Hacker News Reader

Comment by soderfoo | Hacker News Reader

> Hirschhorn’s attorney told the Times that "she was not required to pay rent because the city had never approved the unit for occupancy and that its shower was constructed without a permit."

This type of smarmy legal thinking drove me nuts as an attorney and was one of the factors that led to me becoming a software dev.

Do these attorney's demand a substantial retainer up front? It is quite the risk, requiring high levels of both dissonance and intestinal fortitude to contort the law to vigorously represent an admitted deadbeat.

But I am one to cast stones. I was successful in my criminal defense practice and enjoyed the client work. It's working with other attorneys that was the problem.

View on HN

Yep, this is one of those arguments that might make sense only in a very literal reading of the law. Because if the unit isn't approved for occupancy, she shouldn't be living there at all, rent or no rent.

The facts of this case are not legally distinct from any other slumlord, they just have a better marketing team who is fighting the battle in the media and public opinion.

The landlord signed a long-term rental contract on a unit that did not meet rental code. Yes, the tenant probably knew it was out-of-code when it was rented. Just like any other person renting from a slumlord.

Other than it being Airbnb, and other than the person trying to claim the value of the rental is zero because of the livability issue, it’s a big-standard slumlord situation.

The proper move is to escrow the payments etc but generally you have a lot of rights as a long-term tenant (and many hotels/etc will take specific steps to avoid you being considered a long-term tenant as a result) and you don’t lose them just because the owner is a slumlord or allows the unit to fall below code.

Rentals are really a high-risk market with a lot of legal protections for the tenant, but everyone hopped into the market over the last 10 years thinking they’d just double their money overnight, and this is what happens when a tenant who knows the rules meets a landlord who doesn’t. The number the landlord recovers won’t be zero most likely but they also won’t get it in a timely fashion, or possibly at all.

> It's working with other attorneys that was the problem

Hell is other attorneys, as Sartre famously said.

I don't see it as "smarmy". Of course, HN commenters are largely putting themselves into the property-owner's shoes. Look at it from the other side: A wannabe landlord tried to rent out an illegal unit without knowing tenant/landlord law, and made a huge, costly mistake. The smart tenant is exercising her legal rights and acting out of incentives that are [edit: LIKELY (since the matter has not been resolved)] supported by law. The landlord is acting mad because he didn't understand or follow the law.

Where there is money to be made, you're always going to find people who carefully read and understand the rules, and follow them to the letter to gain an advantage. Especially in the fierce housing market. The landlord was foolish and did not follow the rules, and it's costing him.

Is it "smarmy" to do a backdoor Roth IRA[1] contribution? You're getting favored tax treatment but doing it in a "weird" roundabout way, seemingly counter to the intent of the Roth's income limits, but supported by law. Is it a "loophole"?

1: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/backdoor-roth-ira.asp

Yes, it’s wrong to exploit people and cause them financial harm. Duh?

With a back door Roth IRA there is no clear, obvious victim. You could consider all taxpayers the victim, and some would. Criticizing tax loopholes, especially for the rich, is extremely common sentiment. But to most people “the state” can’t be a victim as it is too big and powerful.

In this case it’s very obvious that a real human person just trying to make a living is being systemically fucked over. They’re not really fighting the human scum who took over their property, they’re symbolically fighting the idiotic, bumbling bureaucracy of the state of California and their unjust laws.

Like, I don’t know if the incredulity expressed in your comment is genuine, or if you’re just trying to play devils advocate… it’s very natural and easy for (seemingly) everyone else to understand the power dynamics here

My incredulity is genuine: I don't have a dog in this particular race, but it's remarkable how the commentary here on HN is so strongly siding with one party! (For comparison, check out the Reddit threads, where most of that site's demographic are supporting the tenant).

Your "exploit" description is a little emotionally charged. Business transactions happen all the time where one party gets screwed because they failed to read the contract, or failed to know the law, or failed to do due diligence. As a business person, you kind of have to sweat the details if you're going to hang your shingle out there and try to make money. This landlord got screwed, no doubt, but it was due to their own incompetence + having a smart counterparty to the transaction who apparently did her homework.

Yes, it is one sided because it’s so plainly obvious who the victim is here, who was acting in bad faith and who wasn’t. This is unethical and harmful behavior by the tenant and it should be illegal. Not hard to understand!

>a little emotionally charged

No, it isn’t. This is the correct usage of the word.

>Reddit

Not surprised the place with a cult-like hatred for landlords is speaking out against this landlord… I don’t much care for the opinions of 13 year old “communists” and r/antiwork losers so I don’t browse that site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com