WEIRD "TENANT" LANGUAGE IN S 1196 WILL BRING RELIEF -- BUT ONLY TO ATTORNEY'S BILLING HOURS
Opinion By Jan Bergemann
Published May 7, 2010
I would really love to know exactly who authored the language for the provision in S 1196 that supposedly enables associations (Condos, Co-Ops and HOAs) to collect rent from tenants who live in homes/units of owners who are delinquent in paying "monetary obligations." That wording alone is already a joke in itself. Meaning the owner hasn't paid a fine levied by the association, the association can demand payment from the renter?
my opinion there can be only three reasons for anybody to add such
convoluted language to a bill that is supposedly bringing relief to
associations in financial distress.
2.) The author felt sorry for attorneys and tried to make sure that the language creates a lot of billing hours for his/her colleagues.
3.) The author wanted to torpedo the whole attempt from the start and created language that will most likely enable a first-year law student to challenge this law.
Even a blind drunk first-year law student could draft better language than that!
Take a look yourself. You don't have to have an Esq. behind your name to figure out the problems of this vague wording contained in SENATE BILL S 1196:
don't forget, all this is based on CONTRACT LAW. Ever thought about
the fact that there is no contract between tenant and association, just
between tenant and homeowner or unit owner?
Collecting any monetary obligations and even evicting a tenant, initiated by a third party that has no contract with the tenant?
The language is so vague and complicated that association boards definitely need the services of an attorney to attempt the enforcement of this clause, if it becomes law.
We have many attorneys among our legislators, claiming to be really "qualified" to create laws due to their legal background. Do they ever read these bills before voting them into law?
Have you ever tried to figure out who will pay the legal fees charged by the association attorney to enforce these provisions? There is nothing in any law that will enable associations to recover these legal fees. Or do you think the banks will pay for it once the foreclosure is signed and sealed by the court?
you ever considered that we have a renterís market in
there may be some renters intimidated enough to just pay to the association,
but that's not a sure thing. The attempt to enforce these provisions can get
very costly -- and can quickly eat up the money collected from easily
"RELIEF" for associations/owners? I seriously doubt it,
considering the complicated language. But one thing is sure:
IT WILL BE VERY PROFITABLE FOR ATTORNEYS!
Was that the whole idea behind the bill?
READ AS WELL: