Re: constructive eviction

More | Report Post

NO

It's truly amazing what the tenants can claim and do to a
property and the owner, I said this once and I say it again,
the Landlord who is consider a rich mean man, hands their
property valued 100K of thousands of dollars to total
strangers for a few hundred dollars a month, not knowing that
the tenants most of the time, do the damages themselves to the
rental property to get away with NOT paying rent, or calling
their own handyman licensed or not and deducting from the
rent, blaming all to the Landlord

Next thing these people are going to claim is that they have
roaches, mice, electric wires hunging down and the roof leaks
correct?

I love it when the Judges say to the Plaintiff that is bring
charges against their landlord, did you rent the property with
roaches, mice and the dangerous electric wires?

Of course not, that should be the answer from the dishonest
tenants.

Yikes a dog in a rental property, will destroy the property,
carpet, stink the property...YIKES! poor landlord !

*Other problems with the landlord include:
Plumbing problems were not dealt with in a timely fashion
and #1 brought equipment and supplies to try to repair
problem himself. When the plumber finally was called in,
it was apparent the problem had occurred before. The
property is not maintained in a suitable fashion for
Midwestern winters. The windows have visible gaps that
allow valuable heat to escape and there is a breeze so
strong, that a candle cannot not stay lit. This house is
heated with expensive propane. The landlord said they
would “work something out” with regard to the expensive
heating costs, but have not done so. #1 provided supplies
and labor to put plastic over all windows to seal them as
best he could. Do you think #1 can claim constructive
eviction in Illinois? *

THE ABOVE IS TRULY SHOCKING!

Can # 1 tenant claim Constructive Eviction in Illinois* NO not
whithout a legal paper from the COURT, after Summons and
Complaint!

JOHN

On 1/14/06, Curnudgeon wrote:
> No
>
> On 1/14/06, Sue wrote:
>> My son (Lessee #1), signed a lease with a friend (lessee
>> #2) with the understanding that when another friend
>> (lessee #3) completed Boot Kamp in 2 months, he would join
>> them on the lease. The landlord was in compliance with
>> this agreement. Lessee #1 & #2 agreed to split costs in
>> half until lessee #3 moved in and then a new lease would
>> be signed and costs would be split in thirds. After lease
>> was signed by #1 & #2, the landlord made a verbal
>> exception to the NO PETS clause for #2 with the
>> understanding the dog was housebroken. The dog is not
>> housebroken. #2 is irresponsible pet owner by not taking
>> the dog outside in a timely manner, he does nothing to
>> clean up messes the dog makes in the house, leaves food on
>> floor for dog to get into which causes diarrhea, he owns
>> no vacuum cleaner to clean up after this long-haired
>> shedding animal. When #3 returned to town, #2 had his
>> bedroom filled with boxes and there were doggy piles
>> throughout. #2 did not respond to several request to get
>> his stuff out of #3’s room and clean it up. As a direct
>> result, #3 did not sign the lease, nor did he move in.
>> The landlord has been advised by #1 that the dog is not
>> housebroken, but landlord did not request the dog be
>> evicted. Other problems with the landlord include:
>> Plumbing problems were not dealt with in a timely fashion
>> and #1 brought equipment and supplies to try to repair
>> problem himself. When the plumber finally was called in,
>> it was apparent the problem had occurred before. The
>> property is not maintained in a suitable fashion for
>> Midwestern winters. The windows have visible gaps that
>> allow valuable heat to escape and there is a breeze so
>> strong, that a candle cannot not stay lit. This house is
>> heated with expensive propane. The landlord said they
>> would “work something out” with regard to the expensive
>> heating costs, but have not done so. #1 provided supplies
>> and labor to put plastic over all windows to seal them as
>> best he could. Do you think #1 can claim constructive
>> eviction in Illinois?