Domestic Violence Victim Evicted

[WildCat]

The story:

Kathy Cleaves-Milan called police to report that she was thevictim of domestic violence. She got help -- but she also got evicted.

A day after she told a judge that her live-in boyfriend had brandished a gun and promised to end both of their lives, the managers of her Elmhurst apartment complex served her with eviction papers for violating the terms of the lease, citing the criminal activity she had reported to police.

"I was punished for protecting myself and my daughter," Cleaves-Milan, 36, said.

..."As the safety of our residents is our top priority, we have a zero-tolerance policy for any criminal activity at our communities," Aimco spokeswoman Cindy Duffy said.

Cleaves-Milan said that when she returned home shortly afterward, a 10-day eviction notice signed by an Elm Creek official was taped to her door. She said she and her daughter moved out on Oct. 6, 2007. Duffy said last week that Cleaves-Milan could have stayed longer if she had chosen to fight the eviction. But ultimately, she said, the company's policy was clear: "If there is an arrest or a violation, all of the occupants on that lease are subject to eviction," she said.

"The basis for that eviction was the fact the violence had occurred," Duffy said.

Cleaves-Milan is suing over the eviction, using attorneys from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and the law firm of Reed Smith.

I sympathize with this woman, but doesn't the landlord also have responsibiities to the other tenants in the building? Her boyfriend threatened her with a gun, needless to say a bullet going through the ceiling, floor, or wall puts other tenants at risk. Why should they have to live in fear because of her choice for a boyfriend? I wouldn't want her in my building.

Thoughts?

 

[Cleon]

Why should she be punished for something her boyfriend did? By all means, kick his ass out, but it's not like she gave him permission to wave the gun around.

If Aimco has an ounce of sense (and, having rented from them in the past myself, that's iffy), they'll settle post-haste.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I can see this going for the landlord:

If the boyfriend is not on the lease, but is still living there, then the woman is violating the terms of her lease and is probably responsible for the behavior of the 'guest.'

If the boyfriend is on the lease, I'm not sure if they have grounds to kick 'em all out or just him.

 

[Alt+F4]

I can see this going for the landlord:

If the boyfriend is not on the lease, but is still living there, then the woman is violating the terms of her lease and is probably responsible for the behavior of the 'guest.'

If the boyfriend is on the lease, I'm not sure if they have grounds to kick 'em all out or just him.

You're right. Without actually reading the lease there is no way to see who (if anyone) is at fault here. Well I hope she at least broke up with him.

 

[WildCat]

Why should she be punished for something her boyfriend did? By all means, kick his ass out, but it's not like she gave him permission to wave the gun around.

But she did allow him to come around after she knew he was abusive:

In prior weeks, she said in court documents, he had twice thrown her against a wall of their apartment in anger. But she did not pursue charges.

Doesn't she have a responsibility to to report crimes in the building?

If Aimco has an ounce of sense (and, having rented from them in the past myself, that's iffy), they'll settle post-haste.

Couldn't Aimco be liable for damages if this guy hurt another tenant in the building, when they were aware of his violent temperament?

Also, she's renting a storage locker for his stuff? Is she still involved with him?

 

[Dancing David]

This is one of those contract situations that involves domestic violence.

The issue will be 'does the lease give the landlord the right to do this' and 'is the lease legal'. You can have all sort of things in a lease that will not stand up in a court of law, and you can have many things that will.

Another example of zero tolerance at work.

 

[Dancing David]

Also, she's renting a storage locker for his stuff? Is she still involved with him?

Irrelevant.

 

[drkitten]

Doesn't she have a responsibility to to report crimes in the building?

Not typically, no.

The only people who have a responsibility to report crimes are usually medical personnel (and sometimes teachers), and there are specific laws that dictate this.

Absent a specific law or a specific clause in the lease, no, she has no responsibility.

And given the consequences of when she did report a crime, it's not surprising that she didn't.

Couldn't Aimco be liable for damages if this guy hurt another tenant in the building, when they were aware of his violent temperament?

Depends on whether or not they (Aimco) took reasonable precautions.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Having once owned a few rental properties, I would bet a lot of money that:

1) The boyfriend was not on the lease

and

2) This was not the first time police had been called to her home (this one or previous ones)

and

3) This was not the first time the rent was late

I'm with the rental company on this one.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Ok, she might have exercised bad judgement in making this man her boyfriend in the first place...but when she finally smartens up and calls the cops on him, she gets punished for it?!??!?! She gets kicked out for doing the smart thing? You should make it easier for people to report crimes, not harder!

It's her fault he tried to kill her? How is she responsible for his behavior? He isn't her pet dog!

Kick him out, let her stay.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ok, she might have exercised bad judgement in making this man her boyfriend in the first place...but when she finally smartens up and calls the cops on him, she gets punished for it?!??!?! She gets kicked out for doing the smart thing? You should make it easier for people to report crimes, not harder!

It's her fault he tried to kill her? How is she responsible for his behavior? He isn't her pet dog!

Kick him out, let her stay.

That's why I added:

3) This was not the first time the rent was late

If she had been a model tenant up until that time, I suspect they would have waived the "no police" clause. Landlords and apartment managers will disregard a lot of violations if they get a tenant who always pays on time.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Yeah, it could have been "the straw that broke the camel's back". Or a total pretext.

They were already looking for a reason to evict her and she gave them one.

Still, it's not fair. Punish her for something that is her fault, not something that isn't.

 

[WildCat]

Not typically, no.

The only people who have a responsibility to report crimes are usually medical personnel (and sometimes teachers), and there are specific laws that dictate this.

Absent a specific law or a specific clause in the lease, no, she has no responsibility.

And given the consequences of when she did report a crime, it's not surprising that she didn't.





Depends on whether or not they (Aimco) took reasonable precautions.

I'm not saying she had a legal responsibility. Just that a responsible person would have reported the first assault and pressed charges.

The fact that she's bringing a person she knows to be violent into the building is enough reason as far as I'm concerned. The other tenants shouldn't have to put up with this.

 

[Cleon]

I'm not saying she had a legal responsibility. Just that a responsible person would have reported the first assault and pressed charges.

That reflects a rather simplistic view of the emotional and psychological aspects of abusive relationships.

 

[WildCat]

That reflects a rather simplistic view of the emotional and psychological aspects of abusive relationships.

Perhaps, but why do the other tenants have to be part of it?

 

[drkitten]

I'm not saying she had a legal responsibility. Just that a responsible person would have reported the first assault and pressed charges.

And I'm disagreeing.

Reporting an assault and pressing charges are time-consuming and troublesome. Even police are given discretion about whether or not to report crimes and/or to arrest the people responsible, and this discretion extends to felonies as well.

Add to that the fact that you demonstrably would have thrown her out as soon as she did report the first assault :

The fact that she's bringing a person she knows to be violent into the building is enough reason as far as I'm concerned.

... and I can certainly understand why she wouldn't have wanted to inconvenience herself just to provide the landlord with a pretext to evict her.

The irony, of course, is that your ill-conceived zero-tolerance policy is likely to result in more violent people entering the building, rather than less. Because people aren't going to be willing to jeopardize their housing situation by reporting minor incidents (like fistfights), no one's going to take action until the situation blows up into attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Cleon]

Perhaps, but why do the other tenants have to be part of it?

I have yet to see any evidence that they have been.

 

[Francesca R]

That reflects a rather simplistic view of the emotional and psychological aspects of abusive relationships.

Well if this case is argued on the basis of contractual liability there's no place for those considerations. Similarly if tort (duty of care) is invoked then it's no surprise that "defensive letting" becomes the MO, which is "Get that risk of litigation off my back". If the lessor was fully risk averse, they would have offered to compensate the tenant in addition to getting the other tenants free of the perceived danger her presence represents, but they won't be made of money. If the tenant kicks up a smelly enough public stink about it, they'll likely have to so so retrospectively.

Immanuel Kant would have something to say about the demise of civic virtue.

 

[WildCat]

And I'm disagreeing.

Reporting an assault and pressing charges are time-consuming and troublesome. Even police are given discretion about whether or not to report crimes and/or to arrest the people responsible, and this discretion extends to felonies as well.

She could have taken out an order of protection and pressed charges. It's less troublesome than getting thrown against a wall and threatened with a gun IMHO.

Add to that the fact that you demonstrably would have thrown her out as soon as she did report the first assault :

No, I was pointing out that she continued to bring him into the building after she knew he was violent. And even now, she's paying to have his stuff stored, wtf?

The irony, of course, is that your ill-conceived zero-tolerance policy is likely to result in more violent people entering the building, rather than less. Because people aren't going to be willing to jeopardize their housing situation by reporting minor incidents (like fistfights), no one's going to take action until the situation blows up into attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon.

I think the other tenants would let the landlord know what's going on. They tend to report things like that.

 

[drkitten]

I think the other tenants would let the landlord know what's going on. They tend to report things like that.

"Assumes facts not in evidence." As Cleon pointed out, there's no evidence that the other tenants were even aware of this situation, and there's certainly no evidence that they had brought the situation to the attention of management.

If management had been aware that she had a violent boyfriend who was endangering other residents, why did they wait until she had already taken effective measures to have him removed from the building on her own before they evicted her?