Religious Freedom and Liberty: A Trojan Horse?

[Revoltingest]

No, I certainly would not lump all landlords together, but the extra risks you talk of are justified.

I understand as a businessman you would love to lower risk and increase return. Would that we can all do such. But our personal interest of lowering risk and increasing investment is trumped by national and state concerns of health and safety, and also balanced against tenants rights. I am not going to pretend that even if you crossed you "t"s and dotted your......lower case "j"s that everything will be hunky-dorey. There is risk in business. And when one decides to take on a business they also take on that risk. You think you got it bad, try starting an insurance, oil, or tobacco company. I don't know that there is a more vilified group in civil law. Bottom line the liability comes with the territory. It is absolutely necessary to have this liability, we have seen what happens without it. And, if you did go up against a tenant and lose, it is possible that you were in the right, however, it is also possible you screwed up.

Not all of this liability is useful to society. The ability to extort settlements by filing frivolous suits with impunity costs everyone. In my experience, suits for $1,000,000 (a really common amount) cost tens of thousands in legal fees before being settled for a few hundred dollars. (Personally, I never settle a frivolous suit if I'm on the hook. But I have when my client is footing the bill.)

 

[Curious George]

Not all of this liability is useful to society. The ability to extort settlements by filing frivolous suits with impunity costs everyone. In my experience, suits for $1,000,000 (a really common amount) cost tens of thousands in legal fees before being settled for a few hundred dollars. (Personally, I never settle a frivolous suit if I'm on the hook. But I have when my client is footing the bill.)

Snuggies aren't useful to society either (I know, how dare I). But what is useful are regulations which allow for remedy when little folk are forced to live in squalor, so bigger folk can get better returns and be lazy. And while it isn't every landlord that does this, there are enough that all of our health and safety is affected. However, I could understand allowing for more sanctions, but certainly not a loser pays all system. The poor do not need further impediment to the legal system, lest some have their way and wipe with our constitution.

Isn't government supposed to protect the people? This is one of the cases. And while it is unfortunate that this decreases the amount landlords can profit, rest assured plenty who are smart still make bundles in property management and renting property. Perhaps the game isn't for everyone?

That it is cheaper to settle than fight (even when one is right) is a good life lesson. Though I have yet to master that one, I certainly won't complain about it. We must make business decisions based on our environment. We must structure our environment so that basic rights such as health and safety take precedence over profit of individuals. We must also structure our environment such that the constitution is upheld.

Can this lead to waste? In some instances. But I would rather spill a few drops of money to ensure everyone gets a drink of freedom, than I would save a few people coins at the expense of the underlying principles of our country.

 

[Thief]

Religious freedom needs to simply mean the freedom to restrict YOURSELF further than law requires in accordance with your closely held belief(s). It need not give you power to restrict anyone else, and you should never be validated in presuming the privilege to restrict other people in order to massage your own religious ego. That means that if Hobby Lobby feels it can't allow its employees to make their own choices regarding their own health care, then it shouldn't be allowed to exist. It's that whole personal responsibility thing again.

I almost agree....up to the point of what is allowed to exist.

True to say we must stand aside and allow the next person their right to choice.
The employer should refrain intrusion.

but to shut down a business for intrusion ......would be intrusion of law over the business owner.

But again.....maybe the owner will shut down anyway.
I worked for one employer that hated unions.

The business failed.....one piece at a time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Snuggies aren't useful to society either (I know, how dare I). But what is useful are regulations which allow for remedy when little folk are forced to live in squalor, so bigger folk can get better returns and be lazy. And while it isn't every landlord that does this, there are enough that all of our health and safety is affected. However, I could understand allowing for more sanctions, but certainly not a loser pays all system. The poor do not need further impediment to the legal system, lest some have their way and wipe with our constitution.

Isn't government supposed to protect the people? This is one of the cases. And while it is unfortunate that this decreases the amount landlords can profit, rest assured plenty who are smart still make bundles in property management and renting property. Perhaps the game isn't for everyone?

That it is cheaper to settle than fight (even when one is right) is a good life lesson. Though I have yet to master that one, I certainly won't complain about it. We must make business decisions based on our environment. We must structure our environment so that basic rights such as health and safety take precedence over profit of individuals. We must also structure our environment such that the constitution is upheld.

Can this lead to waste? In some instances. But I would rather spill a few drops of money to ensure everyone gets a drink of freedom, than I would save a few people coins at the expense of the underlying principles of our country.

"Snuggies"?

Anyway.....
- Settling a suit isn't cheaper than fighting if it sends a message that one is an easy mark for "suers". In the long run, that's costly.
- If it isn't a loser pay system, then, it's ripe for extortion. Many people mistakenly see this as a win for the poor, but it's a system which can also be used against them.
- Landlords' profit is (on average) a function of the expected rate of return. So all costs (on average), including defense against frivolous suits are passed on to tenants.
- The freedom to file a frivolous suit might seem like a great idea....until one is subject to one. Then that $100K or $200K for your attorney's boat payments feels different.

 

[Marisa]

I almost agree....up to the point of what is allowed to exist.

True to say we must stand aside and allow the next person their right to choice.
The employer should refrain intrusion.

but to shut down a business for intrusion ......would be intrusion of law over the business owner.

But again.....maybe the owner will shut down anyway.
I worked for one employer that hated unions.

The business failed.....one piece at a time.

No I cannot agree. If a business cannot be bothered to follow law they should be fined out of existence.

 

[Thief]

"Snuggies"?

Anyway.....
- Settling a suit isn't cheaper than fighting if it sends a message that one is an easy mark for "suers". In the long run, that's costly.
- If it isn't a loser pay system, then, it's ripe for extortion. Many people mistakenly see this as a win for the poor, but it's a system which can also be used against them.
- Landlords' profit is (on average) a function of the expected rate of return. So all costs (on average), including defense against frivolous suits are passed on to tenants.
- The freedom to file a frivolous suit might seem like a great idea....until one is subject to one. Then that $100K or $200K for your attorney's boat payments feels different.

I agree to he financial portion of your retort....the money counts.

I worry more the backwash of some of these stupid suits.
One man wins the right to continue his nay saying....and all the others come out of their closets.
Then one by one the employers say to hell with it.....and shut down.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree to he financial portion of your retort....the money counts.

I worry more the backwash of some of these stupid suits.
One man wins the right to continue his nay saying....and all the others come out of their closets.
Then one by one the employers say to hell with it.....and shut down.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Thief]

No I cannot agree. If a business cannot be bothered to follow law they should be fined out of existence.

If that law is already in place ...that will happen.

but if it isn't already decided.....law suit.....and the cost will bankrupt the company...
Then we all get to go home.

 

[Curious George]

"Snuggies"?

Anyway.....
- Settling a suit isn't cheaper than fighting if it sends a message that one is an easy mark for "suers". In the long run, that's costly.
- If it isn't a loser pay system, then, it's ripe for extortion. Many people mistakenly see this as a win for the poor, but it's a system which can also be used against them.
- Landlords' profit is (on average) a function of the expected rate of return. So all costs (on average), including defense against frivolous suits are passed on to tenants.
- The freedom to file a frivolous suit might seem like a great idea....until one is subject to one. Then that $100K or $200K for your attorney's boat payments feels different.

Suggies the backwards bath robe. How can you not know....at least I think that's what they are called.

Your first point is just another cost benefit analysis, sometimes it is cheaper to settle, sometimes it is not.

Certainly the system is used against the poor. Farms have been lost to lawsuits filed and drug out by corporations...this is true.

But, if the suit is frivolous then it is a filer of frivolity pays system. That attorney fees and court costs are rarely awarded however could indeed be changed. But this doesn't mean that we should have a loser pays system. If one has a legitimate gripe but happens to lose, then forcing the other sides legal fees is too big of a deterrent to justice. Yeah, our system as it is now is not perfect, but what you are talking about would not work out as you are intending. A person with enough money could bury a lawyer of the other side because they can buy not only the best, but a team of the best. The only suits that would go through would be slam dunk cases... This is not good.

 

[Revoltingest]

Suggies the backwards bath robe. How can you not know....at least I think that's what they are called.

Your first point is just another cost benefit analysis, sometimes it is cheaper to settle, sometimes it is not.

Certainly the system is used against the poor. Farms have been lost to lawsuits filed and drug out by corporations...this is true.

But, if the suit is frivolous then it is a filer of frivolity pays system. That attorney fees and court costs are rarely awarded however could indeed be changed. But this doesn't mean that we should have a loser pays system. If one has a legitimate gripe but happens to lose, then forcing the other sides legal fees is too big of a deterrent to justice. Yeah, our system as it is now is not perfect, but what you are talking about would not work out as you are intending. A person with enough money could bury a lawyer of the other side because they can buy not only the best, but a team of the best. The only suits that would go through would be slam dunk cases... This is not good.

A loser pay system would get rid of 94.7% of all law suits.
That would be an enormous savings to everyone.
And then there's fairness.
If you sue someone, & you lose the suit but cause them great expense, then you should pay for the loss you did to them.

The person filing the suit typically has lower costs (or no costs) than the defendant.
(Courts will even waive filing & jury fees for professional suers, who don't hold real jobs.)
Plaintiffs risk nothing, so one needn't be careful or diligent.
One only needs the appearance of something plausible in order to fabricate a suit.
And the court cuts attorneys pro se much slack in their filings.
The defense endures all the risk, & therefore spends more money on the suit.

 

[Curious George]

A loser pay system would get rid of 94.7% of all law suits.
That would be an enormous savings to everyone.
And then there's fairness.
If you sue someone, & you lose the suit but cause them great expense, then you should pay for the loss you did to them.

The person filing the suit typically has lower costs (or no costs) than the defendant.
(Courts will even waive filing & jury fees for professional suers, who don't hold real jobs.)
Plaintiffs risk nothing, so one needn't be careful or diligent.
One only needs the appearance of something plausible in order to fabricate a suit.
And the court cuts attorneys pro se much slack in their filings.
The defense endures all the risk, & therefore spends more money on the suit.

I think you are mistaken.

It doesn't cost to reply, it does cost to file. What one needs is dependent on the state, but for federal see twombly; see also iqbal.

So if one meets requisites, yes they may file. But, with a little legal knowledge, preparation, prevention, and advice I spoke of in my first post, you should have no worries, or at least very few, on this road you have taken to solla salloo.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you are mistaken.

Of course you do!
You wouldn't be arguing with me if you agreed.

It doesn't cost to reply, it does cost to file. What one needs is dependent on the state, but for federal see twombly; see also iqbal.
So if one meets requisites, yes they may file. But, with a little legal knowledge, preparation, prevention, and advice I spoke of in my first post, you should have no worries, or at least very few, on this road you have taken to solla salloo.

It costs to hire a law firm to handle the defense, which includes filings.
You can advise having no worries, but the cost is there nonetheless.
Juries are unpredictable, so a sound defense is always necessary.
Ask any good lawyer....even a slam dunk win should not be taken for granted.
I've been there & done that.....in fact, I'm still involved in one since 2013. (Trial is in 2016.)

 

[Curious George]

Of course you do!
You wouldn't be arguing with me if you agreed.

It costs to hire a law firm to handle the defense, which includes filings.
You can advise having no worries, but the cost is there nonetheless.
Juries are unpredictable, so a sound defense is always necessary.
Ask any good lawyer....even a slam dunk win should not be taken for granted.
I've been there & done that.....in fact, I'm still involved in one since 2013. (Trial is in 2016.)

Ahh, I never said one should take anything for granted, but a little prevention goes a long way. Moreover, certain costs can be predicted and accounted for ahead of time. Ask any good lawyer....talking to lawyers ahead of time will save you a lot of trouble later. People to often only seek legal help when they are in trouble or someone has already filed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ahh, I never said one should take anything for granted, but a little prevention goes a long way.

We agreed on that several posts ago.

Moreover, certain costs can be predicted and accounted for ahead of time.

But some costs are less predictable.
One can operate for years in between the really spendy suits.

Ask any good lawyer....talking to lawyers ahead of time will save you a lot of trouble later.

Again, we've agreed upon this several posts ago.
Just as I do tax planning with my CPA, I do legal planning with my attorneys.

People to often only seek legal help when they are in trouble or someone has already filed.

And for many people, this is good enuf.

 

[Curious George]

We agreed on that several posts ago.

But some costs are less predictable.
One can operate for years in between the really spendy suits.

Again, we've agreed upon this several posts ago.
Just as I do tax planning with my CPA, I do legal planning with my attorneys.

And for many people, this is good enuf.

We seem to agree on a lot...
1.Some tenants are dirtbags
2. Some landlords are dirtbags
3. Talking to lawyers ahead of time reduces risk of lawsuits.
4. Planning ahead of time can help cover costs of lawsuits.
5. Slam dunk cases are not guaranteed.
6. Loser pays tax system will reduce court cases
So, what is better deterring even slam dunk cases for fear of financial burdens beyond control and thereby further prohibiting poor from access to courts, increasing the number of slum lords, increasing damage to public health, decreasing public safety, reducing financial waste in the court system and increasing the wallets of investors, or having a healthier safer communities, respecting property rights of tenants, and having a less than perfect but accessible court system... I choose the latter.

 

[Revoltingest]

We seem to agree on a lot...
1.Some tenants are dirtbags
2. Some landlords are dirtbags
3. Talking to lawyers ahead of time reduces risk of lawsuits.
4. Planning ahead of time can help cover costs of lawsuits.
5. Slam dunk cases are not guaranteed.
6. Loser pays tax system will reduce court cases

I wouldn't integrate a loser pay tort system with taxation.
That would be unnecessary & problematic.

So, what is better deterring even slam dunk cases for fear of financial burdens beyond control and thereby further prohibiting poor from access to courts, increasing the number of slum lords, increasing damage to public health, decreasing public safety, reducing financial waste in the court system and increasing the wallets of investors, or having a healthier safer communities, respecting property rights of tenants, and having a less than perfect but accessible court system... I choose the latter.

Poor people with poor cases should be discouraged from suing people.
Poor people with good cases would retain their ability to sue & win.
Non-landlords seldom know that housing conditions aren't affected nearly as much by tenant suits as by economics & government regulation.
Take Detroit....please!
Rental housing doesn't meet high standards for the simple reason that much of the housing stock would disappear if it met the housing code in my town.
City managers understand that economics imposes limits on regulation.
Now, take Ann Arbor.....
Housing standards will at least meet code because of regulation.
But most units are much better because that's more profitable.
Tenant (as plaintiff) suits are generally about other matters, eg, security deposit dispute, fair housing.

 

[Curious George]

I wouldn't integrate a loser pay tort system with taxation.
That would be unnecessary & problematic.

Poor people with poor cases should be discouraged from suing people.
Poor people with good cases would retain their ability to sue & win..

Not true ask any good lawyer, even slam dunk cases aren't guaranteed.

Lol

 

[Curious George]

I wouldn't integrate a loser pay tort system with taxation.
That would be unnecessary & problematic.

Poor people with poor cases should be discouraged from suing people.
Poor people with good cases would retain their ability to sue & win.
Non-landlords seldom know that housing conditions aren't affected nearly as much by tenant suits as by economics & government regulation.
Take Detroit....please!
Rental housing doesn't meet high standards for the simple reason that much of the housing stock would disappear if it met the housing code in my town.
City managers understand that economics imposes limits on regulation.
Now, take Ann Arbor.....
Housing standards will at least meet code because of regulation.
But most units are much better because that's more profitable.
Tenant (as plaintiff) suits are generally about other matters, eg, security deposit dispute, fair housing.

If one cannot economically afford to meet the minimum standards, then one should not be a landlord. If landlords didn't try to make a buck the housing would be cheaper. This is supply and demand, there is plenty of supply to meet demand. While regulations regarding land use may affect housing, I thought we were discussing landlord tenant property law here. The minimum standards for housing are not exactly high. That one cannot meet those standards is ridiculous.

Yes the majority of housing disputes are evictions. Many of these evictions take place while landlords trample over tenants rights. But even so, the majority of these cases probably include lawful evictions wherein the landlord must jump through hoops in order to properly evict someone.

Tenants can be a pain, the bureaucratic process is a pain. And the knowing that some tenants go a make complaints to literally anyone, and every agency they can is extremely frustrating. But these laws are necessary. Though it may not feel like it, landlords have the advantage and if these laws and hoops were not on place, tenants rights would be trampled.

Fair housing laws can be confusing. They can regulate everything including how and where one advertises. But again these are necessary. Most landlords are not bigots, that set out to discriminate. But discrimination rears its head in all sorts of ways. "If all the Asians lived in the same unit I would have less complaining about food smells." This complex isn't built for kids. I don't want to rent an upstairs unit to a family they will be running around and making too much noise. When I said no pets I meant no pets, I am not going to rent to this guy with a service animal"
"She is a nice old lady, and I have a bunch of college kids living here right now, I am doing her a favor by accepting someone else.

But then there is overt discrimination: " I don't want to rent to Mexicans cause you end up with 10 people living in a two bedroom"
"I don't want to rent to gays cause no one wants to hear or see that."

Hmm, who is going to be a better tenant the white guy, in a suit, or the black guy in a track suit.

"Last name Johnson first name DeAngelo?well he is not getting a call back."

"******* (fill in the blank)"

"Young, black or Mexican, and a nice car- he sells drugs for sure."

"Indian? Probably a drunk. Can't he get a place on the reservation? You may get better fishing rights, but your not getting an apartment today."

"Oh, white guy coming in trying to rent? he can get a place anywhere but other places won't rent to a person of color because everywhere else discriminates, well it looks like it is time Mr. Whiteman got a little taste of his own medicine"

I know, not all landlords think like this, but enough still do. So yeah, all those laws are there for good reason.

And well, it is stupid to try to get one's security deposit back. If your landlord takes it, even unjustly, there is enough excuses they can make that a tenant won't be able to do much.

Excepting the case of "standard cleaning fees" But if we are fighting over such a small amount it is really not wise for anyone to higher an attorney or ramp up costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not true ask any good lawyer, even slam dunk cases aren't guaranteed.
Lol

Lack of a guarantee of winning doesn't remove the right to sue.
And anyone who wants to sue someone should face some cost & risk for the damage they cause to innocent parties.
Even the poor should be held responsible for their actions.

 

[Revoltingest]

If one cannot economically afford to meet the minimum standards, then one should not be a landlord.

Well, duh!

If landlords didn't try to make a buck the housing would be cheaper.

If landlords didn't try to make a buck by landlording, then they'd just do something else to make a living.
You'd discover that under your premise, there'd be very little rental housing.
Housing would also be cheaper if my workers didn't try to make a buck.
Why is it that no one wants to work for free?
Would you advocate making things cheaper by eliminating profit in automotive, computer, phone, food & other industries?
Profit is the reason we do things.
Without it, I'd just lounge around until the capital runs out, & then go on the dole.

This is supply and demand, there is plenty of supply to meet demand. While regulations regarding land use may affect housing, I thought we were discussing landlord tenant property law here. The minimum standards for housing are not exactly high. That one cannot meet those standards is ridiculous.

The economics of Detroit are ridiculous. To impose an Ann Arbor style housing code there would make as much sense as imposing one in Calcutta. Many cannot afford what it costs to provide such housing, so they'd have no housing at all.

Yes the majority of housing disputes are evictions.

That's not my experience.

Many of these evictions take place while landlords trample over tenants rights.

Really? What have you personally seen in court?

But even so, the majority of these cases probably include lawful evictions wherein the landlord must jump through hoops in order to properly evict someone.

Evictions are quite time consuming. The tenant can live there for free, sell the appliances & plumbing, & life the life of Riley in the many months or year it takes to get rid of them. But these costs are (in the long run) passed on to the paying tenants. It's just like embezzlement, shoplifting & vandalism....the consumer always eventually pays. But does the predictability of these business losses justify such actions to you?

Tenants can be a pain, the bureaucratic process is a pain. And the knowing that some tenants go a make complaints to literally anyone, and every agency they can is extremely frustrating. But these laws are necessary. Though it may not feel like it, landlords have the advantage and if these laws and hoops were not on place, tenants rights would be trampled.

The laws needn't be dysfunctional in design & execution.
Or do you argue that they should be?

Fair housing laws can be confusing. They can regulate everything including how and where one advertises. But again these are necessary. Most landlords are not bigots, that set out to discriminate. But discrimination rears its head in all sorts of ways. "If all the Asians lived in the same unit I would have less complaining about food smells." This complex isn't built for kids. I don't want to rent an upstairs unit to a family they will be running around and making too much noise. When I said no pets I meant no pets, I am not going to rent to this guy with a service animal"
"She is a nice old lady, and I have a bunch of college kids living here right now, I am doing her a favor by accepting someone else.
But then there is overt discrimination: " I don't want to rent to Mexicans cause you end up with 10 people living in a two bedroom"
"I don't want to rent to gays cause no one wants to hear or see that."
Hmm, who is going to be a better tenant the white guy, in a suit, or the black guy in a track suit.
"Last name Johnson first name DeAngelo?well he is not getting a call back."
"******* (fill in the blank)"
"Young, black or Mexican, and a nice car- he sells drugs for sure."
"Indian? Probably a drunk. Can't he get a place on the reservation? You may get better fishing rights, but your not getting an apartment today."
"Oh, white guy coming in trying to rent? he can get a place anywhere but other places won't rent to a person of color because everywhere else discriminates, well it looks like it is time Mr. Whiteman got a little taste of his own medicine"
I know, not all landlords think like this, but enough still do. So yeah, all those laws are there for good reason.

In my experience, bigotry is a problem with the tenants.
Having my staff called "******" & "*****", & otherwise abused for their perceived religion was a problem.
I trained my staff in fair housing laws, so they knew they couldn't respond in kind.
I even had tenants threaten arson, beatings, & murder. The cops don't care about such things.
(In one case, the tenant was a cop making the threats & insults.)

Hey, quiz time about these laws which you say are so necessary.....
What do you do when the state prevents discrimination of the basis of family status,
but local zoning laws base occupancy levels upon family status?

And well, it is stupid to try to get one's security deposit back. If your landlord takes it, even unjustly, there is enough excuses they can make that a tenant won't be able to do much.

You really don't know what our courts & laws are like here, do you?
To keep a security deposit for anything other than unpaid rent, we must sue to keep it.....always.

Excepting the case of "standard cleaning fees" But if we are fighting over such a small amount it is really not wise for anyone to higher an attorney or ramp up costs.

The only way a cleaning fee can be withheld here is if it's a fixed amount which is called "rent" in the lease.
In this case, the tenant agreed to it in writing.
Under MI law, the tenant can leave a unit as dirty as they want, & they sometimes cause $1000+ cleaning bills.
The cleaning fee is often far less than the actual cost. But this difference is subsidized (on average, & in the long run) by tenants who aren't destructive slobs.
Because of this, I prefer having tenants who renew, thereby postponing the cleaning fee & the cleaning.

When people tell me some bad is OK because it's just the cost of doing business, it reminds me of Cosmo Kramer.....