Neighbors guns seized and SN's run

[Mayhem]

If I told you someone was gone and you took possession of their property w/o their permission, would it be wrong?

The owner of the personal property was not there, did not give his permission.

Advance notice: There may be a pop quiz tomorrow.

My error.. I meant the owner of the building.. not the property. Honest mistake but one should have been able to figure out what I was saying.

Does your pop quiz have smart azz questions?

 

[Mayhem]

It sounds as if the police officer was acting on incorrect information that the property was abandoned. He's going to be in the clear.

I started to say "false report", but we don't know that. If the rent was overdue (we don't know this), and the house was partially vacated (we do know this), the landlord may have acted in good faith.

I doubt it, but without evidence otherwise, I'll allow him the benefit of the doubt.

That is what I am seeing. That is why I said someone was being tricked.

It sounds like a civil problem to me where the landlord used the cops.

If I rent a place where the renters skipped out on paying rent and moved out in the night leaving some of their property behind... how would I prove how long they were gone? If I found property inside that needed to be turned over to the cops... they are going to take my word as the building owner.

 

[Mayhem]

There is no doubt but that he entered [highlight]w/o[/highlight] legal right.

You may familiarize yourself with some of Virginia's real estate laws following:
https://www.arlingtonva.us/departme...fo/CPHDHousingHousing_infoTenantLandlord.aspx

How did you determine he had no legal right to make entry to his "rental" property?

There are a variety of reasons he could legally go inside as the landlord. It could be in the lease that he can visit at any time during the daytime to check the building. Just because it is rented does not ban him from his own property.

 

[peter nap]

Yes I do have the right to require that unattended firearms be secured in and on my property.

Kenny, I was the one that sort of commented about the securing firearms clause in the lease, and I was fairly nice about it.
But since you want to beat the podium with your shoe as usual (Remember you accusing someone shooting a machine gun somewhere...of being an OC'er)...

I'll clarify my feelings. You have a perfect right to put that in your lease, but why someone would rent from a silly dickhead that would put in such a clause, is way beyond me....and why anyone would bother to try to correct your warped legal views is also beyond me.

Just like the other trolls that scramble out from under that filthy city, best to ignore your anti gun, anti constitution, anti nearly everything...posts!

Now beat the podium some more kruschev.

 

[skidmark]

How did you determine he had no legal right to make entry to his "rental" property?

There are a variety of reasons he could legally go inside as the landlord. It could be in the lease that he can visit at any time during the daytime to check the building. Just because it is rented does not ban him from his own property.

Please read the Virginia Residential Landlord-Tenant Act - a link was provided above. See especially the sections titled "Abuse of Access" and then "Access" where you will find that while the landlord retains the legal right to enter the property there are specific conditions that must be met - and that "visit[ing] at any time in the daytime to check the building" is flat not allowed unless certain specific conditions are met. From the description provided those conditions were not met. That the tenant may have violated other clauses of the lease agreement does not give the landlord the "right" to also violate the lease terms or the VRLTA and enter at any whim.

The point being hoped for is that the letter, if not the spirit, of the lease and the law is to be honored by the landlord even when the tenant has flagrantly violated either or both - because the landlord is an honest and honorable person. Unless, of course the landlord is neither honest nor honorable and goes about violating the lease and the law.

stay safe.

 

[Grapeshot]

How did you determine he had no legal right to make entry to his "rental" property?

There are a variety of reasons he could legally go inside as the landlord. It could be in the lease that he can visit at any time during the daytime to check the building. Just because it is rented does not ban him from his own property.

Read the Tenant Landlord Act as previously linked and referenced.

Landlord/agent may enter w/o notice for genuine emergencies i.e. running water, smoke etc., not for routine repairs or inspections - these require advance notice. Certain lease clauses as may be written do not invalidate statutory requirements - read the Tenant Landlord Act.

Absenting a proper, formal written notice within the time parameters, the lease would have renewed for some specified time or absent that, on a month-to-month basis. To our knowledge, the landlord/owner did not give notice of non-renewal, did not send notice of default, did not get a default judgement (though not necessarily needed yet). It also seems strange (unreasonable) that said owner did not have a key to the garage and chose to break in, which is what caused the personal property therein to be at risk.

Lawyer's opinions - with no disrespect to the stalwart scholars of the law - at best there are only 50% of them winners in our courtrooms. Many only tell us what they think we want to hear. My background? 25 + years as a property manager, many as a department head, trainer/instructor on leasing, certified as a court expert in VA & NC. Am I up to date and current? Absolutely not - some things have changed little though and I still have the ability to read - like the Landlord Tenant Act.

 

[KBCraig]

My words, with highlighted comment by Grapeshot:

and the house was partially vacated (we do know this), [highlight]no we don't - it is alleged[/highlight]

No, we do know that. The OP says they were moving out, and had already taken two loads when the landlord showed up.

I never argued that the landlord entered with legal authority, just that he could have reasonably believed the place had been vacated and abandoned, then gave this incorrect information to the police.

 

[Grapeshot]

My words, with highlighted comment by Grapeshot:

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

and the house was partially vacated (we do know this), no we don't - it is alleged

No, we do know that. The OP says they were moving out, and had already taken two loads when the landlord showed up.

I never argued that the landlord entered with legal authority, just that he could have reasonably believed the place had been vacated and abandoned, then gave this incorrect information to the police.

With all due respect to all concerned, I have a higher standard then the stereotype media.

Second person reports may be from a "reliable source" and may be accurate in the details or not - they are therefore "alleged."

Do you not speculate with "could have"?

First person reports that leave out of raft of details, then adds them later, piecemeal while leaving out additional detail, bothers me to a greater degree. Gives the impression of our being played.

 

[skidmark]

....

No, we do know that. The OP says they were moving out, and had already taken two loads when the landlord showed up.

I never argued that the landlord entered with legal authority, just that he could have reasonably believed the place had been vacated and abandoned, then gave this incorrect information to the police.

The fact that they had removed two loads of belongings from the premises does not equate with the tenant having allowing the lease agreement to lapse and the landlord thus dealing with "vacated and abandoned" tenancy. There was nothing to indicate that two loads was sufficient to carry away all personal belongings - at least not in the original post. And even if all personal belomgings were removed there was no indication that the lease was not still in force (regardless of whether or not the rent was up-to-date).

One does not need to be an admitted attorney to figure out how this works out. A very basic reading and/or some brief Googling should have been sufficient to understand how/when the lease agreement is ended and what constitutes "abandonment" of leased premises. It seems that some folks prefer to say that what they think the law should be is in fact the way things work out under the law.

stay safe.

 

[Grapeshot]

Further owners/agents/landlords will continue to hold the tenant liable for rent until the property is leased to a new tenant - remember this lease is likely in full force and effect.

If I were the tenant, I would consider sending a letter advising the owner of his breech of lease terms by his forceful entry into the garage and involvement in the removal of my personal property.

 

[Citizen]

All my guns and important papers always travel with me in my vehicle when moving, good thing I have a 1 ton truck as I have a LOT of firearms......

How did you escape the epidemic of tragic boating accidents? Why, every OCer I know lost his guns in a tragic boating accident, canoeing accident, mudslide, or tsunami.

 

[Mayhem]

My words, with highlighted comment by Grapeshot:

No, we do know that. The OP says they were moving out, and had already taken two loads when the landlord showed up.

I never argued that the landlord entered with legal authority, just that he could have reasonably believed the place had been vacated and abandoned, then gave this incorrect information to the police.

I am agreeing with you here...

There are unanswered questions to make a qualified answer backed with proof. But many here want to take a side and defend it. In this case... we shall back the gun owner and everyone else needs to be arrested!

If they tenants are moving out why would the landlord pop in half way and take the action he did? Why create problems when the tenants are going away? Makes no sence to the "reasonable" person. But I feel many here are not very reasonable and jump to conclusions.

People move out and leave crap behind they do not have room for or no longer want. Leaving it for the landlord to deal with. We do not know how long they were gone but let's think about it for a minute. Would you not pack up the things you want most? I would first take cash, jewelry, guns, and other smaller items that have a high value. Furniture, clothing, books would be last. But these tenants left............... GUNS??!!!!

Maybe they were moving to DC and knew they were not allowed. Maybe the guns were stolen and they did not want to be caught with them. Maybe they are felons and did not want to be caught with them. Maybe they just did not want them anymore.

Tons of reasons!!! And nobody here can asnwer for them unless they know the tenants.

So the landlord went inside. I do not care! Civil problem the tenants can deal with.

So the cops collected the guns at the request of the landlord. I do not care and they did what they were asked or were duped by the landlord. Another civil!!

Boo hoo! The cops ran some serial numbers!!! If the guns were stolen I hope the true owners will get them back now. If the guns are not stolen it means NOTHING!

 

[skidmark]

....

Boo hoo! The cops ran some serial numbers!!! If the guns were stolen I hope the true owners will get them back now. If the guns are not stolen it means NOTHING!

Let's be real clear about this. You are OK with the cops not knowing the law to the extent that they let the landlord talk/dupe them into illegal acts?

I think we all agree the landlord had remedies that should have been taken, even though they woul take time and be less personally satisfying, and that the tenants probably have several remedies open to them. But I also think that just about everybody but Kenny has agreed to move on and focus on what the cops did. Well, maybe Kenny and you.

It's not cop bashing but it is pretty much standard thread drift among the gun owners who are concerned about government not violating any of their rights in the BoR. We can start a separate thread to discuss what the landlord should have done, or what the tenants should now do. All we need is enough interested posters.

stay safe.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--

Maybe.........Maybe...........Maybe...........Maybe.....

I do not care! ........ I do not care..........it means NOTHING!

Thank you for your studied input.