causes, of some of which they are probably complicit (holding their immediate, short-term expenses down).
As for "smaller" landlords, they have bills to pay, too -- to such large institutions. This is where "the government" steps in and sets rules -- or at least guidelines -- for how to proceed, what is and isn't permissible, and what grace periods and conditions should apply -- including terms and compensatory actions that allow the large institutions to manage, albeit perhaps with a manageable "haircut" of sorts. So that landlords are caught in the middle of a financial squeeze, themselves.
But yeah, insisting a renter cough up rent for a property they cannot use as the result of an "act of god"? Well, you have to ask yourself: Just whom should that "act" affect?
39 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 42.1 ms ] threadThen all their assets should be seized under RICO.
If they won't fix it up so that humans can safely live there, then they can't be allowed to charge rents on it.
But maybe that's just me.
However, there's not a provision for living rent-free; only lease termination or rent-reduction.
Flood insurance is hard because flood plain data is notoriously inaccurate. We would need to require everyone to buy flood insurance.
"Water Damage From Hurricane Harvey Extended Far Beyond Flood Zones"
"About 40 percent of the buildings estimated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to have been flooded in Harris County, Tex., are in areas considered to be “of minimal flood hazard.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/01/us/houston-da...
Take a mental snapshot of that emotion. It's what drives all vindictive (versus harm reducing) policy making. Understanding it will bring you clarity in discussions around drug use penalties and other debates.
This "lock the people up I dont agree with" is called fascist attitude.
So something like:
> ...if a rental premises is “totally unusable” due to an external disaster then either the landlord or tenant can terminate the lease through written notice. But if the property is “partially unusable” because of a disaster, a tenant may only get a reduction in rent determined by a county or district court.
...? Because that's the current situation under the Texas property code according to the article.
Where it will get tricky is the legal distinctions of what usable means in this context. An apartment that is fine but has no working plumbing or power? A house that's fine except for the floors and carpets? Are the tenants storing things there? Can the property owner exercise their ownership rights by having parties or renting the place to the red cross or by kicking off a renovation?
These issues impact both sides of the agreement... Paying money secures rights for tenants/leasers. For every sad story about someone who can't pay their rent right now I bet we could put together bad legislation to make a hundred sad stories about people who lost their rentals and property because of market conditions favored them being kicked out during a flooding episode.
Floods and other natural disasters tend to sneak past most common insurance coverage...
Regardless, the underlying demands for payment, and to what extent, as posited by OP and detailed by the local laws, are not addressed by insurance alone.
Perfectly reasonable in my opinion. In fact my rental agreement has a similar clause which gives tenant 30 days to vacate and find another place OR I can provide 30 days of another accommodation for "Free" and then fix the place in those 30 days.
Both landlords and tenants are perfectly normal human beings with compassion and all that. They are not evil people. I was only triggered by "arrest these people" comments which in my opinion do not belong on a civilized forum like HN.
If they want, they can get insurance to cover the mortgage.
A stupid analogy would be going to a shop to get ice cream, but they ran out of ice cream since it's a hot day. But you still get charged because the shopkeeper still has to pay his mortgage.
Mortgage != rent.
That's 100% incorrect. It depends on the terms of the lease and the applicable laws.
Here's why you shouldn't have to be charging those renters: you have the appropriate insurances in place, and the appropriate amount of cash in the bank to cover a couple months of float. If you don't have those things, then you're just doing it wrong and you're trying to get SOMEONE ELSE to cover your own mistakes.
Anecdote: I was 25 and had my first rental house. Neighbors house burned to the ground, doing a bit of damage to mine and causing a ton of smoke damage. It was tight the first month, second month was fine, third month I had more cash than if nothing had happened at all- I actually came out ahead.
I believe someone who would charge rent in this situation is immoral and uncharitable. They've sent clear signals that either they value money over people, they don't care to help others when they can, and/or they're selfish. I want no part of that person.
Texas tenant/landlord property rights After serving you notice of the damage (not caused by them and thus your responsibility under Texas law), either by certified mail or 2x hand delivered copies, your tenant can take you to justice court where the court can reduce your tenant's rent for the loss of value and use of the rental unit [what do you think a flooded house is worth in the rental market?], or require you to pay back a month of rent and $500, or award the tenant the amount of actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees.
So, I think you could have a little more humanity, and realize your tenants are also dealing with a nightmare and potentially strapped for cash; or you can be a self-centered asshole and have your tenants and the court system ream you for it.
But you and the rest of HN should be; every time I read arguments about NIMBYism, housing stock availability, etc, this train of thought is why people don't want to be a landlord, want to buy and hold their property, and don't want to allow more housing to be built to protect their property values.
If being a landlord is financially precarious, investors will simply buy and hold, and there is never going to be enough political will to force them to rent nor to force their hand through a land tax.
> So, I think you could have a little more humanity, and realize your tenants are also dealing with a nightmare and potentially strapped for cash; or you can be a self-centered asshole and have your tenants and the court system ream you for it.
Agreed. This is what insurance is for.
Disclaimer: Landlord, but with insurance to cover loss of rent if disaster strikes.
As this unfolds, I would be interested to see analysis of how rental property ownership breaks down in the affected area.
And to the extent it is large property and financial institutions that are impacted, my sympathy is going to be rather low.
They took advantage of the economic crisis -- one the big banks engendered -- to profit off of financially distressed mortgage holders. Now, they find themselves in a situation where they feel squeezed due to their own distress, in this case caused by a natural weather event -- and a lot of poor planning with manifold causes, of some of which they are probably complicit (holding their immediate, short-term expenses down).
As for "smaller" landlords, they have bills to pay, too -- to such large institutions. This is where "the government" steps in and sets rules -- or at least guidelines -- for how to proceed, what is and isn't permissible, and what grace periods and conditions should apply -- including terms and compensatory actions that allow the large institutions to manage, albeit perhaps with a manageable "haircut" of sorts. So that landlords are caught in the middle of a financial squeeze, themselves.
But yeah, insisting a renter cough up rent for a property they cannot use as the result of an "act of god"? Well, you have to ask yourself: Just whom should that "act" affect?