-2

I'm 19 had a roommate (older brother) who split rent with me on our apartment. Couple months go by and they decided to get 2 cats (sent me a text while I'm at work because apparently my opinion doesn't matter). Not long after that they tell me they're joining the army, leaving me with the full rent and 2 cats and making me give up on going to college in favor of working more hours to pay bills.

They say "this is a courtesy letter" as if they're being kind by informing me of my impending state of homelessness.

Admittedly, I haven't paid the down payment nor the monthly payment for the cats but even then they don't even list that as the reason for my eviction, or any reason for that matter. I'm barely making ends meet and I'm already hundreds of dollars in debt so $3k is out of the question. I did a bit of googling and found this:

State Laws on Termination for Violation of Lease

State laws typically vary depend on whether the reason for termination is the tenant's nonpayment of rent or violation of a lease clause. This chart covers the latter (termination for tenant violation of a lease clause).

I think not paying for the cats qualifies as a violation of the lease.

Many states give tenants a specified amount of time to cure or cease a lease or rental agreement violation or to move out before the landlord can file for eviction.

They didn't give me any time to "cure or cease a lease or rental agreement violation" at all, hell they didn't even give a reason. The section for Michigan (my state of residence) says:

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714

For causing serious, continuous health hazards or damage to the premises: 7 days after receiving notice to restore or repair or quit (domestic violence victims excepted).

Wow! So instead of giving me 7 days to rid myself of the cats or start paying for them, they started the eviction immediately and gave me 3 days to fill their pockets for a change of heart! I don't want to count my eggs before they've hatched so would someone please tell me this information is all correct and reliable, I've got nowhere to go if I get kicked out of here.

closed as off-topic by Nij, A. K., David Siegel, Dale M, ohwilleke Apr 22 at 21:01

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    They reference a "judgement", were you already given a notice to appear in eviction court that you didn't appear in? You may want to ask them for a copy of this judgement, if you defaulted by not appearing you may have a judgement against you. – Ron Beyer Apr 18 at 21:30
  • 1
    They should also be able to provide you an itemized bill that accounts for the full amount requested, specifically stating what it is for (fees, late fees, etc). The only way a balliff will show up though is if you were legally evicted through housing court. – Ron Beyer Apr 18 at 21:31
  • 1
    @RonBeyer I did not receive anything, this is the first note posted to my door (they came over for "scheduled maintenance" which is literally never maintenance, this time it was for the cats it would seem) I check my email and the only thing I received from them was a notification of my rent being paid. – SemperAmbroscus Apr 18 at 21:39
  • 1
    I'd say you will find a lawyer for much less than $2,700. – gnasher729 Apr 18 at 21:56
  • 1
-1

One has to be really despicable to vote to close this question, and yet some users did that already.

they started the eviction immediately and gave me 3 days to fill their pockets

The landlord ought to comply with the notice period as mandated by statute. In Ypsilanti Housing Comm'n v. Oday, 618 N.W.2d 18, 22 (2000), the court concluded that "the summary proceedings in the district court were premature, and thus defendant's resultant eviction was improper" because the landlord did not comply with the [30-day] notice to which the defendant was entitled by statute.

The excerpt of MCL 600.5714(1)(d) you reproduce seems inapplicable. The landlord would have a hard time proving that possession of two cats "causes a serious and continuing health hazard to exist on the premises, or causes extensive and continuing physical injury to the premises". Instead, the landlord's proceedings would seemingly be premised on MCL 600.5714(1)(a) and MCL 554.134(1).

I think not paying for the cats qualifies as a violation of the lease.

Yes. Even if the lease does not define rent in a way that explicitly encompasses pet fees, it would be hard to defeat the landlord's argument that a pet fee meets the legal definition of rent (or the statutory definition lease). The Black's Law Dictionary defines rent as the "[c]onsideration paid for use or occupation of property", and having pets certainly qualifies as use of property.

That being said, the amount of $2,759 seems too high for just a down payment and the monthly pet fee. Additional details of your situation would shed light on whether or not the landlord is violating the provision in MCL 600.5714(1)(a) that "rent due does not include any accelerated indebtedness because of a breach of the lease under which the premises are held" (emphasis added).

They say "this is a courtesy letter" as if they're being kind by informing me of my impending state of homelessness.

I hear you. Calling it a "courtesy" is too inadequate to be considered part of the "good business practices".

  • 4
    I don't think one needs to be "really despicable" to vote to close a question pretty clearly in violation of the rules, specifically the rule against questions that ask for specific legal advice. OP's situation sounds very unpleasant, and OP needs useful help. But the problem is beyond what a site like this can really handle. – David Siegel Apr 19 at 15:42
  • 1
    @DavidSiegel The OP is doing anything he can to solve an obviously stressful situation while you take issue with him being "pretty clearly in violation of the rules [...] against questions that ask for specific legal advice". His question harms no one. And instead of OP reacting to his problem negatively, he seeks to solve it lawfully, whence the least a prudent person could do is refrain from hindering the OP's search for starting points with which to overcome the hardship in which he has been thrown. – Iñaki Viggers Apr 19 at 16:57
  • 3
    I am sorry for the OP's situation, which i agree is stressful, and seems to be unjust. I don't take issue with the OP, he or she is new to the site. But this site is really not able to give the kid of assistance the OP needs. And you as an experienced user here, should know that. You have convinced me that leavign this question open will only extend false hope to the OP, and waste everyone's time. I have voted to close accordingly. – David Siegel Apr 19 at 17:21
  • 1
    I'm not new to stackexchange (stackoverflow is just as bad if not worse) but thank you for defending my thread. I called their office two days ago asking for further information (reason for eviction, how the cost was calculated, etc) but haven't heard back from them, your citations are more than enough to instill confidence in me if shit hits the fan – SemperAmbroscus Apr 20 at 15:09
  • 1
    @SemperAmbroscus "stackoverflow is just as bad if not worse". Online anonymity comes with some of "bravery" and herd effect when it comes to censuring a user. The way things are, one can only acknowledge when at least someone comes forward and articulates his downvote. On the bright side, others adopt a more human approach, like the suggestions on michiganlegalhelp & Civil Relief Act, or RonBeyer's remark about judgment & itemized bill. Given landlord's delay of response and his choice of notice over a holiday weekend, you might also want to consider an argument of equitable tolling. – Iñaki Viggers Apr 20 at 20:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.