chrisinsocalif t1_iriioev wrote
Usually (my) leases have stipulations not to do illegal things. It doesn't absolved them from liability. If a guy rented a house from me then stated he doesn't owe rent because met up with Heisenberg and made my house a meth lab and doesn't owe rent because he legally can't operate, he will get a very angry letter from my lawyer and a visit from the police.
Caledric t1_irk549y wrote
Except in this case YOU rented to the tenant KNOWING he was going to be using the property as a meth lab, which makes you an accomplice to the crime.
chrisinsocalif t1_irk5kr2 wrote
Pot isn't illegal in Illinois. The only caveat is federal banks cannot cash rent checks from pot dispensaries because it's not federally legal. The tenant is still obligated to rent and not a valid defense.
Caledric t1_irk7fag wrote
The landlord filed in federal court where pot IS illegal however. Therefore by law in the jurisdiction that the case has been filed in... it is an illegal act. Btw, Just because a state legalizes weed doesn't make it legal. It is still illegal under Federal law, and Federal law DOES trump state law. The DEA if they wanted to could raid every single dispensary and put everyone in jail for it. They CHOOSE to turn a blind eye to it.
I suppose I should edit my above scenario for you so you can understand: In this scenario Meth is legal in the city where you live but illegal in the rest of your state.
If you rent to the tenant KNOWING he was going to be using the property as a meth lab, under STATE law you are an accomplice to the crime. Even though it's legal in your city.
chrisinsocalif t1_irk86bo wrote
The federal gov could enforce it but likely wont and it will be referred it to a local court. California and Illinois have laws stating they cannot use that as a defense to get out of rent.
The federal government has not cracked down every single time a state and federal law contradict. If state law contradicts federal law but it's not something that affects national security or international relations, the fed might not intervene. For example; In Nevada, certain counties have legalized prostitution, which also violates federal law, but the federal government has so far not enforced the federal law in Nevada.
Caledric t1_irk8o3r wrote
Once again as you've ignored multiple times... The landlord picked where to file. The tenant didn't ask to go to federal court. They just took advantage of a loop hole because the land lord is stupid. If the landlord would have filed in state court this wouldn't be a thing.
You are way too focused on the wrong parts of this.
chrisinsocalif t1_irk8q5u wrote
Yes and it will be referred elsewhere.
DF_Interus t1_irk4gjg wrote
It's more like renting out a meth lab to somebody, and then suing them for not paying rent, because the property was a storefront rented specifically for the purpose of selling marijuana. And you could have chosen to sue in a court where it wasn't illegal for you to rent out that property, but you chose one where you were also breaking the law instead.
chrisinsocalif t1_irk56rj wrote
They aren't breaking local laws. Federal banks cannot cash checks from pot dispensaries since its not legal federally but they are still obligated to pay rent. It's not a valid defense.
DF_Interus t1_irk5zsu wrote
They aren't suing in a local court and they really should be. If they were, this wouldn't work. The federal government may not be enforcing a lot of these laws right now, but that doesn't mean they're obligated to help you break that law by forcing a tenant they don't allow you to rent to to pay that rent.
chrisinsocalif t1_irk7dhk wrote
It will be referred to a local court where these cases are handled. Likely California where this company is located and they will be obligated to pay rent.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments