You may remember our eviction story, Landlord Gives Easter Bunny the Boot.  When a tenant set up a display of Easter Bunny Peeps on her interior door, no one bothered her.  But, when she left it there for a couple weeks past Easter, the landlord became concerned that the sugary decorations would attract pests and posed a hazard to other tenants.

 

When they asked her to take it down, the tenant refused, claiming she had the support of her neighbors.  When the landlord took it down for her, she responded by refusing to pay her next month’s rent.  She has since moved out.

The notoriety of this case quickly thrust it to the national level, and the tenant’s lawyer reports that she is now receiving calls to appear on talk shows, including the mock religious-conservative comedy show, The Colbert Report.  Her lawyer reports that she is likely to accept the invitation.

 

The landlord has filed suit to evict the tenant and to recover the unpaid rent.  The tenant asked for a jury trial to present her case that she was driven from the premises over her Easter decorations.  The judge in the case denied a request that the trial be expedited given that the tenant has moved out, but at this juncture, is allowing the case to proceed to a jury trial.  It is unknown at this time whether the court will award attorneys fees to the prevailing party.

 

What do you think?  Will the landlord win the case?  Leave your comment below.

---

Filed under: AAOA Forum

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 9:47 am and is filed under AAOA Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1. Lola Webb said at July 31st, 2009 at 8:05 am

   I do not think this was an unreasonable request by the property manager and management company. The property manager is responsible for the well-being of all its residents, and she/he thought this would pose a threat to other tenants by attracting pests. Property managers have to think of the greater good for everyone,not just one apartment and/o resident. I am employed in the multihousing industry, not as a manager, but as Association Executive of our local affiliate of Apt. Assoc. of LA and National Apartment Association.

2. JIm said at July 31st, 2009 at 8:34 am

   I think that the landlord had a viable case for evicting the tenant for the refusal to remove the display, as the display was in the common area weather-affected hallway. The tenant, if verbage was contained in the lease documents, is not in control of a common area, and typically has no direct right to displays of any kind in those areas without express permission of the landlord. The landlord’s allowance of the display, whether verbally given or in not prohibiting it when done, should not negate his rights for requesting its timely removal.

3. Stephen said at July 31st, 2009 at 12:00 pm

   What in the tenant’s lease (or state law/local ordinance) allowed withholding of rent over a dispute w/the landlord? Whether the landlord was justified or not (and I think the landlord was justified) in removing the display, the lawsuit is over whether the tenant owed rent for the month.

   The tenant was ticked off at the landlord – so what? I periodically get ticked off with the tenants, but if there is nothing in the lease or state regulations backing me up I’m just ticked off and nothing happens.

4. Joanna said at July 31st, 2009 at 8:22 pm

   I hope she appears on TV and every landlord will keep track of her name and pass it along to other landlords… She sounds like she thinks she owns the property. Let her buy her own.

5. Lisa said at August 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am

   Regardless of the disagreement between landlord/tenant, if the tenant did not put her rent on escrow and instead refused to pay rent, then the landlord has every right to evict and should always win.

Please tell us what you thought of this article. We value your opinion.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website