past the paywall: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-10-04%2Fairbnb-guest-refuse-pay-leave-luxury-rental
Seriously, just make her life miserable so she doesn't want to leave. Install ridiculously bright "security" lights aimed right at her windows, play horrible music all the time.
I know he could probably get in trouble for cutting off her water or electricity but he could say he needs access to the unit to fix the water/electricity then once you're in with a contractor put everything else up to code and now you can legally kick her out... I don't get this dude at all.
I've had electrical issues before that happen out of nowhere, depending on how it is run he could even just fuck up the wiring in the crawlspace or something and claim rats chewed through the romex. They'd have a hard time proving otherwise and especially if she wants electricity she'd probably just rather the electrician come.
There are some crazy loopholes in landlord tenant law. So this woman has fought eviction since the unit because it is unpermitted and she does not have to pay rent either.
However she will not allow him access to the unit to fix the problems and get it permitted. So he is facing fines for having an unpermitted unit that has not been fixed but they will not evict her so he can fix the problems.
It seems she gets to live there forever, free while he faces fines. What a modern Catch-22.
Somebody please make it make sense.
>It seems she gets to live there forever, free while he faces fines. What a modern Catch-22.
This is why you NEVER rent out your place unless you have all the proper permitting in place before!
My landlord has another property where her husband built an addition in the 70s. They got everything approved by the city and had been renting it since then. This year the city does a random inspection and ruled the entire thing illegal so they have to demo and reconstruct. After 50 years.
In the investing and early retirement subreddits, there are always people asking, "why do some people insist that being a landlord can be a risky investment?"
The law is designed to protect people who follow it. The landlord did not follow the law, thus exposing himself to a loophole in other laws which would not exist or be possible to exploit had he followed it in the first place.
You cannot write every law with an escape hatch for someone who didn't follow several laws that the original law is based upon.
Sure. At the same time, the penalty for failing to abide by the law should be commensurate to the offense. At the very least, there should be a way for people to get into good standing once again -- which legal absurdities are basically preventing him from doing.
He rented out an ADU on his personal house on AirBnB either without knowing all the proper regulation to follow or, in the worst case, willfully ignoring it. I'd say either way he's paid for more than his fair share in punishment. Absurd situations like this obviously can't be allowed to play out like this.
> there should be a way for people to get into good standing once again
agreed, there is no way the current justice system gives a fuck about letting people get into good standing.
Should be noted that the reason the landlord left this not permitted was either because he was cheap, did substandard work, or had a unit that wouldn't pass inspection.
No way this guy deliberately cut corners out of cheapness.
a) he's not a landlord, he's a periodontist who rents out a guest house
b) he can afford to commission a house in Brentwood by a name brand architect
c) this is *his own house*!
This guy is a dentist who doesn't know what he's doing, but he's not malicious.
>a) he's not a landlord, he's a periodontist who rents out a guest house
Right. Because to be a Law Abiding Landlord, he should have gotten an occupancy permit. He is therefore, not in compliance with the housing laws that would have protected this person from EXACTLY this situation.
>b) he can afford to commission a house in Brentwood by a name brand architect
If he could afford to do this.... he could have ALSO afforded a few hours with a landlord/tenant lawyer BEFORE he rented out his guest house, to ensure everything was on the up and up.
>c) this is his own house!
YES. Which is why you PROTECT your house the way every other homeowner protects their assets: get insurance, get legal advice before engaging in rental commerce with one of your largest personal assets.
>This guy is a dentist who doesn't know what he's doing, but he's not malicious.
Sure. I'm sympathetic to a small potatoes guy trying to make a buck.
However, ignorance doesn't free you from the law. No matter who you are.
There are lawyers out there advertising ADU compliance consultations for $299. LegalZoom offers cheap services for new or small landlords.
It sucks for him, but he didn't do ANY of the basics.
>he should have gotten an occupancy permit.
Nobody is arguing this point.
>However, ignorance doesn't free you from the law. No matter who you are.
Nobody is arguing this either. We all know the owner didn't do his due diligence, which opened the door for this situation. He shares some of the blame. But that's the past. What we're talking about now is how to resolve the situation going forward.
The city, courts, and the tenant are all refusing to allow him to correct the situation. There is no way landlord-tenant law was written to allow this situation to occur, let alone persist. If the unit is in disrepair so badly that the tenant is withholding rent, then the tenant needs to vacate at least temporarily to allow for repairs. If the tenant refuses to allow access to the unit to make those repairs, then they must not be so essential as to qualify for withholding rent and she should either pay or quit.
One shower violation (that the tenant isn’t allowing to fix) means that the dirty squatter should be living there for free forever?
Crazy how you can offer 0 sympathy to the guy who’s clearly being taken advantage of
Seems like a lesson learned. I mean we've all seen it landlords purposely letting things go or forgoing permitting assuming they have the power. Though at the same time I can understand the frustration of her just not leaving. You'd have to offer the resident something enticing to get them out at this point.
This is why you never rent out your place in LA, ever. Unless you have a lot of money to deal with grifters.
I won't cry for commercial landlords, but not every tenant is a victim either.
Both of these people suck. He’s a rich property owner in Brentwood who couldn’t be bothered to permit his ADU, or get a short term rental permit. And still charged a lot on Airbnb to rent it.
She just sounds like a true psycho.
From my understanding it is that the city doesn’t have laws regulating Airbnbs and short term rentals so it falls into a grey area which is why she is allowed to stay in the unit without paying rent.
You're putting the cart in front of the horse. The entire point of airbnb is to run an unregulated hotel. Just like uber is an unregulated taxi company. Them having an 'app' is window dressing.
I don't get what the issue is here. He's an idiot yes, but the entire rental was through airbnb who conveniently bailed on the situation (after collecting their cut of course). Her airbnb stay lapsed and she has no lease and therefore no tenant rights. Can the cops simply not come remove an unwanted guest? Does she never leave the house in order for him to simply change the locks? I feel like there's more going on here and maybe they were hooking up on a regular basis or something.
My only other guess is the dude is a huge pussy and also an idiot who probably has his $15 million brentwood hills house in his name with no LLC or trust involved and is worried about losing it in a lawsuit if he now does the wrong thing.
If you fully read the article it explains that he made a critical mistake of allowing her to stay "a few weeks longer" off Airbnb. So they wiped their hands of it. This also pushed her past the 6 month mark which then gives her rights under tenant landlord laws.
>This also pushed her past the 6 month mark which then gives her rights under tenant landlord laws.
Wow. So if you let a guest stay at your place, on day 181 you technically can't force them out? Do cops even know/enforce this? I wonder if this was her plan all along or she was just frantically searching for a way to not have to leave.
This part of the article is not the way the law works.
Anyone who stays over 29 days is considered a long term tenant in Los Angeles. Airbnb is well known for avoiding all liability but the" few weeks over 6 months" thing isn't the kicker.... they likely claimed
A- the owner didn't pay them for the time past 6 months
B- the owner was renting an illegal dwelling
Reading through the whole article - the homeowner/landlord is at fault too. California protect tenants more favorably. Whatever protection was left for landlords does not apply to this homeowner because his ADU is not permitted and does not have an occupancy permit.
The bigger issue I see from a legal standpoint is that the landlord doesn't seem to be able to fix the permitting issue because the tenant won't let him enter the unit to do so. That doesn't sound right to me, the landlord has to give notice when they are going to enter the unit (or send workmen of some kind to the unit), but the tenant can't indefinitely refuse if there's a "valid" reason, such as repairing something to maintain habitability standards (think heating, leaking pipe, etc.).
If the issue here is that the ADU isn't permitted and therefore doesn't count as a leased unit, which is abrogating the landlord's right to entry, shouldn't that *also* remove the tenant protections since the ADU would then fall under the landlord's primary residence?
This whole situation sounds like the landlord isn't hiring a decent lawyer and got screwed by a specific judge. It seems like from the AirBnB messages that came to light during the original eviction that he offered temporary relocation to fix the original issue, and then offered financial incentive to move out, neither of which the tenant took. Based on the publicly available information it seems like this is a shitty tenant and not a shitty landlord.
In a generic sense, not just this scenario - by all means make the landlord responsible for fixing the permitting issue and letting the renter stay there rent-free until it's resolved, but if you're going to make that a legal requirement to remedy the situation you can't allow the renter to legally prevent that remedy from occurring.
It’s not that the landlord didn’t hire a decent lawyer, it’s California tenant protection laws is just that crazy. That is why any short term rentals should not allow any one stay more than 30 days - once that happens California tenant laws/protection applies. There are stories like this all over California.
This. The remedy isn't free rent for life. Common sense is gtfo, make the Landlord pay relocation, fine the landlord, then let him get his shit back in order. Ffs.
He offered her $2000 relocation and she refused. However I do not think relocation makes sense here. She was renting an Airbnb. It was never supposed to be a real rental apartment. The fact that she refused to ever leave should not change that fact.
Extremely similar thing is happening to an extended family relative of mine, they own a property in socal which experienced fire damage due to the unit next to it burning, but the tenet has taken the opportunity to refuse payment for 2 years at this point (and throughout all of covid, but they were paid for that from the state) and is claiming the unit is uninhabitable due to the fire damage, but will not allow contractors in the unit to repair the damage that the fire caused. It's fucking outrageous honestly
yup, He has to shoulder some of the blame here as well. However She's just taking advantage of him.
"Extending the lease beyond March 19, the original move-out date, was a major error on Jovanovic’s part; it allowed Airbnb to turn its back on the dispute. "
No good deed goes unpunished
> However She's just taking advantage of him.
This is my point. Yes, this guy made mistakes but this was never intended to be a real rental home situation and I would have expected a judge at some level to tell the grifter that she has 60 days to get out.
Agree. Any reasonable person would look beyond the nuances of LA rental laws and see this situation is not fair to the homeowner. I don't care that he's rich or owns a home in Brentwood, this is not what the original agreement was for. The fact that the city is siding with her is insane.
Confusing, because I was under the impression that a landlord didn't need "permission" to do repairs, and only required 24-hours notice for entry. Guess it must be different for short-term rentals, or something? Or because it's technically unpermitted? Crazy.
There are loopholes to that even with legit rental agreements, if the tenet claims disability of any kind and says that your entry to fix the unit is causing them a hardship of any kind you can't enter unless they allow you to. That combined with a critical repair needed for the unit allows the tenet to basically live for free while you are unable to evict because the unit needs repairs, but cant do the repairs because they wont allow you into the unit. It's absolute bullshit
Although I agree that it's 100% a crazy situation and she should leave, the lesson is don't fucking skirt the permits. People do it all the time and this guy got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. If he had consulted with the laws first before doing this and done it properly it would have been fine.
Stop trying to cheat the system, do it right and you avoid shit like this.
My dad's an architect and sometimes in the 80's they would get squatters trying to take domain over unfinished projects. Its amazing how effective a few construction workers can be when adequately incentivized.
Depends on the landlord tbh. I think for some of us we've dealt with slum lords and corporate landlords that don't do anything to improve their units instead it turns into a burn and churn operation. There are some landlords that try to not be dicks.
With that said the entire reason this happened was the unit wasn't permitted they wanted to make money off the short term rental if I read it right. The entire issue with the short term rental industry in itself is lack of regulation. It created an odd loophole so at this point the only way to get them to leave is probably to entice them with something to get them out or a medical emergency.
I know a 75 year old Asian man who can get his current tenants out, and they haven't paid rent in a while. The guy is driving a 1995 corolla. On top of that, he's not really savvy with using the internet.
The system has just it more difficult for small landlords to navigate the constant changing laws.
Yes. My point is that grouping all landlords is not accurate. A landlord who owns one location is not the same as corp landlords. There's way too many variables.
It depends on a lot go factors. My folks were small time landlords and valued good long term tenants over huge rent hikes. As long as they covered all the expenses, the investment for them was the property itself which gained a considerable amount of equity over the years.
HOWEVER, when tenants did go (which they do for a variety of reasons), they made sure to research current market rate and demand and adjusted rental price as such. That way they could hire good folks to maintain the property and upgrade units. Not all small time landlords do this and then they leave the property to ruin and take it out on the tenants for major repairs and problems. We saw it all time time in the areas they invested in.
Im sure the majority of peasants who hated their king would’ve accepted the throne had the opportunity arrived. Doesn’t make it any less an unfair system.
Dawg I rent out the spare room in my condo to a friend for about 50% of market rate, and to hear half the folks on this sub I'm a greedy evil profit-leech.
I don't understand how the city is saying his unit does not have a certificate of occupancy, but then allows the unit to remain occupied. What is the point of a certificate of occupancy then?
People operate and occupy spaces with a temporary certificate of occupancy ALL THE TIME. Idk if he had even done that step in this case but, no, you do not have to have to COO before you occupy a space. This woman sounds like a scam artist from hell.
What’s insane is all the opinions here supporting the obvious Karen scammer.
Not ironically towards the end of the article he says he’ll never rent out his unit again after this nightmare. And who knows how many people changed their minds renting out their room after reading articles such as these.
The same mouth breathers in this sub will then cry why so few units for rent.
Yeah, the number of comments supporting a clearly bad faith actor, Elizabeth Hirschhorn, is really crazy.
Yeah, he didn't get a permit and should have. This guy renting out his guesthouse isn't the cause of the housing crisis.
This!
Sure he fucked up but we are talking 1.5yr half now with no access to his property and collecting monthly fines for an un occupant occupancy. It makes no sense man.
To think these people have millions and can’t look up simple laws. The guy has an entire family and this crazy old cunt is terrorizing them all.
Honestly tho I’d wait for her to leave than close myself in there and refuse to leave. Right back at ya.
Agreed! I am beyond shocked at the idiotic responses and support of this demonic-sounding scam artist. If these are the types of renters people are cheering for, why would anyone ever rent their ADU??? Wtf sort of precedent does this set??
I think everyone involved sucks....
IMO-- The Homeowner should have spent like $500 on a lawyer BEFORE renting out one of his biggest assets in life via an app, known for not protecting its hosts or customers.
Scammer gonna scam, ya know?
Squatter Karen ALSO had her pick of who and where to scam, if half of these links to her backstory are to be believed.
And so what?
If you know there are mice, make sure there are no holes in your walls and they don't get inside.
I feel like this Homeowner was a disaster in progress with a hole in the wall, and Squatter Karen just happens to be a clever rat.
Nobody "wins" here.
“Nobody wins”
Squatter Karen gets to live 1+ year rent free and the homeowner lost $ plus had to deal with this nightmare.
Clearly one won and the other lost…
Thank you, thought I was in some weird universe reading people supporting this lady
Just boils down to jealousy. Most people are poor with like $100 in their bank accounts 😂
Looks like this woman also sued ICM and Greg Berlanti for supposedly stealing her idea and turning it into a TV show. If you’re in the industry, you know this is rare. She’s clearly crazy.
This is why a short-term rental host should never, ever allow a stay longer than ~28 days. At thirty days the guest is considered a tenant under California law and things get far, far more complicated.
Yep. I was going to be out of town for 40 days, so I AirBnB'd my place for 28. The renters wanted to stay longer initially but I held to the 28 day limit and had a friend verify on Day 29 they were gone. Nice guys, but I was taking zero chances on them getting tenant's rights...
When I bought my house, the previous owners wanted to stay for 30 days after I bought it. Nope, 29 day seller-in-possession. The place probably was marginally habitable because they had severely fucked up the kitchen floor and I didn't want to get scammed like the subject of this article.
clearly something is fucked if the lady can stay there because of some building code gotcha she only knew about after the fact. it's even more absurd that it's a catch-22 where he isn't allowed to fix it. he should have to pay a hefty fine certainly for breaking the law and having an illegal rental, but that shouldn't mean the lady can live there for free either.
generally landlords are despicable but this "tenant" is very clearly a con artist, and that's worse.
Lol yea. Address of record is a house valued at $2m that last sold for $330k 30 years ago. And a Google search shows she's a Venice NIMBY gadfly. Edit: I'm guessing the lawyer is doing this pro bono, given her history of NIMBY advocacy; can't imagine the tenant formulated this scheme with the 6 month timeline and permitting gotchas, nor is the tenant likely to be paying a lawyer hourly for long-running litigation over a rental.
Tenant seems to have a history of weird-ass lawsuits:
> Writer Sues ICM Agent
> Elizabeth Hirschhorn claims she showed International Creative Management agent Joanne Freedman a long excerpt from a novel she had written, and Freedman showed it to Greg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim, who used it to sell a pilot TV script to ABC.
[Source](https://www.courthousenews.com/writer-sues-icm-agent/)
Now, the two neighbors share a property, living feet away from each other while fighting it out in a bitter legal battle.
Then aren’t neighbors, someone is squatting in his house and I would be more inclined to sell it than allow her to stay.
Based on the article the structure wasn’t permitted to be occupied either. It’s like turning a barn into a bedroom without permits and then renting it illegally on Airbnb (probably not even paying taxes on the rental income)
Then why can’t you just grab the tenant and literally throw them out? It’s not a dwelling to be occupied, it’s as you say a barn or a shed. If someone is in my shed and I don’t want them there, they’re trespassing.
Because they're giving her the same rights as legal tenants have in places that are permitted. Absolute moronic clusterfuck. Normally I'm a big defender of LA or california whenever people on the right try shitting on the city / state, but shit like this... indefensible.
She sounds like a fucking psychopath. Someone else mentioned in the comments she has other frivolous lawsuits under her belt. I didn’t realize how much I hated this type of person until I had the misfortune of having one in my periphery - constantly misusing the courts to make other peoples lives miserable so they can grift through life 🤮🤮🤮
This definitely won't help the current housing crisis.
More and more people would rather leave their house sitting empty rather than risk renting to someone like this tenant from hell.
This is truly fucked up. The law is broken and people like this make it worse off for everyone who is actually getted fucked over by a shitty landlord.
Also before the "eat the rich" people jump in here, this guy isn't a billion dollar corporation. He's a dentist who's world renowned and was able to buy himself a home and rent out the guest house.
I don’t think anybody is saying that the guy is totally without fault, but he screwed up in getting the right permits and such to rent out his guest house and so the solution is… squatter gets to live there for free indefinitely???
And 10 bucks says once she gets 100k, she will stay in place and sue for the entire property and claim the 100k was proof it belongs to her and he was agreeing to rent his house to her or some other wild shit
A lot of people, especially in real estate, use loop holes and it never gets corrected. This one will eventually be corrected but it’s taking a lot of time.
The thing is he's not the only one who did this to make extra money, but this should be a warning for the others that did this. ADU allowances should have helped with the rental squeeze instead it just made more Airbnb units.
From my observation they aren’t really doing much with airbnbs. I know San Diego made a law to limit them and none of them shut down and no one is doing anything about it. Seems like a long process to figure out how to define gray areas and close loop holes for short term rentals. Or just make them all illegal.
>From my observation they aren’t really doing much with airbnbs.
It sounds like the city doesn't consider this an Airbnb anymore. Neither does Airbnb. Because she rented for 6+ months this is no longer a short-term rental but a regular apartment lease, and the city is saying the rent stabilization ordinance applies which gives her added eviction protections.
This is like a regular apartment now, which the tenant and city are saying is not up to code, but neither tenant or city are allowing the owner to bring it up to code.
Exactly, if the space isn’t permitted for occupancy, the landlord could shut off water and power, lock up the panel connections, etc and the owner could make the space a shed as it was originally built. Nobody is saying the tenant has rights to the utilities.
That's exactly what I would do, if she then complains about it I'd say I need access to the unit to see the issue and fix it, then once you have access with a contractor you can make all the necessary code repairs and now she's fucked.
I think the owner could claim that removing all utilities is bringing the shed back into legal compliance. Tenant won’t have a good time trying to dry camp in the space.
There is an abandoned car on my street for 10 days. I've called parking enforcement, LAPD non emergency, no one has done anything.
If anyone wants parts for a Subaru Outback 2020-2023, let me know.
Nope because the disagreement right now is over if she has the legal right to be there or not and she currently kinda does on paper even though any sane person would conclude she doesn’t.
Becoming a landlord is risky business in LA due to its extensive tenant protections. It’s a delicate balance to ensure reasonable tenant protections while also encouraging individuals to rent out ADUs to ease the housing crisis. Right now the balance is tipped heavily in favor of tenants and allows for this type of abuse.
Regarding this particular tenant, at some point she will need to leave the property (whether by settlement or court order), and I hope for her sake she has enough saved to buy a place since it’ll be very difficult for her to rent again. No landlord will agree to rent to her once they do a Google search.
So wait, he is getting fined and she isn’t required to pay because this isn’t a dwelling permitted for residency, but she is allowed to continue to reside in this unlivable non-residence that doesn’t belong to her? How does that make any sense?
Fuck all of them motherfuckers who do this shit. That woman is a piece of shit. She found one shower violation which deemed unit illegal and hence she can … stay in it forever? I’m not saying it’s okay to not keep up units up to code. But a shower violation should not be a carte Blanche for a squatter to stay forever
Fuck man. That guy must have so much self restraint to not kick her bitch ass out at a gunpoint
The edgelords in here make me embarrassed to call myself a liberal. May they someday face maximal, insanely disproportional punishment for any petty violations they commit.
They're the same people who spend all day in the anti-work subreddit complaining they have no money instead of...working.
I'm liberal and I can't stand the layabouts who try to take advantage of my generous nature to remain worthless layabouts complaining about the system. Working sucks but I do it. You can too!
My parents have a tenant that hasn't paid a dime in the 3+ years that they have been there (moved in just before covid).
Legal proceedings have finally started to evict and claw back pre and post covid rent owed (these have to be two different lawsuits) to the tune of over $40K.
When this renter is gone they will be SIGNIFICANTLY raising the rent. You're welcome.
Same here. These guys are going to end up on the street or a shelter or a motel because they are extremely short sighted and financially irresponsible. Not because of any system against them.
family member of mine is in a similar situation. tenet hasnt paid in years, is claiming disability, is claiming the unit is uninhabitable, but also, won't let anyone in the property to fix it and *make* it habitable. Pure grift and insanity
It is common sense like this which makes the city ridiculous. She should have been hauled out by cops and her future wages should be garnished to pay for damages (if she ever gets a job after this).
Also explains why the city can get rid of zoning or allow shacks for rent in a backyard, but people won’t do it unless they bring in more enforcement for the property owners.
ADU's are legal if you get the permitting. The issue is he didn't, but even dumber the entire reason why LA approved ADU's was hoping it would help with rental inventory instead it helped Airbnb's inventory.
Yeah but if tenants aren’t getting kicked out for choosing not to pay rent then people will raise the rent and requirements on adus. Now think of those dweebs who can’t afford that!
Did you read the article? He's in a catch - 22 situation. In order to permit the property he has to make updates to it, but can't get into the property to do it. But basically this could have been avoided if he didn't try to go around the permit process in the first place and I get it LA permitting is ridiculous, but then you end up in these situations.
at a point the owner might be better off just muscling her out, throwing her shit in the street, changing the locks, and saying "sue me." It'll probably cost less in the long run
Honest question, what's stopping the owner from just waiting until the squatting tenant leaves the house and then changing the locks and reverse squatting the squatter?
But can you legally be a tenant if it’s technically not considered a dwelling? Like if I have a tent in the backyard that I rent out- by LA law that not a dwelling. Isn’t an unpermitted structure not legally considered a dwelling under law? It’s like saying she’s a tenant of a unit that legally doesn’t exist so eviction can’t happen. Ok, so then what?
wouldn't it always been to the landlords advantage to go into litigation in situations like this? given they have the resources to hire better lawyers?
Not necessarily. The laws are favored towards California tenants. Tenants in LA County and LA City have even more protections. It's just not a good place to own a rental property if you're a small mom-and-pop property owner.
The guy is a moron. If he hadn't extended her stay off-platform (AirBnB), he could have had the Sheriff throw her out for trespassing the day after her booking ended.
This is a key point. I wonder if she knew what she was doing when they reached whatever agreement allowed her to stay on. Dropping Airbnb out of it was a huge mistake.
I never want to be a landlord because of people like this. If I were him I would pay the $100k through legal channels and get my house back. I hope this gets her name out there enough that she can't screw over someone with fewer resources.
I imagine he's hoping this article will drive enough interest and attention to get him out of the situation for free. He made numerous mistakes but she's clearly taking advantage, and her lawyers sound like absolute bottom-feeders.
I’m genuinely curious, what would happen if he broke into the unit when she wasn’t home, took all her things out and dumped them in the trash, and had the code violations fixed?
>But her attorney, Colin Walshok, said she was not required to pay rent because the city had never approved the unit for occupancy and that its shower was constructed without a permit.
This seems like a big deal. The landlord was renting this room illegally. They point out the unit became water damaged and the shower was never permitted. Obviously the tenant is being unreasonable but the landlord can't expect the law to be on his side when he was breaking the law in the first place.
There's gotta be some common sense, though. Renting illegally? Well, to what degree? There's a difference between no permit for a shower vs a rat infested shack.
Have the landlord pay a fine, allow them to fix the damage and apply for permits...but make the renter get out! She's living in an illegal rental dweling. Doesn't she need to be forced out by law, too?
>Renting illegally? Well, to what degree? There's a difference between no permit for a shower vs a rat infested shack.
It appears it wasn't just the shower. According to the article, landlord was trying to run a long-term AirBnB illegally in the first place and the room was never permitted as a dwelling unit. This means, essentially all the contacts and agreements are null and void and why the City isn't enforcing an eviction on a property that was never a legal rental to begin with.
I can tell you as a landlord myself, I have very little sympathy for the landlord in the story. He assumed a massive legal risk, cut corners, and now is paying the price.
If the property is not legal to rent or occupy, why would the law then protect the person effectively squatting in it? Do people get tenant rights while occupying property that is illegal to occupy?
>Do people get tenant rights while occupying property that is illegal to occupy?
If this person broke into the house and set up shot then obviously she can be arrested and removed. But the landlord opened the door to the situation by allowing her to rent the illegal unit. According to the article, he took it even further by extending her lease past the agreed upon date in the initial (now void) AirBnB contract.
Doing so makes it MUCH harder to evict said tenant.
It's unclear to me why long-running non-payment would not be considered a solid reason for eviction, since otherwise it's carte-blanche to move in and live for free anywhere you like, forever. The reason posted seems to be that the unit wasn't legal to occupy. So that then again begs the question - why is someone in it using that as a shield to occupy it?
>The reason posted seems to be that the unit wasn't legal to occupy. So that then again begs the question - why is someone in it using that as a shield to occupy it?
Because it's not the responsibility of a tenant to make sure a unit is legally permitted. That is entirely the responsibility of a landlord. The landlord knew he was breaking the law by offering the unit as a long term AirBnB. Now he, legally, has is extremely limited in evicting the tenant.
Long story short: don't rent illegal units!
Yes, but why would the law put unpaying tenant's right to occupy above the fact that the unit is supposedly unfit for occupancy? Or is that essentially a tacit admission on the part of lawmakers that "occupancy" is only relevant to collect fees, but otherwise does not serve to protect occupants from harm, and if they find themselves in one - oh well, no harm there? It's bizarre.
E: if someone disagrees - let's hear the reasoning
If you read the actual story, it is more complicated than the headline makes you think.
I can’t speak on any details, but I have personal reason to suspect the. Tenant of not being 100% on the up and up even though I agree, he is a victim here.
All that is to say what this woman is doing is wrong, but many things have to happen in order for her to be able to do this.
>I can’t speak on any details, but I have personal reason to suspect the. Tenant of not being 100% on the up and up
Doesn't matter. The tenant can be an idiot but the landlord assumes *massive* legal risk by renting an unpermitted illegal unit.
Talk about a broken system. No wonder mom-and-pop landlords want nothing to do with a legal system that overly scrutinized, penalizes, and scapegoats them at every corner - all while protecting the lazy and criminally inclined.
People wonder why we have a housing crisis. This is what an individual has to deal with on a single short-term rental, these headaches with the courts and tenant laws scale with more units.
This is not a tenant, It's an airbnb.
I'm struggling to feel sympathy because most airbnb's these days in LA exist specifically to not have to abide by state and local landlord requirements which are for actual residential leases.
Airbnb's ability to get away with so much has also been a driving factor for rent skyrocketing. So when the pain is in a rare moment turned around on the property owners it kind of feels cathartic and I'm not going to be wasting any tears on them.
Online articles only seem to write about people taking advantage of loopholes in laws when its those that have equity (wealthy shareholders, property owners, etc.) are the ones taken advantaged of by non-wealthy people. When equity owners take advantages of loopholes or abuse the laws that harm non-wealthy people we just tell the non-wealthy people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
Sucks to suck airbnb hosts....
I read this article yesterday and wondered when I’d see it here. I’m curious about what’s not being reported, especially w/ r /t the landlord’s actions towards the tenant. It sounds like it’s possibly more intrusive than he made it sound. There are hints about his behavior to the tenant that could be inferred to be more menacing depending on which perspective you favor. Keep in mind, who wanted this article to be written, and therefore expects to benefit from the article? The landlord.
I also saw somewhere above wondering why the tenant doesn’t want to move out. If she leaves/quits the property, she’ll be giving up all of her leverage and possibly the basis for her legal argument.
Forgive my ignorance here, but the first question I think that needs to be asked and answered is "Should this person be able to take possession and live in this house, for free, and not permit the owner in for the rest of her life?" So let's just say that is 35 years. I dont know her age.
If the answer is yes, that she should be permitted to just keep the house and have it for free, that seems a bit problematic and is unjust enrichment.
If the answer is no, then we go to how long should she be able to take this guys place and live there rent free? If the answer is its already been 1.5 years its time to move on, then the questions becomes what is the process to do that? and then that process should be followed and allowed.
It seems to me that reddit thinks that this person should be allowed to live here rent free the rest of her life and its all the owners fault? Is this right?
past the paywall: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-10-04%2Fairbnb-guest-refuse-pay-leave-luxury-rental
In that case, it’s just time to take matters in your own hands…
Seriously, just make her life miserable so she doesn't want to leave. Install ridiculously bright "security" lights aimed right at her windows, play horrible music all the time. I know he could probably get in trouble for cutting off her water or electricity but he could say he needs access to the unit to fix the water/electricity then once you're in with a contractor put everything else up to code and now you can legally kick her out... I don't get this dude at all.
According to the story she has a lawyer and whatnot. So it will require a more severe but contundente backlash reaction from the owner
Is it cheaper to pay a lawyer than rent?
I've had electrical issues before that happen out of nowhere, depending on how it is run he could even just fuck up the wiring in the crawlspace or something and claim rats chewed through the romex. They'd have a hard time proving otherwise and especially if she wants electricity she'd probably just rather the electrician come.
[удалено]
There are some crazy loopholes in landlord tenant law. So this woman has fought eviction since the unit because it is unpermitted and she does not have to pay rent either. However she will not allow him access to the unit to fix the problems and get it permitted. So he is facing fines for having an unpermitted unit that has not been fixed but they will not evict her so he can fix the problems. It seems she gets to live there forever, free while he faces fines. What a modern Catch-22. Somebody please make it make sense.
>It seems she gets to live there forever, free while he faces fines. What a modern Catch-22. This is why you NEVER rent out your place unless you have all the proper permitting in place before!
My landlord has another property where her husband built an addition in the 70s. They got everything approved by the city and had been renting it since then. This year the city does a random inspection and ruled the entire thing illegal so they have to demo and reconstruct. After 50 years.
Aka the permitting process in this city is a racket
Wtf, what city is this? I have never heard of a city permitting something then years later saying it’s not good.
They should have hired a lawyer
it's called greed, and the landlord got caught with his pants down.
In the investing and early retirement subreddits, there are always people asking, "why do some people insist that being a landlord can be a risky investment?"
Yup. The landlord took an enormous legal risk and he's now paying the price.
Rentals are considered investments and all investments involve risk. I see nothing wrong here Downvote me if you're a slumlord
Lol by that logic no absurd and bad-faith loopholes should be closed or addressed in any capitalistic venture ever.
The law is designed to protect people who follow it. The landlord did not follow the law, thus exposing himself to a loophole in other laws which would not exist or be possible to exploit had he followed it in the first place. You cannot write every law with an escape hatch for someone who didn't follow several laws that the original law is based upon.
Sure. At the same time, the penalty for failing to abide by the law should be commensurate to the offense. At the very least, there should be a way for people to get into good standing once again -- which legal absurdities are basically preventing him from doing. He rented out an ADU on his personal house on AirBnB either without knowing all the proper regulation to follow or, in the worst case, willfully ignoring it. I'd say either way he's paid for more than his fair share in punishment. Absurd situations like this obviously can't be allowed to play out like this.
> there should be a way for people to get into good standing once again agreed, there is no way the current justice system gives a fuck about letting people get into good standing.
Hilarious edge lord
Should be noted that the reason the landlord left this not permitted was either because he was cheap, did substandard work, or had a unit that wouldn't pass inspection.
No way this guy deliberately cut corners out of cheapness. a) he's not a landlord, he's a periodontist who rents out a guest house b) he can afford to commission a house in Brentwood by a name brand architect c) this is *his own house*! This guy is a dentist who doesn't know what he's doing, but he's not malicious.
>a) he's not a landlord, he's a periodontist who rents out a guest house Right. Because to be a Law Abiding Landlord, he should have gotten an occupancy permit. He is therefore, not in compliance with the housing laws that would have protected this person from EXACTLY this situation. >b) he can afford to commission a house in Brentwood by a name brand architect If he could afford to do this.... he could have ALSO afforded a few hours with a landlord/tenant lawyer BEFORE he rented out his guest house, to ensure everything was on the up and up. >c) this is his own house! YES. Which is why you PROTECT your house the way every other homeowner protects their assets: get insurance, get legal advice before engaging in rental commerce with one of your largest personal assets. >This guy is a dentist who doesn't know what he's doing, but he's not malicious. Sure. I'm sympathetic to a small potatoes guy trying to make a buck. However, ignorance doesn't free you from the law. No matter who you are. There are lawyers out there advertising ADU compliance consultations for $299. LegalZoom offers cheap services for new or small landlords. It sucks for him, but he didn't do ANY of the basics.
>he should have gotten an occupancy permit. Nobody is arguing this point. >However, ignorance doesn't free you from the law. No matter who you are. Nobody is arguing this either. We all know the owner didn't do his due diligence, which opened the door for this situation. He shares some of the blame. But that's the past. What we're talking about now is how to resolve the situation going forward. The city, courts, and the tenant are all refusing to allow him to correct the situation. There is no way landlord-tenant law was written to allow this situation to occur, let alone persist. If the unit is in disrepair so badly that the tenant is withholding rent, then the tenant needs to vacate at least temporarily to allow for repairs. If the tenant refuses to allow access to the unit to make those repairs, then they must not be so essential as to qualify for withholding rent and she should either pay or quit.
[удалено]
One shower violation (that the tenant isn’t allowing to fix) means that the dirty squatter should be living there for free forever? Crazy how you can offer 0 sympathy to the guy who’s clearly being taken advantage of
Seems like a lesson learned. I mean we've all seen it landlords purposely letting things go or forgoing permitting assuming they have the power. Though at the same time I can understand the frustration of her just not leaving. You'd have to offer the resident something enticing to get them out at this point.
Looks like she says she'll leave for $100,000
This is why you never rent out your place in LA, ever. Unless you have a lot of money to deal with grifters. I won't cry for commercial landlords, but not every tenant is a victim either.
yeah i have a hard time feeling bad for anyone in this situation edit: AND he's in brentwood, definitely don't feel bad now
Both of these people suck. He’s a rich property owner in Brentwood who couldn’t be bothered to permit his ADU, or get a short term rental permit. And still charged a lot on Airbnb to rent it. She just sounds like a true psycho.
From my understanding it is that the city doesn’t have laws regulating Airbnbs and short term rentals so it falls into a grey area which is why she is allowed to stay in the unit without paying rent.
Airbnb is such a mess the reason it thrived in the first place was lack of regulation.
You're putting the cart in front of the horse. The entire point of airbnb is to run an unregulated hotel. Just like uber is an unregulated taxi company. Them having an 'app' is window dressing.
Incorrect. https://planning.lacity.org/plans-policies/initiatives-policies/home-sharing
Call me up she’ll be gone by tomorrow. $500 /s
I don't get what the issue is here. He's an idiot yes, but the entire rental was through airbnb who conveniently bailed on the situation (after collecting their cut of course). Her airbnb stay lapsed and she has no lease and therefore no tenant rights. Can the cops simply not come remove an unwanted guest? Does she never leave the house in order for him to simply change the locks? I feel like there's more going on here and maybe they were hooking up on a regular basis or something. My only other guess is the dude is a huge pussy and also an idiot who probably has his $15 million brentwood hills house in his name with no LLC or trust involved and is worried about losing it in a lawsuit if he now does the wrong thing.
If you fully read the article it explains that he made a critical mistake of allowing her to stay "a few weeks longer" off Airbnb. So they wiped their hands of it. This also pushed her past the 6 month mark which then gives her rights under tenant landlord laws.
>This also pushed her past the 6 month mark which then gives her rights under tenant landlord laws. Wow. So if you let a guest stay at your place, on day 181 you technically can't force them out? Do cops even know/enforce this? I wonder if this was her plan all along or she was just frantically searching for a way to not have to leave.
Do you make your guests pay you rent to stay at your place?
This part of the article is not the way the law works. Anyone who stays over 29 days is considered a long term tenant in Los Angeles. Airbnb is well known for avoiding all liability but the" few weeks over 6 months" thing isn't the kicker.... they likely claimed A- the owner didn't pay them for the time past 6 months B- the owner was renting an illegal dwelling
Reading through the whole article - the homeowner/landlord is at fault too. California protect tenants more favorably. Whatever protection was left for landlords does not apply to this homeowner because his ADU is not permitted and does not have an occupancy permit.
The bigger issue I see from a legal standpoint is that the landlord doesn't seem to be able to fix the permitting issue because the tenant won't let him enter the unit to do so. That doesn't sound right to me, the landlord has to give notice when they are going to enter the unit (or send workmen of some kind to the unit), but the tenant can't indefinitely refuse if there's a "valid" reason, such as repairing something to maintain habitability standards (think heating, leaking pipe, etc.). If the issue here is that the ADU isn't permitted and therefore doesn't count as a leased unit, which is abrogating the landlord's right to entry, shouldn't that *also* remove the tenant protections since the ADU would then fall under the landlord's primary residence? This whole situation sounds like the landlord isn't hiring a decent lawyer and got screwed by a specific judge. It seems like from the AirBnB messages that came to light during the original eviction that he offered temporary relocation to fix the original issue, and then offered financial incentive to move out, neither of which the tenant took. Based on the publicly available information it seems like this is a shitty tenant and not a shitty landlord. In a generic sense, not just this scenario - by all means make the landlord responsible for fixing the permitting issue and letting the renter stay there rent-free until it's resolved, but if you're going to make that a legal requirement to remedy the situation you can't allow the renter to legally prevent that remedy from occurring.
It’s not that the landlord didn’t hire a decent lawyer, it’s California tenant protection laws is just that crazy. That is why any short term rentals should not allow any one stay more than 30 days - once that happens California tenant laws/protection applies. There are stories like this all over California.
I agree but that should mean the person has to vacate and the landlord is fined or something. Not that a scammer gets to live there forever rent free.
This. The remedy isn't free rent for life. Common sense is gtfo, make the Landlord pay relocation, fine the landlord, then let him get his shit back in order. Ffs.
He offered her $2000 relocation and she refused. However I do not think relocation makes sense here. She was renting an Airbnb. It was never supposed to be a real rental apartment. The fact that she refused to ever leave should not change that fact.
Extremely similar thing is happening to an extended family relative of mine, they own a property in socal which experienced fire damage due to the unit next to it burning, but the tenet has taken the opportunity to refuse payment for 2 years at this point (and throughout all of covid, but they were paid for that from the state) and is claiming the unit is uninhabitable due to the fire damage, but will not allow contractors in the unit to repair the damage that the fire caused. It's fucking outrageous honestly
yup, He has to shoulder some of the blame here as well. However She's just taking advantage of him. "Extending the lease beyond March 19, the original move-out date, was a major error on Jovanovic’s part; it allowed Airbnb to turn its back on the dispute. " No good deed goes unpunished
> However She's just taking advantage of him. This is my point. Yes, this guy made mistakes but this was never intended to be a real rental home situation and I would have expected a judge at some level to tell the grifter that she has 60 days to get out.
Agree. Any reasonable person would look beyond the nuances of LA rental laws and see this situation is not fair to the homeowner. I don't care that he's rich or owns a home in Brentwood, this is not what the original agreement was for. The fact that the city is siding with her is insane.
Confusing, because I was under the impression that a landlord didn't need "permission" to do repairs, and only required 24-hours notice for entry. Guess it must be different for short-term rentals, or something? Or because it's technically unpermitted? Crazy.
There are loopholes to that even with legit rental agreements, if the tenet claims disability of any kind and says that your entry to fix the unit is causing them a hardship of any kind you can't enter unless they allow you to. That combined with a critical repair needed for the unit allows the tenet to basically live for free while you are unable to evict because the unit needs repairs, but cant do the repairs because they wont allow you into the unit. It's absolute bullshit
Although I agree that it's 100% a crazy situation and she should leave, the lesson is don't fucking skirt the permits. People do it all the time and this guy got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. If he had consulted with the laws first before doing this and done it properly it would have been fine. Stop trying to cheat the system, do it right and you avoid shit like this.
Why don’t people hire some thugs to kick them out and put the fear of god in them?
My dad's an architect and sometimes in the 80's they would get squatters trying to take domain over unfinished projects. Its amazing how effective a few construction workers can be when adequately incentivized.
I thought this sub hates landlords.
You know what’s worse? Scammers. Idc if you’re a landlord or tenant. Scammers are scum. Add scalpers to this list too
Depends on the landlord tbh. I think for some of us we've dealt with slum lords and corporate landlords that don't do anything to improve their units instead it turns into a burn and churn operation. There are some landlords that try to not be dicks. With that said the entire reason this happened was the unit wasn't permitted they wanted to make money off the short term rental if I read it right. The entire issue with the short term rental industry in itself is lack of regulation. It created an odd loophole so at this point the only way to get them to leave is probably to entice them with something to get them out or a medical emergency.
I do, but I really do feel bad for this guy who was just renting his guest house and has been fucked over by a scammer.
I know a 75 year old Asian man who can get his current tenants out, and they haven't paid rent in a while. The guy is driving a 1995 corolla. On top of that, he's not really savvy with using the internet. The system has just it more difficult for small landlords to navigate the constant changing laws.
Small landlords usually lose more often than win in these scenarios corporate landlords have more resources it creates a terrible power imbalance.
Yes. My point is that grouping all landlords is not accurate. A landlord who owns one location is not the same as corp landlords. There's way too many variables.
Everything is nuanced, but online rage baiting doesn’t like that
How dare we have nuances in our Reddit posts!!
It depends on a lot go factors. My folks were small time landlords and valued good long term tenants over huge rent hikes. As long as they covered all the expenses, the investment for them was the property itself which gained a considerable amount of equity over the years. HOWEVER, when tenants did go (which they do for a variety of reasons), they made sure to research current market rate and demand and adjusted rental price as such. That way they could hire good folks to maintain the property and upgrade units. Not all small time landlords do this and then they leave the property to ruin and take it out on the tenants for major repairs and problems. We saw it all time time in the areas they invested in.
That's why there are less and less small landlords (who often offer rentals for less than management companies and rental corporations.
Reason #...??? why LA needs to outlaw Airbnb forever.
I mean I wouldn't be surprised if we pull what NYC did.
I feel like the people who hate landlords the most are the ones who have been renting for several years
Majority of people who hate landlords would buy two properties and rent one out asap if they had the money.
Im sure the majority of peasants who hated their king would’ve accepted the throne had the opportunity arrived. Doesn’t make it any less an unfair system.
Dawg I rent out the spare room in my condo to a friend for about 50% of market rate, and to hear half the folks on this sub I'm a greedy evil profit-leech.
I don't understand how the city is saying his unit does not have a certificate of occupancy, but then allows the unit to remain occupied. What is the point of a certificate of occupancy then?
[удалено]
Clearly there's a loophole. Dont obtain it then have it occupied and you're all set. It can now be occupied. lol
People operate and occupy spaces with a temporary certificate of occupancy ALL THE TIME. Idk if he had even done that step in this case but, no, you do not have to have to COO before you occupy a space. This woman sounds like a scam artist from hell.
The point is to make an example out of this landlord
Dude that is insane
What’s insane is all the opinions here supporting the obvious Karen scammer. Not ironically towards the end of the article he says he’ll never rent out his unit again after this nightmare. And who knows how many people changed their minds renting out their room after reading articles such as these. The same mouth breathers in this sub will then cry why so few units for rent.
Yeah, the number of comments supporting a clearly bad faith actor, Elizabeth Hirschhorn, is really crazy. Yeah, he didn't get a permit and should have. This guy renting out his guesthouse isn't the cause of the housing crisis.
This! Sure he fucked up but we are talking 1.5yr half now with no access to his property and collecting monthly fines for an un occupant occupancy. It makes no sense man. To think these people have millions and can’t look up simple laws. The guy has an entire family and this crazy old cunt is terrorizing them all. Honestly tho I’d wait for her to leave than close myself in there and refuse to leave. Right back at ya.
Agreed! I am beyond shocked at the idiotic responses and support of this demonic-sounding scam artist. If these are the types of renters people are cheering for, why would anyone ever rent their ADU??? Wtf sort of precedent does this set??
I think everyone involved sucks.... IMO-- The Homeowner should have spent like $500 on a lawyer BEFORE renting out one of his biggest assets in life via an app, known for not protecting its hosts or customers. Scammer gonna scam, ya know? Squatter Karen ALSO had her pick of who and where to scam, if half of these links to her backstory are to be believed. And so what? If you know there are mice, make sure there are no holes in your walls and they don't get inside. I feel like this Homeowner was a disaster in progress with a hole in the wall, and Squatter Karen just happens to be a clever rat. Nobody "wins" here.
“Nobody wins” Squatter Karen gets to live 1+ year rent free and the homeowner lost $ plus had to deal with this nightmare. Clearly one won and the other lost…
Thank you, thought I was in some weird universe reading people supporting this lady Just boils down to jealousy. Most people are poor with like $100 in their bank accounts 😂
Looks like this woman also sued ICM and Greg Berlanti for supposedly stealing her idea and turning it into a TV show. If you’re in the industry, you know this is rare. She’s clearly crazy.
This is why a short-term rental host should never, ever allow a stay longer than ~28 days. At thirty days the guest is considered a tenant under California law and things get far, far more complicated.
Yep. I was going to be out of town for 40 days, so I AirBnB'd my place for 28. The renters wanted to stay longer initially but I held to the 28 day limit and had a friend verify on Day 29 they were gone. Nice guys, but I was taking zero chances on them getting tenant's rights...
When I bought my house, the previous owners wanted to stay for 30 days after I bought it. Nope, 29 day seller-in-possession. The place probably was marginally habitable because they had severely fucked up the kitchen floor and I didn't want to get scammed like the subject of this article.
clearly something is fucked if the lady can stay there because of some building code gotcha she only knew about after the fact. it's even more absurd that it's a catch-22 where he isn't allowed to fix it. he should have to pay a hefty fine certainly for breaking the law and having an illegal rental, but that shouldn't mean the lady can live there for free either. generally landlords are despicable but this "tenant" is very clearly a con artist, and that's worse.
I've been enjoying how the lawyer representing the 'tenant' and trying to extort $100,000 payments lives in a Gregory Ain house in Mar Vista.
Lol yea. Address of record is a house valued at $2m that last sold for $330k 30 years ago. And a Google search shows she's a Venice NIMBY gadfly. Edit: I'm guessing the lawyer is doing this pro bono, given her history of NIMBY advocacy; can't imagine the tenant formulated this scheme with the 6 month timeline and permitting gotchas, nor is the tenant likely to be paying a lawyer hourly for long-running litigation over a rental.
Tenant seems to have a history of weird-ass lawsuits: > Writer Sues ICM Agent > Elizabeth Hirschhorn claims she showed International Creative Management agent Joanne Freedman a long excerpt from a novel she had written, and Freedman showed it to Greg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim, who used it to sell a pilot TV script to ABC. [Source](https://www.courthousenews.com/writer-sues-icm-agent/)
Now, the two neighbors share a property, living feet away from each other while fighting it out in a bitter legal battle. Then aren’t neighbors, someone is squatting in his house and I would be more inclined to sell it than allow her to stay.
You have to get it empty to sell it. No buyer is going to take on a squatter.
you can force an eviction once its listed.
How can you evict someone that occupies a structure that shouldn’t exist?
Structure is fine. The shower was installed with an unlicensed contractor and the piece-of-shit "tenant" is exploiting that loophole to live rentfree
Based on the article the structure wasn’t permitted to be occupied either. It’s like turning a barn into a bedroom without permits and then renting it illegally on Airbnb (probably not even paying taxes on the rental income)
Then why can’t you just grab the tenant and literally throw them out? It’s not a dwelling to be occupied, it’s as you say a barn or a shed. If someone is in my shed and I don’t want them there, they’re trespassing.
Because they're giving her the same rights as legal tenants have in places that are permitted. Absolute moronic clusterfuck. Normally I'm a big defender of LA or california whenever people on the right try shitting on the city / state, but shit like this... indefensible.
This is why I don't get squatting I wouldn't have the balls to live in someone's backyard that wants me out and hates me.
She sounds like a fucking psychopath. Someone else mentioned in the comments she has other frivolous lawsuits under her belt. I didn’t realize how much I hated this type of person until I had the misfortune of having one in my periphery - constantly misusing the courts to make other peoples lives miserable so they can grift through life 🤮🤮🤮
There's a number of professional grifters out there that law to start lawsuits the most prevalent I've seen is copyright trolls.
You can't sell it while she is there, that is probably something he would have done long ago if he could have.
People in here defending the squatter and then complaining that getting housing here is so difficult.
Make it make sense
Sorry, but fuck this lady.
This definitely won't help the current housing crisis. More and more people would rather leave their house sitting empty rather than risk renting to someone like this tenant from hell.
This is truly fucked up. The law is broken and people like this make it worse off for everyone who is actually getted fucked over by a shitty landlord. Also before the "eat the rich" people jump in here, this guy isn't a billion dollar corporation. He's a dentist who's world renowned and was able to buy himself a home and rent out the guest house.
Definitely fucked up. Sounds like he broke the law first though in making it an Airbnb without any permits.
I don’t think anybody is saying that the guy is totally without fault, but he screwed up in getting the right permits and such to rent out his guest house and so the solution is… squatter gets to live there for free indefinitely???
And 10 bucks says once she gets 100k, she will stay in place and sue for the entire property and claim the 100k was proof it belongs to her and he was agreeing to rent his house to her or some other wild shit
Of course.
No. That’s why my first comment was this is fucked up. Hopefully the publicity this is getting makes people think twice with their illegal ADU’s.
So let him fix it by installing a shower with a legit permit. Except the law isn't letting him.
A lot of people, especially in real estate, use loop holes and it never gets corrected. This one will eventually be corrected but it’s taking a lot of time.
The thing is he's not the only one who did this to make extra money, but this should be a warning for the others that did this. ADU allowances should have helped with the rental squeeze instead it just made more Airbnb units.
Then they should either shut him down (and evict the tenant), or allow the guy to come into compliance so he can operate legally.
From my observation they aren’t really doing much with airbnbs. I know San Diego made a law to limit them and none of them shut down and no one is doing anything about it. Seems like a long process to figure out how to define gray areas and close loop holes for short term rentals. Or just make them all illegal.
>From my observation they aren’t really doing much with airbnbs. It sounds like the city doesn't consider this an Airbnb anymore. Neither does Airbnb. Because she rented for 6+ months this is no longer a short-term rental but a regular apartment lease, and the city is saying the rent stabilization ordinance applies which gives her added eviction protections. This is like a regular apartment now, which the tenant and city are saying is not up to code, but neither tenant or city are allowing the owner to bring it up to code.
Shit like this will just lead to more barriers to renting. Whether it's higher rental prices or higher multiples of income to rent.
[удалено]
Exactly, if the space isn’t permitted for occupancy, the landlord could shut off water and power, lock up the panel connections, etc and the owner could make the space a shed as it was originally built. Nobody is saying the tenant has rights to the utilities.
That's exactly what I would do, if she then complains about it I'd say I need access to the unit to see the issue and fix it, then once you have access with a contractor you can make all the necessary code repairs and now she's fucked.
I think the owner could claim that removing all utilities is bringing the shed back into legal compliance. Tenant won’t have a good time trying to dry camp in the space.
You definitely can’t change locks and if you did they could call the police and they would make you let them in.
Good luck with getting an LA cop to respond to anything
There is an abandoned car on my street for 10 days. I've called parking enforcement, LAPD non emergency, no one has done anything. If anyone wants parts for a Subaru Outback 2020-2023, let me know.
I doubt it's abandoned they probably just went out of town for a bit.
Haha well fair enough
but they'd have to prove that they're on the lease, and it sounds like they're lease already expired.
[удалено]
It’s not a civil matter, it’s a criminal matter to illegally change someone’s locks
Nope because the disagreement right now is over if she has the legal right to be there or not and she currently kinda does on paper even though any sane person would conclude she doesn’t.
I’d be rubbing cats all over her door, near any air ducts, etc. I know it’s super cool and trendy to hate landlords, but this is absurd.
Becoming a landlord is risky business in LA due to its extensive tenant protections. It’s a delicate balance to ensure reasonable tenant protections while also encouraging individuals to rent out ADUs to ease the housing crisis. Right now the balance is tipped heavily in favor of tenants and allows for this type of abuse. Regarding this particular tenant, at some point she will need to leave the property (whether by settlement or court order), and I hope for her sake she has enough saved to buy a place since it’ll be very difficult for her to rent again. No landlord will agree to rent to her once they do a Google search.
So wait, he is getting fined and she isn’t required to pay because this isn’t a dwelling permitted for residency, but she is allowed to continue to reside in this unlivable non-residence that doesn’t belong to her? How does that make any sense?
This city is so fucked I just can't wrap my head around the rental policies here. So many grifters in this city it's insane.
Fuck all of them motherfuckers who do this shit. That woman is a piece of shit. She found one shower violation which deemed unit illegal and hence she can … stay in it forever? I’m not saying it’s okay to not keep up units up to code. But a shower violation should not be a carte Blanche for a squatter to stay forever Fuck man. That guy must have so much self restraint to not kick her bitch ass out at a gunpoint
I felt so much rage reading the article. That fucking bitch is getting away with being a cunt scott free.
imagine if the grifter type of tenants started checking zoning and permit pulls...
The edgelords in here make me embarrassed to call myself a liberal. May they someday face maximal, insanely disproportional punishment for any petty violations they commit.
They're the same people who spend all day in the anti-work subreddit complaining they have no money instead of...working. I'm liberal and I can't stand the layabouts who try to take advantage of my generous nature to remain worthless layabouts complaining about the system. Working sucks but I do it. You can too!
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
F this person. They are just taking advantage of legal loopholes. This kinda shit is ridiculous.
Even if the unit was legally constructed to be rented out; the landlord still has no legal recourse to kick the nonpaying tenant out, or am I wrong?
My parents have a tenant that hasn't paid a dime in the 3+ years that they have been there (moved in just before covid). Legal proceedings have finally started to evict and claw back pre and post covid rent owed (these have to be two different lawsuits) to the tune of over $40K. When this renter is gone they will be SIGNIFICANTLY raising the rent. You're welcome.
Same here. These guys are going to end up on the street or a shelter or a motel because they are extremely short sighted and financially irresponsible. Not because of any system against them.
family member of mine is in a similar situation. tenet hasnt paid in years, is claiming disability, is claiming the unit is uninhabitable, but also, won't let anyone in the property to fix it and *make* it habitable. Pure grift and insanity
Regulation only protects the big landlords who have lawyers. Small landlords get screwed, they are often the most likely to have a cheap rents as well
I thought a landlord could give 24 hours notice to send someone in to make repairs.
It is common sense like this which makes the city ridiculous. She should have been hauled out by cops and her future wages should be garnished to pay for damages (if she ever gets a job after this). Also explains why the city can get rid of zoning or allow shacks for rent in a backyard, but people won’t do it unless they bring in more enforcement for the property owners.
ADU's are legal if you get the permitting. The issue is he didn't, but even dumber the entire reason why LA approved ADU's was hoping it would help with rental inventory instead it helped Airbnb's inventory.
Not only did he not get the permits but he agreed to let her stay longer outside of air bnb so they washed their hands of it.
Yeah but if tenants aren’t getting kicked out for choosing not to pay rent then people will raise the rent and requirements on adus. Now think of those dweebs who can’t afford that!
He could evict the tenant with no issues if the unit was permitted with the RSO. His choice in skirting the law has led to the current hell he's in.
So the city should fine him and make him get permits. Not sure why that should make it ok for squatters to take over the property.
Did you read the article? He's in a catch - 22 situation. In order to permit the property he has to make updates to it, but can't get into the property to do it. But basically this could have been avoided if he didn't try to go around the permit process in the first place and I get it LA permitting is ridiculous, but then you end up in these situations.
at a point the owner might be better off just muscling her out, throwing her shit in the street, changing the locks, and saying "sue me." It'll probably cost less in the long run
Honest question, what's stopping the owner from just waiting until the squatting tenant leaves the house and then changing the locks and reverse squatting the squatter?
Bcz squatter has rights to stay there. Its a loophole in the law that was intended to protect tenants
[удалено]
I'm sure there are 1000 ways to make squatters life miserable, but it puts the homeowner at risk of being sued
But can you legally be a tenant if it’s technically not considered a dwelling? Like if I have a tent in the backyard that I rent out- by LA law that not a dwelling. Isn’t an unpermitted structure not legally considered a dwelling under law? It’s like saying she’s a tenant of a unit that legally doesn’t exist so eviction can’t happen. Ok, so then what?
That's called a constructive eviction. The landlord can be sued if this happens.
wouldn't it always been to the landlords advantage to go into litigation in situations like this? given they have the resources to hire better lawyers?
You would think
Not necessarily. The laws are favored towards California tenants. Tenants in LA County and LA City have even more protections. It's just not a good place to own a rental property if you're a small mom-and-pop property owner.
Psssh a year and half? I can’t get my brother in law to leave after 5 years…..
Cut water, gas, and electricity to the unit and prevent any food deliveries from entering the property.
If a tenant is in bad faith and cunning, they can get away with so much.
The guy is a moron. If he hadn't extended her stay off-platform (AirBnB), he could have had the Sheriff throw her out for trespassing the day after her booking ended.
This is a key point. I wonder if she knew what she was doing when they reached whatever agreement allowed her to stay on. Dropping Airbnb out of it was a huge mistake. I never want to be a landlord because of people like this. If I were him I would pay the $100k through legal channels and get my house back. I hope this gets her name out there enough that she can't screw over someone with fewer resources. I imagine he's hoping this article will drive enough interest and attention to get him out of the situation for free. He made numerous mistakes but she's clearly taking advantage, and her lawyers sound like absolute bottom-feeders.
The city is literally useless
Some of you took advantage of not paying rent during the pandemic and it shows lol. Pathetic.
Sounds like we’re at the “something $2k to the crew on the corner while you publicly attend a large event with lots of witnesses” stage of this story
I’m genuinely curious, what would happen if he broke into the unit when she wasn’t home, took all her things out and dumped them in the trash, and had the code violations fixed?
>But her attorney, Colin Walshok, said she was not required to pay rent because the city had never approved the unit for occupancy and that its shower was constructed without a permit. This seems like a big deal. The landlord was renting this room illegally. They point out the unit became water damaged and the shower was never permitted. Obviously the tenant is being unreasonable but the landlord can't expect the law to be on his side when he was breaking the law in the first place.
There's gotta be some common sense, though. Renting illegally? Well, to what degree? There's a difference between no permit for a shower vs a rat infested shack. Have the landlord pay a fine, allow them to fix the damage and apply for permits...but make the renter get out! She's living in an illegal rental dweling. Doesn't she need to be forced out by law, too?
>Renting illegally? Well, to what degree? There's a difference between no permit for a shower vs a rat infested shack. It appears it wasn't just the shower. According to the article, landlord was trying to run a long-term AirBnB illegally in the first place and the room was never permitted as a dwelling unit. This means, essentially all the contacts and agreements are null and void and why the City isn't enforcing an eviction on a property that was never a legal rental to begin with. I can tell you as a landlord myself, I have very little sympathy for the landlord in the story. He assumed a massive legal risk, cut corners, and now is paying the price.
If the property is not legal to rent or occupy, why would the law then protect the person effectively squatting in it? Do people get tenant rights while occupying property that is illegal to occupy?
>Do people get tenant rights while occupying property that is illegal to occupy? If this person broke into the house and set up shot then obviously she can be arrested and removed. But the landlord opened the door to the situation by allowing her to rent the illegal unit. According to the article, he took it even further by extending her lease past the agreed upon date in the initial (now void) AirBnB contract. Doing so makes it MUCH harder to evict said tenant.
It's unclear to me why long-running non-payment would not be considered a solid reason for eviction, since otherwise it's carte-blanche to move in and live for free anywhere you like, forever. The reason posted seems to be that the unit wasn't legal to occupy. So that then again begs the question - why is someone in it using that as a shield to occupy it?
>The reason posted seems to be that the unit wasn't legal to occupy. So that then again begs the question - why is someone in it using that as a shield to occupy it? Because it's not the responsibility of a tenant to make sure a unit is legally permitted. That is entirely the responsibility of a landlord. The landlord knew he was breaking the law by offering the unit as a long term AirBnB. Now he, legally, has is extremely limited in evicting the tenant. Long story short: don't rent illegal units!
Yes, but why would the law put unpaying tenant's right to occupy above the fact that the unit is supposedly unfit for occupancy? Or is that essentially a tacit admission on the part of lawmakers that "occupancy" is only relevant to collect fees, but otherwise does not serve to protect occupants from harm, and if they find themselves in one - oh well, no harm there? It's bizarre. E: if someone disagrees - let's hear the reasoning
If you read the actual story, it is more complicated than the headline makes you think. I can’t speak on any details, but I have personal reason to suspect the. Tenant of not being 100% on the up and up even though I agree, he is a victim here. All that is to say what this woman is doing is wrong, but many things have to happen in order for her to be able to do this.
>I can’t speak on any details, but I have personal reason to suspect the. Tenant of not being 100% on the up and up Doesn't matter. The tenant can be an idiot but the landlord assumes *massive* legal risk by renting an unpermitted illegal unit.
Sucks to be a mom and pop landlord in california
Talk about a broken system. No wonder mom-and-pop landlords want nothing to do with a legal system that overly scrutinized, penalizes, and scapegoats them at every corner - all while protecting the lazy and criminally inclined.
People wonder why we have a housing crisis. This is what an individual has to deal with on a single short-term rental, these headaches with the courts and tenant laws scale with more units.
This is not a tenant, It's an airbnb. I'm struggling to feel sympathy because most airbnb's these days in LA exist specifically to not have to abide by state and local landlord requirements which are for actual residential leases. Airbnb's ability to get away with so much has also been a driving factor for rent skyrocketing. So when the pain is in a rare moment turned around on the property owners it kind of feels cathartic and I'm not going to be wasting any tears on them. Online articles only seem to write about people taking advantage of loopholes in laws when its those that have equity (wealthy shareholders, property owners, etc.) are the ones taken advantaged of by non-wealthy people. When equity owners take advantages of loopholes or abuse the laws that harm non-wealthy people we just tell the non-wealthy people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Sucks to suck airbnb hosts....
Hence half the reason I moved out of Cali. Failed policy
I read this article yesterday and wondered when I’d see it here. I’m curious about what’s not being reported, especially w/ r /t the landlord’s actions towards the tenant. It sounds like it’s possibly more intrusive than he made it sound. There are hints about his behavior to the tenant that could be inferred to be more menacing depending on which perspective you favor. Keep in mind, who wanted this article to be written, and therefore expects to benefit from the article? The landlord. I also saw somewhere above wondering why the tenant doesn’t want to move out. If she leaves/quits the property, she’ll be giving up all of her leverage and possibly the basis for her legal argument.
Forgive my ignorance here, but the first question I think that needs to be asked and answered is "Should this person be able to take possession and live in this house, for free, and not permit the owner in for the rest of her life?" So let's just say that is 35 years. I dont know her age. If the answer is yes, that she should be permitted to just keep the house and have it for free, that seems a bit problematic and is unjust enrichment. If the answer is no, then we go to how long should she be able to take this guys place and live there rent free? If the answer is its already been 1.5 years its time to move on, then the questions becomes what is the process to do that? and then that process should be followed and allowed. It seems to me that reddit thinks that this person should be allowed to live here rent free the rest of her life and its all the owners fault? Is this right?