Harvard grad student told to move out after roommates find her legally owned firearms 'uncomfortable

[VanceMack]

If you had read the second paragraph you would have found links to the specific statutes and government publications.

Obviously you didn't.



So what?

The "invasion of privacy" was NOT the reason for the termination of the TENANCY agreement.

PS - You also appear to have overlooked the fact that the TENANCY agreement provided ALL FOUR of the women access to ALL OF the apartment. If there was a separate agreement between the four women that some parts of it would be "off limits" to certain ones of the four, that is NOT any concern of the landlord. If the woman who chose to leave the apartment wishes to sue for "invasion of privacy" then I am sure that a part of the defence will be that she "knowingly and/or recklessly and/or wilfully negligently and/or maliciously exposed the Defendants both collectively and individually to the known risk of death or bodily harm and fraudulently concealed that fact from the Defendants and each of them".

The proof of that assertion will consist of something like

LAWYER - Did you possess a gun in the apartment?

PLAINTIFF - Yes.

LAWYER - Did you tell your roommates that you had a gun in the apartment?

PLAINTIFF - No.

LAWYER - Why did you have a gun in the apartment?

PLAINTIFF - Because I had previously been in an abusive relationship with ____ and I thought that ___ might break into the apartment and attack me.

LAWYER - Did you believe that that was likely to happen?

PLAINTIFF - Yes.

LAWYER - Did you tell your roommates that you believed that that was likely to happen?

PLAINTIFF - No.

LAWYER - Is it possible that, if that happened, one or more of your roommates might also be attacked?

PLAINTIFF - I suppose that that would have been possible.

LAWYER - What do you think would have happened if you had told your roommates about the possibility of them being attacked simply because they were your roommate?

PLAINTIFF - They probably wouldn't have wanted me to be one of the people living in the apartment.

LAWYER - So you actually obtained a benefit out of not telling your roommates that they might be in danger if you were one of the people living in the apartment, did you?

PLAINTIFF - Yes.

LAWYER - Would you have been able to afford to live in a similar apartment had the other three women not agreed to you living in this one?

PLAINTIFF - I don't know, maybe not.

LAWYER - So you actually obtained another benefit from concealing the fact that your presence in the apartment exposed your roommates to a danger that they would not have been exposed to had you not been living there, didn't you?
​

https://www.mass.gov/service-details/re05rc12-contract-law

You just went a long way to avoid the fact that the invasion of privacy wasnt mutual. Its almost like you are a really bad lawyer trying to hide something in a trial.

I mean...a REALLY bad lawyer.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

https://www.mass.gov/service-details/re05rc12-contract-law

You just went a long way to avoid the fact that the invasion of privacy wasnt mutual. Its almost like you are a really bad lawyer trying to hide something in a trial.

I mean...a REALLY bad lawyer.

The "invasion of privacy" was NOT the REASON why the roommates wanted the woman out of the apartment, it was what they found out due to that "invasion of privacy" and what the woman said was her reason for wanting to have the gun beside her.

BTW, I didn't say that the woman might not win her claim for damages due to the "invasion of privacy" - but you appear to have overlooked that point.

What I did say was that the roommates could well counterclaim on the basis that the woman had "knowingly and/or recklessly and/or wilfully negligently and/or maliciously exposed the Defendants both collectively and individually to the known risk of death or bodily harm and fraudulently concealed that fact from the Defendants and each of them" (that's what is known as "adding a Defendant by Counterclaim").

Would you like to bet that the damages awarded for "invasion of privacy" would be larger than the damages awarded for "knowingly and/or recklessly and/or wilfully negligently and/or maliciously exposed the Defendants both collectively and individually to the known risk of death or bodily harm and fraudulently concealed that fact from the Defendants and each of them"?

I wouldn't and my court record was for an 80+% "win" record.

In fact, if the woman had come to see me with this exact situation my immediate suggestion (before collecting a dime in fees) would be to recommend that she propose to settle the count case by a mutual agreement to dismiss all claims by all parties - and to do so by way of a joint motion for a court order to that effect. If she didn't like that free advice, I'd be more than happy to accept payment for providing exactly the same advice (or provide her with the names of several other lawyers to whom she could take her case).

 

[VanceMack]

The "invasion of privacy" was NOT the REASON why the roommates wanted the woman out of the apartment, it was what they found out due to that "invasion of privacy" and what the woman said was her reason for wanting to have the gun beside her.

BTW, I didn't say that the woman might not win her claim for damages due to the "invasion of privacy" - but you appear to have overlooked that point.

What I did say was that the roommates could well counterclaim on the basis that the woman had "knowingly and/or recklessly and/or wilfully negligently and/or maliciously exposed the Defendants both collectively and individually to the known risk of death or bodily harm and fraudulently concealed that fact from the Defendants and each of them" (that's what is known as "adding a Defendant by Counterclaim").

Would you like to bet that the damages awarded for "invasion of privacy" would be larger than the damages awarded for "knowingly and/or recklessly and/or wilfully negligently and/or maliciously exposed the Defendants both collectively and individually to the known risk of death or bodily harm and fraudulently concealed that fact from the Defendants and each of them"?

I wouldn't and my court record was for an 80+% "win" record.

In fact, if the woman had come to see me with this exact situation my immediate suggestion (before collecting a dime in fees) would be to recommend that she propose to settle the count case by a mutual agreement to dismiss all claims by all parties - and to do so by way of a joint motion for a court order to that effect. If she didn't like that free advice, I'd be more than happy to accept payment for providing exactly the same advice (or provide her with the names of several other lawyers to whom she could take her case).

Their 'reason' is immaterial if it was not illegal and didnt violate an existing contract. So the reality is if she wanted to take them to court to hold them liable to the terms of the contract she would win not because her privacy was violated but because they had no grounds to terminate. The violation of rights to privacy is another matter...perhaps even a question of (general) criminal trespass...depending on how far she wanted to press the issue.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Their 'reason' is immaterial if it was not illegal and didnt violate an existing contract. So the reality is if she wanted to take them to court to hold them liable to the terms of the contract she would win not because her privacy was violated but because they had no grounds to terminate. The violation of rights to privacy is another matter...perhaps even a question of (general) criminal trespass...depending on how far she wanted to press the issue.

That might well be the case IF the roommates had wanted to "terminate the lease" they didn't, that was the option that the landlord provided.

The "contract" that the roommates wanted to terminate was their verbal agreement to share living space with the woman, and they wanted to terminate that verbal agreement because the woman had concealed a material fact, that material fact being that she believed that she (and incidentally the other roommates should they be present at the time) was under imminent danger of violent assault.

PS - You don't appear to know what "criminal trespass" means either.

 

[dcsports]

They most certainly can. In fact they can come in for any purpose that they are invited in for.

In that respect a landlord is no different from any other person.

Nope. Certainly not in their capacity as a representative of the landlord. You could possibly argue a gray area if they were also a buddy invited over for dinner, but that wasn't the case here. In my state, they would be violating the standard lease agreement used almost universally. They would also be violating the Massachusetts law someone posted earlier.

 

[dcsports]

The "invasion of privacy" was NOT the REASON why the roommates wanted the woman out of the apartment, it was what they found out due to that "invasion of privacy" and what the woman said was her reason for wanting to have the gun beside her..

I didn't see that in any article. Did you? They said they were afraid someone would break in and steal it, or it would go off on its own. If their fear was 'the ex', then it seems like that would have been the issue, not the gun.

 

[VanceMack]

That might well be the case IF the roommates had wanted to "terminate the lease" they didn't, that was the option that the landlord provided.

The "contract" that the roommates wanted to terminate was their verbal agreement to share living space with the woman, and they wanted to terminate that verbal agreement because the woman had concealed a material fact, that material fact being that she believed that she (and incidentally the other roommates should they be present at the time) was under imminent danger of violent assault.

PS - You don't appear to know what "criminal trespass" means either.

Really? I reckon it depends on if the abused party had given her ****head apartment mates the right to enter her room or if there was an agreement to privacy ("enter without rights"-by statute). Which is why I said 'perhaps', because it isnt KNOWN whether or not there was an actual verbalized or written agreement to privacy.

You really would make a piss poor lawyer. Good thing thats not your field!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Nope. Certainly not in their capacity as a representative of the landlord. You could possibly argue a gray area if they were also a buddy invited over for dinner, but that wasn't the case here. In my state, they would be violating the standard lease agreement used almost universally. They would also be violating the Massachusetts law someone posted earlier.

Please provide specific statutory authority that a landlord may NEVER enter rented property - despite being asked to do so by the tenant - EXCEPT for the reasons which you set out.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Really? I reckon it depends on if the abused party had given her ****head apartment mates the right to enter her room or if there was an agreement to privacy ("enter without rights"-by statute). Which is why I said 'perhaps', because it isnt KNOWN whether or not there was an actual verbalized or written agreement to privacy.

You really would make a piss poor lawyer. Good thing thats not your field!

It was, and I had an 80+% win rate.

A tenant, absent specific (and that means provable) agreement with other tenants of a property that they jointly inhabit has the right to use any and all of that property for any reason.

If you can find me an example of a lease to the effect of "With respect to Property X, consisting of Rooms a, b,c, d, and e, Tenant 1 shall have the exclusive use of Room a, and the shared use of Rooms c, d, and e, while Tenant 2 shall have the exclusive use of Room b, and the shared use of Rooms c, d, and e." I'd be positively overjoyed.

 

[dcsports]

Please provide specific statutory authority that a landlord may NEVER enter rented property - despite being asked to do so by the tenant - EXCEPT for the reasons which you set out.

I don't know the specific statutory authority. Another person posted the relevant law for Massachusetts earlier.

In my state (Texas) I said it would violate the standard lease. Virtually every landlord uses the TAA lease document, section 28 covers "WHEN WE MAY ENTER", and states the reasons they may enter, none of which includes rifling through a tenants private possessions. I would suspect that this type of clause is pretty standard across states.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't know the specific statutory authority. Another person posted the relevant law for Massachusetts earlier.

You might not have realized it, but it was I that posted them.

In my state (Texas) I said it would violate the standard lease. Virtually every landlord uses the TAA lease document, section 28 covers "WHEN WE MAY ENTER", and states the reasons they may enter, none of which includes rifling through a tenants private possessions. I would suspect that this type of clause is pretty standard across states.

What the "When we may enter" clause does is set out circumstances wherein the landlord may enter the rented premises WITHOUT the tenant's consent.

I will agree that a landlord has no contractual right to enter rented premises WITHOUT the tenant's consent other than those statutorily/contractually set out, but that is NOT the same thing as saying that the landlord may not enter the rented premises at other times WITH the consent of the tenant.

 

[dcsports]

You might not have realized it, but it was I that posted them.

What the "When we may enter" clause does is set out circumstances wherein the landlord may enter the rented premises WITHOUT the tenant's consent.

I will agree that a landlord has no contractual right to enter rented premises WITHOUT the tenant's consent other than those statutorily/contractually set out, but that is NOT the same thing as saying that the landlord may not enter the rented premises at other times WITH the consent of the tenant.

Actually, it does cover both with and without:

28. WHEN WE MAY ENTER. If you and or any guest or occupant is present, then repairers, servicers, contractors, our representatives, or other persons listed in (2) below, may peacefully enter the apartment at reasonable times for the purposes listed in (2) below. If no one is in the apartment, then such persons may enter peacfully and at reasonable times by duplicate or master key (or by breaking a window or other means when necessary, if:

(1) written notice of the entry is left in a conspicuous place in the apartment immediately after the entry; and
(2) entry is for: responding to your request, making repairs or replacements, estimating repair or refurbishing costs; performing pest control....

The reasons are all related to care and maintenance of the apartments.... again, nothing about snooping through personal belongings.

And note that I never said the landlord didn't have the right to enter the apartment. He can certainly do so for issues with the apartment. However, he doesn't have the right to enter and snoop through a residents drawers.

 

[PleasantValley]

Possibly but the costs would outweigh the settlement, or be close enough to not be worth it. Is it worth the time and effort and $? You'd still have a chance of losing (court/lawyer costs) and how much could damages be? No property was damaged, no physical harm. I'm just guessing here but would think that damages wouldnt be much.

She should get in touch with the Second Amendment Foundation. They represent people who are abused in this way.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Actually, it does cover both with and without:



The reasons are all related to care and maintenance of the apartments.... again, nothing about snooping through personal belongings.

And note that I never said the landlord didn't have the right to enter the apartment. He can certainly do so for issues with the apartment. However, he doesn't have the right to enter and snoop through a residents drawers.

The landlord has the right to enter the apartment for any reason - IF given permission of the tenants (or any one of them [or any person authorized, by the tenants {or any one of them} to grant such access]).

If you can find me any legislator that thinks that it is necessary to actually write into a law something like "A landlord may enter a rented premises with the consent of the tenant." then I will show you a legislator who has probably overstayed their day pass from "The Home". If you can find me anyone who honestly thinks that someone may NOT enter any premises with the consent of the occupants then I will show you the identical twin of that legislator.

 

[dcsports]

The landlord has the right to enter the apartment for any reason - IF given permission of the tenants (or any one of them [or any person authorized, by the tenants {or any one of them} to grant such access]).

If you can find me any legislator that thinks that it is necessary to actually write into a law something like "A landlord may enter a rented premises with the consent of the tenant." then I will show you a legislator who has probably overstayed their day pass from "The Home". If you can find me anyone who honestly thinks that someone may NOT enter any premises with the consent of the occupants then I will show you the identical twin of that legislator.

Did you read what I posted?

Again, I never said the landlord couldn't enter the apartment. They obviously can when requested by a tenant, with specific notice, or in emergency circumstances. What I said was that when they enter, they can only perform tasks related to the maintenance and repair of the apartment. That's in the TAA lease, and likely in similar contracts and statutes for other states. Rummaging through a coed's underwear drawer has nothing to do with maintaining the apartment. They also clearly would have known that the room and personal items didn't belong to the people they were talking to.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Did you read what I posted?

Again, I never said the landlord couldn't enter the apartment. They obviously can when requested by a tenant, with specific notice, or in emergency circumstances. What I said was that when they enter, they can only perform tasks related to the maintenance and repair of the apartment.

Not so. When invited in the landlords can do whatever the occupants of the apartment allow them to do.

From the article, there is no evidence whatsoever that the landlord "searched" anything - only that the tenants showed the landlord what the tenants had found on their own and that the tenants then asked the landlord to verify that the gun that the tenants had found was legal.

That's in the TAA lease, and likely in similar contracts and statutes for other states. Rummaging through a coed's underwear drawer has nothing to do with maintaining the apartment.

Since there is nothing in the article to indicate that the landlord "rummaged" through anything, the objection appears to be irrelevant.

PS - Although it is NOT "impossible" I find the thought that a landlord (ANY landlord) would receive the request "We want you to search our roommates dresser drawers." with anything other than "You have to be kidding!" to be REALLY difficult to swallow - don't you? At best the response would be "Why?" and upon receiving the answer "Because we think that our roommate has a gun that might not be legal." the landlord would be most likely to respond with "Then call the police and have them do the search.".

They also clearly would have known that the room and personal items didn't belong to the people they were talking to.

Again, since there is nothing in the article to indicate that the landlord "rummaged" through anything, the objection appears to be irrelevant.

 

[dcsports]

Not so. When invited in the landlords can do whatever the occupants of the apartment allow them to do.

From the article, there is no evidence whatsoever that the landlord "searched" anything - only that the tenants showed the landlord what the tenants had found on their own and that the tenants then asked the landlord to verify that the gun that the tenants had found was legal.



Since there is nothing in the article to indicate that the landlord "rummaged" through anything, the objection appears to be irrelevant.

PS - Although it is NOT "impossible" I find the thought that a landlord (ANY landlord) would receive the request "We want you to search our roommates dresser drawers." with anything other than "You have to be kidding!" to be REALLY difficult to swallow - don't you? At best the response would be "Why?" and upon receiving the answer "Because we think that our roommate has a gun that might not be legal." the landlord would be most likely to respond with "Then call the police and have them do the search.".



Again, since there is nothing in the article to indicate that the landlord "rummaged" through anything, the objection appears to be irrelevant.

Yet you keep insisting it's ok -- the landlord can come in for any reason.

And yes, there's a pretty good hint that he/they did -- the young lady was upset about six people in her room looking through her things.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yet you keep insisting it's ok -- the landlord can come in for any reason.

No, that is NOT what I am saying, and you are well aware of that fact (at least I presume that you are literate enough to understand what "IF GIVEN PERMISSION" means).

And yes, there's a pretty good hint that he/they did -- the young lady was upset about six people in her room looking through her things.

Since the woman was NOT present when the search occurred, how do you conclude that there were "six people in her room looking through her things"? The other three roommates had ALREADY DISCOVERED the gun BEFORE they contacted the landlord so there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for the landlord to "search" for anything. (Which, of course, is another factor that you don't like to acknowledge because it doesn't fit in with the "The landlord conducted an illegal search and seizure that violated an innocent person's Second Amendment rights." rhetoric.

What you should recognize is that the 4th Amendment follows from Sir Edward Coke famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose." (Semayne's case [1604]). In that case the courts acknowledged that the GOVERNMENT did not have unbridled authority to intrude on people's dwellings while also acknowledging that the GOVERNMENT could conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained. The 4th Amendment does NOT extend to the actions of private individuals in their own premises (I mean, does a mother need a search warrant to check their kid's drawers for drugs when the kid is still living at home? Even if the kid is legally an adult?)

Now, let's make one minor change in the scenario and you tell me if you still think that the actions of the roommates and the landlord were horrendously wrong. What's the change? Instead of a handgun the other roommates discovered a semi-automatic rifle (which like an "assault rifle" but isn't) and a "bump stock" along with several high capacity magazines plus details of a theoretical plan to murder Muslims - everything else stays the same.

What's your opinion now?