Discussion - No firearms allowed as part of your lease.

[Roadie]

Not a landlord, are ya?


Yes, I can.



No, it's not. It's a possessory interest. Nothing more. And only within those terms dictated by the property owner via the lease agreement. A contractual interest is not necessarily an ownership interest. Nor is it necessarily a possessory interest. Lenders have a contractual interest in a property and it is neither ownership (at least for Indiana ) nor possessory.

In any case, I can limit that possessory right as much or as little as I deem desirable. If someone doesn't like it, he can go live somewhere else. Have to keep the dog's poop cleaned up daily? You betcha. Have to provide one litter box for every cat? Yup. Want your water bed? No can do. LOL, my lease even stipulates a cleaning schedule. So there!

"My roof, my rules." Not just for parents anymore.

Uhm, no, you can't..

I'm not a landlord so I won't claim to know the law but I was under the impression that a landlord had to give reasonable notice unless there was some sort of emergency or the tenant had abandoned or surrendered the property.

You are correct..

IC 32-31-5-6
Landlord prohibited from interfering with access, possession, or essential services; unit entry by landlord
Sec. 6. (a) This section does not apply if the dwelling unit has been abandoned.
.
.


(g) A landlord:
(1) shall not abuse the right of entry or use a right of entry to harass a tenant;
(2) shall give a tenant reasonable written or oral notice of the landlord's intent to enter the dwelling unit; and
(3) may enter a tenant's dwelling unit only at reasonable times.

 

[Glock19]

A lease is a contract for both parties to sign, if you sign your rights away then thats you being dumb...

 

[downzero]

No, it's not. It's a possessory interest. Nothing more. And only within those terms dictated by the property owner via the lease agreement. A contractual interest is not necessarily an ownership interest. Nor is it necessarily a possessory interest. Lenders have a contractual interest in a property and it is neither ownership (at least for Indiana ) nor possessory.

In any case, I can limit that possessory right as much or as little as I deem desirable. If someone doesn't like it, he can go live somewhere else. Have to keep the dog's poop cleaned up daily? You betcha. Have to provide one litter box for every cat? Yup. Want your water bed? No can do. LOL, my lease even stipulates a cleaning schedule. So there!

Almost everything stated here is incorrect. There are a TON of restrictions as to what a lease can contain, some of which apply everywhere. Your lease can perhaps demand whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that a court will enforce your clause that if the tenant marries someone of another race, that he is automatically evicted. The fair housing laws even restrict the reasons for which you could reject certain tenants. Some even require that you accept a Section 8 voucher same as cash.

Lenders don't have any interest in your property unless you grant it to them (by consent) or they sue you and win a judgment. The former is not a "contractual" interest (the note itself is a contract, which you owe to them, but the mortgage is a consensual lien, which is a property interest). The distinction between the title and lien theories doesn't change the fact that you have conveyed an interest in your property to secure the loan.

Even if it was only a contractual interest, we the people get to decide what kinds of clauses we're going to enforce and which ones we're not. Those that are void as against public policy are meaningless. As I stated in an earlier post, Virginia has such a law regarding firearms. And if it weren't for people who thought that they could dictate every aspect of their tenants' existence through leases, perhaps those laws would be unnecessary. But I can tell from your attitude displayed here, suggesting that you "own" it while they merely "possess" what you allow them to possess indicates why the public has deemed it important to pass longer and more detailed statutes protecting tenants from this sort of crap.

 

[88GT]

Reasonable notice. Define it for me.

 

[88GT]

Almost everything stated here is incorrect. There are a TON of restrictions as to what a lease can contain, some of which apply everywhere. Your lease can perhaps demand whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that a court will enforce your clause that if the tenant marries someone of another race, that he is automatically evicted. The fair housing laws even restrict the reasons for which you could reject certain tenants. Some even require that you accept a Section 8 voucher same as cash.

It's not incorrect just because I don't qualify it with the obligatory "within the law."

Lenders don't have any interest in your property unless you grant it to them (by consent) or they sue you and win a judgment. The former is not a "contractual" interest (the note itself is a contract, which you owe to them, but the mortgage is a consensual lien, which is a property interest). The distinction between the title and lien theories doesn't change the fact that you have conveyed an interest in your property to secure the loan.

An interest created through a contract is not a contractual interest? The mortgage is, by definition, a contract, is it not? Two parties agreeing to terms with consideration.

if it was only a contractual interest, we the people get to decide what kinds of clauses we're going to enforce and which ones we're not. Those that are void as against public policy are meaningless. As I stated in an earlier post, Virginia has such a law regarding firearms. And if it weren't for people who thought that they could dictate every aspect of their tenants' existence through leases, perhaps those laws would be unnecessary. But I can tell from your attitude displayed here, suggesting that you "own" it while they merely "possess" what you allow them to possess indicates why the public has deemed it important to pass longer and more detailed statutes protecting tenants from this sort of crap.

It's not an attitude. It's a simple statement of fact. They have no legal claim to the property but the right to possess. If you think I'm wrong, provide the evidence. If you think my statement that their possessory right is subject to the terms of the lease is incorrect, provide the evidence. I can put whatever the hell I want in the lease. I am aware that some terms will be automatically void due to conflict with local, state, and federal laws. I am aware that some terms may be voidable. I am aware that some terms will be unenforceable. Doesn't mean I can't put them in the contract.

Where's the problem? It's a voluntary contract. If people don't want to be subject to the terms within it, they don't have to sign it. You're suggesting that because the terms are revolting to some, they should bring about the force of law to further limit the property owner's voice?

Serious question: how many units have you rented and for how long?

 

[downzero]

The mortgage is, by definition, a contract, is it not? Two parties agreeing to terms with consideration.

No. A mortgage is a consensual lien. The promissory note it secures is a contract. The mortgage itself is a lien, which is a property interest, not a contract.

The rights of tenants go beyond possession. Sit outside your tentants' window and play loud music all day and all night (without interfering with their possession) and see what happens. Fail to repair their leaky faucet or toilet for a few months and see how well that works for you. Refuse to rent to someone based on some prohibited factor, etc.

Your freedom ends where your fist ends and another person's nose begins. The law recognizes this. Landlords, as you would find out if you ever fought this, have very limited powers to interfere with the property rights possessed by tenants. Tenants who are paying their rent and not destroying the property have a pretty strong shield against you interfering with their property rights, even if not related to taking possession.

For the record, stating that your position is fact is not argument. It doesn't make you any more or less right that you think your position is a factual one.

Not all contracts, even those entered voluntarily, are enforceable. Sell yourself into slavery and let me know how that one works for you.

 

[beararms1776]

Honestly OP, I would ask the lady if her lease states if the tennant is responsible for their own protection of themselves and their personal belongings.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

....and it seems that I've missing meeting many of you at the bar association meetings.

For anyone who doubts my analysis of how the law would actually be applied, I would love to be proved wrong. Please direct me to an Indiana case that holds a "no firearms" provision in a lease invalid. If you can do that, I'll eat crow- not the first time.

Interesting how many people know your job better than you do, isn't it? I get people telling me how to solve their case all the time, they saw it on CSI. I often wonder if they walk to the front of the plane and tell the pilot how to land since they watched Top Gun several times.

 

[daddymikey1975]

Question.. Can I and another party, construe a contract that is in disagreement with Indiana law ? would the contract be legal ? would the contract be enforceable ? (all serious questions, not sarcastic)

serious question...

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without being licensed; exceptions; person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun.

If I am licensed to carry a handgun, deoes section (b), (c), and section 2 apply ? (again, serious question)

Further.. for the landlords out there:

IC 32-31-8-4
Effect of waiver of statute
Sec. 4. A waiver of the application of this chapter by a landlord or tenant, by contract or otherwise, is void.

 

[beararms1776]

Interesting how many people know your job better than you do, isn't it? I get people telling me how to solve their case all the time, they saw it on CSI. I often wonder if they walk to the front of the plane and tell the pilot how to land since they watched Top Gun several times.

Those pilots didn't fly that, somebody stood by and told them how to.

 

[Llamaguy]

Question.. Can I and another party, construe a contract that is in disagreement with Indiana law ? would the contract be legal ? would the contract be enforceable ? (all serious questions, not sarcastic)

A contract that would violate the law is void and uniforcible.

 

[HoughMade]

It is not against the law to NOT own guns, so a contract where you agree to not own a gun is not an illegal contract.

A contract to do something illegal (illicit drug trade, prostitution, murder for hire) is void. There is no law in Indiana that a person must own a firearm. Agreeing, by contract, to forego a right is not the same as contracting to violate a law.

 

[daddymikey1975]

It is not against the law to NOT own guns, so a contract where you agree to not own a gun is not an illegal contract.

A contract to do something illegal (illicit drug trade, prostitution, murder for hire) is void. There is no law in Indiana that a person must own a firearm. Agreeing, by contract, to forego a right is not the same as contracting to violate a law.

So we get into semantics..

While I certainly don't disagree with your explanation, allow me to expand a bit.

IC says I may own, possess, and CARRY with an LTCH.. by prohibiting firearms, doesn't this violate that portion of IC (not getting into property owner's rights, vs carrying).. Specifically, who controls the property when a lease is executed. The person living in the house that's on a piece of land ? In a trailer park, assume you're paying rent for the piece of land your trailer is sitting on, and for the trailer.. No different than house + land is it? When I execute a lease, have keys in hand and pay the utility bills, do I not control the property ?

(1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person

What I was reaching for specifically, is whether IC 35-47-2-1 section (b), (c), and 2 apply as 'law' if one is licensed. By agreeing to the lease (which prohibits firearms) and I have my LTCH, wouldn't that portion of the lease be void since, according to IC, I am legal ? (or am I reaching a little too far)

I personally would never sign a lease that was not agreeable without modifications. If modification was not agreeable, I would move on.