He replied yes, she was flooding the house.
Should've said that there was a major plumbing leak evident from the water dripping out of the ceiling. Leave her out of that.
He replied yes, she was flooding the house.
Should have, could have, would have, he didn't and he lost. It was clearly spite and he did what he had to to minimize damage. Bottom line the court ruled for the tenant, and I know of others who lost similar cases, and lost.Should've said that there was a major plumbing leak evident from the water dripping out of the ceiling. Leave her out of that.
Likely a reaction to the Blackrock and other campaign contributors that snapped up tons of real estate in 2009-2010.Some people in elected positions have adopted an absolute hatred towards real estate investors, and that hatred gets captured in policy.
Despite real estate being one of the few ways a regular middle class person can actually lift themselves into wealth and become free from corporate wage slavery, their philosophy instructs that all rental property owners are sharks preying on the poor.
As such, policies get implemented to “protect” renters but which ultimately protect the mega real estate corporations who can financially absorb instances of abuse like this case. It destroys competition from smaller investors by creating a risk profile that’s too steep to bother with.
It is mind blowing.
AOL still exists?