Does it seem that the tables have been turned in the last several years so that people who rent apartments and houses have way more rights than those who own them? I raise this question because I have recently witnessed two separate scenarios, where it seemed that the property owners could have used more rights: First of all, my brother called from California and told me about a foreclosed home he purchased.
His goal was to rent the home out until the economy gets stronger, and then sell it.
Well, things haven't worked out as planned.
Not yet, anyways.
The renter put down a deposit that allowed his family to move into the home.
Then no further payments were ever made on the property.
Ever.
It's now the fourth month, and my brother has yet to see another Abraham Lincoln penny from the renter.
Keep in mind that my brother is still having to make mortgage payments - entirely out of his own pocket.
This wouldn't seem like a big deal because one might imagine that the solution is plain and simple: Evict the renter and find a new renter.
This is where it gets interesting: California State laws dictate that in order to evict a tenant, proper protocol has to be followed.
This still sounds very simple and straightforward, but it isn't.
My brother-in-law has been following protocol for three months now, with no sign of progress.
Of course, State laws are in place to help people from being abused by their landlords.
This is excellent.
What about the landlords? Should they have more rights in the matter? Another unrelated scenario involves another close family member - my father-in-law.
He owns a rental home in the State of Washington and recently discovered that his tenant is growing five large marijuana plants in various places throughout the house.
Upon this discovery, he called the cops and a police helicopter and three squadron cars showed up before he could blink twice! What did the police do? Nothing, because the tenant pulled out a medical marijuana card.
It turns out that Washington State law now allows possessors of these cards to grow up to fifteen marijuana plants in their homes - legally.
On the surface, I would say "so what?" Well, growing marijuana in a home can cause major damage to the home itself.
And some of it may be irreversible.
If property owners could say "I don't want this to be done on my property, so please vacate", then the situation would be easy to remedy.
Interestingly, they can't.
In light of the two above stories, do you believe that property owners could use more rights? I certainly don't want to show disdain for the law, but I do want to create food for thought that maybe property owners should be entitled to more rights.