🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41qjtm$m9b@earth.njcc.com>,
David Nieporent <nieporen@pluto.njcc.com> wrote:
>In article <41j2mh$1l4@shore.shore.net>, John Garvey <jgarvey@shore.net> wrote:
>>No, you're wrong.  While the lease agreement is in effect, the
>>apartment is the renters home.  If you dispute this, try leasing an
>>apartment to someone and then enter that apartment without their
>>permission while they are not there.  Do you know what criminal
>>tresspass is?  Give it a try hairball, and we'll see you in court.
>
>Wrong.  The rights of landlords to enter/renters to exclude are spelled 
>out in the lease agreement. 

 Perhaps what John should have said it "try leasing an
apartment to someone and then enter that apartment without their
permission, other than under the conditions spelled out in the
lease agreement."

>If it were the renter's home, he could lease it to someone else.  Hint: 
>he can't, without permission of the landlord (usually.)

 I didn't know that was the definition of "home".  I thought, on the
one hand, where you vote, have your licenses, pay your taxes, keep 
your personal effects, actually sleep most of the time, and intend 
to return to when you're away, is your home.  (When these are not
all coincident, a determination must be made.)  One has a right to
be secure in one's home.

 On the other hand, the ability to sublease is not a condition of
something being a home.  I can well imagine a development or a
building of condominiums which contains a restrictive covenant
in the deed prohibiting leasing.  (It would be very silly, but
that's not the point.) Such places would not only be "home" to
those that live there, but would also be owned, within the
covenants, by the owners.
 
>Of course, all of this is moot, since the Atlanta situation is for people 
>who do NOT have lease agreements in effect.

 I don't know the situation in Georgia.  Up here in Mass, someone
who does not have a written lease is considered to be at will, but
still enjoys certain advantages and protections, and is in essence
on a month-to-month, self-renewing, lease.  The standard one-year
lease converts to that, with all the terms continuing, automatically.
Some conditions, such as sanitation and habitability may not be
waived, and some more are at least their by default.  Quiet enjoymment
is definitely up there.  In most cities and towns, indefinite renewal,
and unchanging rent, were not present without leases.

 So it is not entirely moot: A tenant on a month-to-month basis
does enjoy certain protections, even without a written lease.
The right to rent at that same price a year hence is not one
of them.
--
David Chesler (chesler@tiac.net - CURRENT   chesler@world.std.com - SOMETIMES
             dchesler@jurisoft.com - WORK   david@chesler.absol.com - ALWAYS)

Welcome Lauren Rose Chesler, born July 13, 1995.  http://www.absol.com/~lauren/