10-07-2016, 11:46 AM
IF references WERE checked, it is NOT heresay!
The tenant most likely would KNOW the references & have their word also, putting the landowner in a VERY expensive place if she does NOT FOLLOW THE CODE....
Advocating the use of force in this issue would be very un-wise, as this would further the case of the "aggrieved" (the tenant)
I know everyone here is thinking this is totally unfair & BS to have to do, but that is what it is...
Punatic, actually NOT having a written agreement is very common in landlord tenant interactions.... if you know of anyone who has staid in their rental longer than the lease, they are in a verbal tenancy (i.e.. the day after the lease expires, there is no longer a legal WRITTEN contract, & the code looks at that as a verbal month to month... which is how they look at ANY arrangement where someone is living in a place owned by another... unless there is something WRITTEN to state otherwise....ETA:I have supplied the code... read it if you think you can find another way! )
I really know most everyone thinking about this thinks what I am writing is total BS.... but having dealt with this for decades, I can only advise someone in this scenario to follow the code (or trying to `buy-out` the tenant), bringing in force will only make matter much worse
ETA2: some of you may wonder just how much this COULD end up costing, esp. if the tenant is really POed...
1. In a work-lease AGREEMENT, the landowner is required to report the value of the work as income (just like receiving cash rent) + GET, & possibly TAT
2. if the work agreement involves work that is not classified as `independent contractor type work`, in Hawaii the landowner could also have to comply with Hawaii work rules (this is not in stone, but has been enforced in Hawaii & other states....if it involves 20 or more hours per week, I think many here can see some real $$ starting to add up)
3. all of the code requirements, which are up to 2 months rent money (even though this was a work trade) and attorney fees
The tenant most likely would KNOW the references & have their word also, putting the landowner in a VERY expensive place if she does NOT FOLLOW THE CODE....
Advocating the use of force in this issue would be very un-wise, as this would further the case of the "aggrieved" (the tenant)
I know everyone here is thinking this is totally unfair & BS to have to do, but that is what it is...
Punatic, actually NOT having a written agreement is very common in landlord tenant interactions.... if you know of anyone who has staid in their rental longer than the lease, they are in a verbal tenancy (i.e.. the day after the lease expires, there is no longer a legal WRITTEN contract, & the code looks at that as a verbal month to month... which is how they look at ANY arrangement where someone is living in a place owned by another... unless there is something WRITTEN to state otherwise....ETA:I have supplied the code... read it if you think you can find another way! )
I really know most everyone thinking about this thinks what I am writing is total BS.... but having dealt with this for decades, I can only advise someone in this scenario to follow the code (or trying to `buy-out` the tenant), bringing in force will only make matter much worse
ETA2: some of you may wonder just how much this COULD end up costing, esp. if the tenant is really POed...
1. In a work-lease AGREEMENT, the landowner is required to report the value of the work as income (just like receiving cash rent) + GET, & possibly TAT
2. if the work agreement involves work that is not classified as `independent contractor type work`, in Hawaii the landowner could also have to comply with Hawaii work rules (this is not in stone, but has been enforced in Hawaii & other states....if it involves 20 or more hours per week, I think many here can see some real $$ starting to add up)
3. all of the code requirements, which are up to 2 months rent money (even though this was a work trade) and attorney fees