About my previous post concerning landlord evicting me for complaining about noise :

About my previous post concerning landlord evicting me for complaining about noise :

us8@nc.rr.com (us8)	4/12/2004 10:42:27 AM
I posted the original message. Below is an excerpt from N.C. Statutes. I think that a liberal interpretation of the paragraph below would allow the landlord's attempt to evict me for complaining about noise to be included in the "protection from retaliatory eviction" concept, below. But that's just my guess, and I am not an attorney. The landlord cannot evict a tenant in retaliation for certain protected actions. These protected actions include: (1) Complaints made to the landlord, his employee, or his agent about conditions or defects in the premises that the landlord is obligated to repair; (2) complaints to a government agency about a landlord's alleged violation of any health or safety laws; (3) attempts to exercise rights described in the lease in state or federal law; and (4) attempts to become involved with any tenants' rights groups. If the tenant has undertaken any of these actions in good faith and in the six months before the eviction proceeding, the tenant should bring this to the court's attention. (N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-36.1 to 36.3) regards, - Ed ( email : us8@nc.rr.com )



"Paul Cassel"	4/13/2004 1:51:49 PM
us8 wrote: I posted the original message. Below is an excerpt from N.C. Statutes. I think that a liberal interpretation of the paragraph below would allow the landlord's attempt to evict me for complaining about noise to be included in the "protection from retaliatory eviction" concept, below. But that's just my guess, and I am not an attorney. You need to get your mind around a concept here, Ed. You don't have a lease. You're not being evicted. All statutes relating to evictions are irrelevent here and forever until you do get a lease. The landlord is simply failing to create a new contract with you next month which would allow you to remain occupying the property for that one single month like you have allowing you to remain for this month. You have no right to continue to occupy the place after this month unless the landlord agrees to allow you to by making a new contract. You have no contract forcing him to do so. You have no lease after this month ends. You must leave. -paul ianal



cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green)	4/13/2004 1:52:06 PM
us8@nc.rr.com (us8) wrote in message news:<ngal70hccu5mjpfsmi0c6gtamgvpqom0ps@4ax.com>... I posted the original message. Below is an excerpt from N.C. Statutes. I think that a liberal interpretation of the paragraph below would allow the landlord's attempt to evict me for complaining about noise to be included in the "protection from retaliatory eviction" concept, below. But that's just my guess, and I am not an attorney. The landlord cannot evict a tenant in retaliation for certain protected actions. These protected actions include: (1) Complaints made to the landlord, his employee, or his agent about conditions or defects in the premises that the landlord is obligated to repair; (2) complaints to a government agency about a landlord's alleged violation of any health or safety laws; (3) attempts to exercise rights described in the lease in state or federal law; and (4) attempts to become involved with any tenants' rights groups. If the tenant has undertaken any of these actions in good faith and in the six months before the eviction proceeding, the tenant should bring this to the court's attention. (N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-36.1 to 36.3) I'm at a loss for just what liberal interpretation covers your situation. If this list is exhaustive, your complaint has to fit one of those four protected actions. Noise made by other tenants isn't a condition or defect in the premises that the landlord is obligated to repair. The landlord is obligated to repair what's needed to make the premises legally habitable, or to make the premises conform to the lease. You didn't complain to a government agency, and even if you had, your complaint doesn't allege that the landlord violated a health or safety law. You haven't indicated what right to an environment free from the noise of other tenants exists in your lease or in aplicable law. Note that the implied covenant of "quiet enjoyment" confusingly does not mean "quiet" as in "not noisy". You have mentioned anything about a tenant's rights group. So I'm not sure what interpretation supports your claim that your eviction was in retaliation for a protected action. -- Not a lawyer either, Chris Green



"Daniel R. Reitman"	4/14/2004 2:22:57 PM
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:51:49 -0400, "Paul Cassel" <paul1@abq.com> wrote: You need to get your mind around a concept here, Ed. You don't have a lease. You're not being evicted. All statutes relating to evictions are irrelevent here and forever until you do get a lease. . . . Perhaps, but it's quite clear that the statute cited was not quoted. What is the original language? (In Oregon, the antiretaliation statute covers refusal to renew a periodic tenancy.) Daniel Reitman



"Paul Cassel"	4/15/2004 8:27:02 AM
Daniel R. Reitman wrote: Perhaps, but it's quite clear that the statute cited was not quoted. What is the original language? (In Oregon, the antiretaliation statute covers refusal to renew a periodic tenancy.) Failure to renew = eviction is a new one on me. Thanks for posting this interesting tidbit. However it really then comes down to if NC is like OR in this case. Now I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the two states are quite far apart in this area. Note that the statute fragment posted by the OP specifically mentions 'lease' and does not mention renewal of leases. -paul

Report this post for offensive content