Comments
BaltimoreBadger23 t1_iriby4i wrote
Not only that, but if that defense somehow worked, it would mean no one would rent to dispensaries, basically killing the whole business or only allowing those with enough capital to purchase a location to enter into the business.
watchmything t1_iric9pt wrote
Pay the dues to Thor!
misdirected_asshole t1_irid9xf wrote
The legality of your business has nothing to do with whether the lease is valid. They should go ahead and pack up because they will be getting kicked out and shut down soon.
lapsangsouchogn t1_iriepmr wrote
So if I'm doing something that's not legal under federal law, the feds don't have jurisdiction over me?
That's some big brain thinking.
Hector_P_Catt t1_iriervl wrote
"I never expected my drug dealers to commit fraud!"
fuzzybat23 t1_irif686 wrote
This is the same kind of backwards thinking that made AOC think a tax 4bil in tax incentives meant 3bil was just sitting around in the state's coffers.
Infamous-Werewolf196 t1_irif71j wrote
Don't angry Thor, pay your rent. I'm sure mlms and ponzi schemes, if they take out a lease still need to pay rent, regardless of how legit their business is or is not.
gheiminfantry t1_iriguck wrote
Trying to sue everywhere except where the property is located. Lawyers be getting paid I guess.
FastAndForgetful t1_irih467 wrote
Other than someone had to be high as shit to think of something so off the wall
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.
Aleyla t1_irimc15 wrote
Ok, so here’s what is actually at issue:
The landlord decided to sue in federal court instead of suing in an Illinois court for their back rent. Because this is in federal court, there are federal laws making it illegal to rent to cannabis businesses. So, this is a valid defense.
The right answer would be for the landlord to sue in Illinois court - which is where the property is located. Illinois has laws that superceded the federal law and close this little loophole.
So basically the landlord tried to make it more expensive to fight the lawsuit snd fucked themselves. There are no good guys in this situation.
Mitthrawnuruo t1_irimhb6 wrote
To be clear. The argument is that this is Not a federal issue, but a state one, and that the federal courthouse is not the proper place for a rent dispute case, which the judge is inclined to agree with.
From the article:
But U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken questioned whether the lawsuit belonged there and said he was inclined to dismiss it.
AlsoNotTheMamma t1_irimuaa wrote
>The legality of your business has nothing to do with whether the lease is valid.
No, but if the federal government doesn't recognise the legality of your company - I.E. they consider it to be an illegal entity - they cannot regulate it.
I don't think that argument will work in this instance, but it should be enough to get them a hearing.
Biteysdad2 t1_iriplv7 wrote
Ever heard of sovereign citizens?
misdirected_asshole t1_iriqfvu wrote
If you are running an illegal daycare out of your apartment, that's got nothing to do with whether you have to pay your lease. Enforcing a lease isn't regulating a company.
Edit: also if this is a registered business that pays state and federal taxes then it's going to be hard to defend this being an unregulated illegal business.
[deleted] t1_iriqgw2 wrote
[removed]
Vroomped t1_irisaty wrote
If your landlord rented to you _because_ youre running an illegal day care it has everything to do with the lease.
Especially if you offered illegal day care under the table and the landlord isn't holding up their end.
Vroomped t1_irisj4g wrote
If your renting to me is itself illegal, the feds don't have jurisdiction over a contract that shouldn't exist OR if they recognize it the landlord will be arrested.
plugubius t1_irius5t wrote
This is not a matter of jurisdiction (the court's ability to rule) but about the enforceability of the contract (what the right ruling is).
CallofBootyCrackOps t1_iriv5t5 wrote
no, the landlord basically snitched on themself because renting to a cannabis business is illegal under federal law. so they essentially went to the federal government and turned themselves in. even though the tenant is definitely in the wrong for not paying, this is a hilarious “my how the turn tables” scenario haha landlord thought they were being so smart going to federal court
misdirected_asshole t1_irivkbq wrote
Yeah but this lease isn't predicated on it being an illegal business. They are trying to find some loopholes for being deadbeats.
plugubius t1_irivlny wrote
>Because this is in federal court, there are federal laws making it illegal to rent to cannabis businesses. So, this is a valid defense.
What federal law are you talking about? State law governs the contract, so the federal law would need to do more than just prohibit an act.
Alan_Shutko t1_iriw9b3 wrote
It's weirder than that. The argument seems to be that federally, the contract can't be enforced because pot is illegal, but Medmen doesn't want the federal case to go away because they think it would prevent the landlord from filing elsewhere.
[deleted] t1_iriy9ca wrote
[removed]
Uncle_Father_Oscar t1_irj001b wrote
If the contract is for something illegal, the feds are not going to enforce it. Knowingly renting out a property for purposes of cannabis production or sale violates any number of federal laws. The landlord's actions make him guilty of conspiracy to produce/traffic marijuana. It would be the same as asking a federal court to enforce a contract for murder-for-hire.
The real problem for the tenant is that they are risking a federal crackdown. If they're going to affirmatively claim their business is illegal in federal court there's really no reason the feds shouldn't come in and shut them down.
Uncle_Father_Oscar t1_irj14rh wrote
Jurisdiction has nothing to do with it but nice try. They are not challenging jurisdiction, rather the enforceability of the contract. The legal reasoning is perfectly sound but the problem is they are inviting a raid from the feds when you admit in federal court that you are operating an illegal business.
The feds have said they won't bother dispensaries that are only breaking weed laws*,* but there's still no legal reason they couldn't change their minds, and the defense they are asserting to the contract invites some analysis as to whether it may constitute some type of real estate fraud or something else that might qualify for federal intervention even under existing policy.
Uncle_Father_Oscar t1_irj17q2 wrote
Yeah it's an interesting choice for sure.
mynameis4826 t1_irj1oln wrote
Landlord wanted to fuck them over with legal fees, ended up fucking themselves over
plugubius t1_irj362m wrote
>If the contract is for something illegal, the feds are not going to enforce it.
What is the unlawful part of the contract? This is not is contract for the sale of cannabis. This is a lease. It is unlawful to engage in insider trading, but that does not make a lease to someone who violates that law unenforceable, even if the lessor knows about the insider trading.
A federal court sitting in diversity applies state law. Here, state law says the contract is enforceable. Federal law can preempt state law, but the bare illegality of cannabis sales is not going to preempt state contract law concerning leases. That is why I asked what federal law the poster was talking about that would make it illegal to enforce this lease.
WebbityWebbs t1_irjdq6q wrote
A contract to engage in an illegal act is not valid.
Mental_Cut8290 t1_irjdr8w wrote
I think the issue is the landlord trying to evict solely because of the "insider trading" but they're in a state that allows it.
Also the issue is back rent, so the "illegal" activity is not relevant.
So, I think the whole picture is the Landlord is owed rent, decided to take it to federal so that the renter would be considered the bad guy, but this just made it so the landlord didn't have a valid contact for knowingly renting the space for that purpose.
On state level, everything is above board and the store owes rent. On a federal level, everything is illegal and the contract is void.
Don't know why you're getting down voted. Seems like a reasonable question for a complicated issue.
plugubius t1_irjeguu wrote
Whether a contract is valid is a matter of state law. Here, the relevant state law says the contract is valid.
Federal law can preempt state law, but a thing's being illegal under federal law does not by itself preempt state law on contract validity. We would need to examine the federal law being referred to in order to see if it had any effect on state law about leases. I can tell you that prohibiting the sale of cannabis is not enough to touch state law on leases, which is why I asked what federal law the poster was referring to.
plugubius t1_irjg0sd wrote
As you note, the issue here isn't whether the tenant's business is lawful. It is whether the agreement to pay rent for the property is lawful. The unlawfulness of a business does not render every contract that business signs unenforceable against the business. Under federal law, state law provides the rules of decision in this case. Unless there is a federal law specific to cannabis that expressly invalidates the lease, federal law says nothing at all the validity of the lease here.
[deleted] t1_irjiglz wrote
[removed]
Uncle_Father_Oscar t1_irjionk wrote
How can the landlord plausibly argue that he did not know they are a cannabis business? He either leased to them knowing they are a cannabis business, or continued to lease to them when he found out. The underlying contract most likely acknowledges what the premises are going to be used for.
Your failure to appreciate what laws are being broken is not a defense to the clear illegality of the of what they are doing.
Vroomped t1_irjiosn wrote
The law on leases is predicated on it not being an illegal business
r33k3r t1_irjivuc wrote
Not so sure about this making it harder for dispensaries. If the federal court holds that it cannot enforce the contract because the contract is illegal under federal law, that should actually protect dispensaries from landlords trying to bring them into federal court over lease disputes that should be handled in state courts where the dispensary can be treated as a legal business instead of a criminal enterprise with no legal right to exist.
Vroomped t1_irjiwwc wrote
It is a matter of jurisdiction if you take it to a court that's unable to provide any ruling.(Unless the landlord homes that the court wants recognize them as having an illegal lease)
plugubius t1_irjj453 wrote
He doesn't need to argue he didn't know. This is a suit for rent, not a defense against a criminal charge of aiding and abetting. This is a question of state contract law, and Illinois is clear that the lease is enforceable. Federal law is vlear that state law applies in this situation.
plugubius t1_irjj999 wrote
A ruling that a contract is not enforceable is a ruling. This is not a jurisdictional matter.
r33k3r t1_irjja6q wrote
Is someone suggesting that state law on leases would be preempted, rather than that the federal court simply wouldn't be the venue to deal with state contract law matters, and that this contract can't be adjudicated under federal contract law because it's an illegal contract under federal law?
Vroomped t1_irjjwbk wrote
Feds say its not enforceable, State says it is.
Tell me what the difference between the two is.
plugubius t1_irjjwkq wrote
My assumption is that was the argument, because federal courts are certainly the right place to hear state-law disputes between citizens of different states.
plugubius t1_irjkcx3 wrote
I think you're wrong about the effect of federal drug prohibitions on the validity of leases, but the difference I was referring to is between jurisdiction and a judgment. Jurisdiction allows a court to enter judgment, but it doesn't sat what that judgment should be. If the contract is unenforceable, the court enters judgment for the defendant.
r33k3r t1_irjkdme wrote
I dunno. I think leases of real property are almost always governed by the laws of the state where the property is located, not whatever other state the parties happen to reside in.
plugubius t1_irjksit wrote
That is a question of choice of law, not federal jurisdiction. Illinois law will usually apply to Illinois properties, but that doesn't mean a New York federal court can't apply Illinois law.
misdirected_asshole t1_irjl9h4 wrote
It's not an illegal business. This whole case is bullshit.
Sumthin-Sumthin44692 t1_irjlr6q wrote
A commercial lease for the purpose of running a cannabis business is illegal under federal law. A lot of commercial leases have the business use/purpose expressly stated in them. But even if this one didn’t the court is not going to ignore what the lease was for. The court cannot enforce a contract, including rent, if it is for an illegal purpose.
Similar cases involve personal service contracts for “physical assistance” that are actually for sex. The court looks to how a contract actually functions. Not just how it appears to function.
plugubius t1_irjm9et wrote
>A commercial lease for the purpose of running a cannabis business is illegal under federal law.
I have asked repeatedly for someone to identify this law. I know of none. A prohibition on cannabis sales alone won't alter state contract law (which is what the federal court must apply here).
ankelbiter12 t1_irjmdhy wrote
IANAL, but my understanding is that because it’s a business property, the landlord is aware of what the business is. I take it as the court is looking at it as “you’ve filed a contract / lease with the tenants, so that they pay you money, in exchange, they can use the property to sell cannabis”. Federally, last I checked, cannabis isn’t legal. Since the landlord knows the property is being used federally illegally, the federal court won’t discuss the contract because it’s invalid. Plus, they also know the landlord could just take it to the Illinois state court so I imagine they’re using some slight discretion there. Now if the property were a residence type instead of business, the landlord would have no reason to know that they’re using their property for selling cannabis, so then I think the federal court would touch it.
plugubius t1_irjmqng wrote
IAAL. There is no prohibition on leasing space to Vito Corleone, even if you know who Vito Corleone is. If you know about a murder he commits, you can be charged in connection with that, but the lease is still valid, and he still owes you rent.
CaptainTripps82 t1_irjnf5l wrote
I was just thinking, the basis for a lot of mob arrests in the past was that even if the underlying business is illegal, you still owe taxes on the income.
Sumthin-Sumthin44692 t1_irjnt9i wrote
As a Schedule I drug, it is illegal to possess or sell cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act. Federal judges have to follow the CSA. State courts don’t (usually).
Sumthin-Sumthin44692 t1_irjorhy wrote
There is. A landlord can be held liable for conspiracy if they know crimes are taking place on their property. This comes up with so-called “crystal palaces” where motel owner knowingly rent rooms to meth users and prostitutes
plugubius t1_irjrzhz wrote
That law does not expressly preempt state contract law, and it would be very hard to argue that conflict preemption applies. It allows the Attorney General to seek a variety of criminal, civil, and administrative penalties. That power does not clearly conflict with a state's ability to decide contractual rights in the absence of the Attorney General's action, and it does not provide for any private enforcement. The scope of federal preemption in the drug context is very narrow.
plugubius t1_irjs909 wrote
>A landlord can be held liable for conspiracy if they know crimes are taking place on their property.
I agree, and I said as much. That potential liability is different from whether the lease contract is enforceable.
crwlngkngsnk t1_irjueo4 wrote
But you can't rent out a murder room, with the explicit understanding that this is his murder room, to be used for murdering people.
I think, like another poster said, that it might depend on if the lease spells out the purpose of the business. If the nature of the business is known and illegal then Federal law isn't going to enforce a contract for that.
I don't know enough about the law to know if this case is heard under Illinois law, but I do know that Federal courts sometimes evaluate cases under State law, so you might be right about that. I guess it depends on the issues raised in the suit. I haven't actually, you know, read anything about the case.
OverPot t1_irjujdv wrote
Rich assholes doing rich asshole shit.
Techutante t1_irjuo8k wrote
They could have paid their rent probably. Pot makes a lot of money. I'm guessing they have another issue, something inter-personal.
crwlngkngsnk t1_irjw5rb wrote
Ok, so it looks like the deal is that the dispensary wants a final decision from the Feds, under Federal law, dismissed with prejudice or something to the effect to where the issues can't be raised and re-adjudicated. Res judicata.
I think they're right that the contract is unenforceable under Federal law, it's probably more a question of whether that court is the proper venue, or what law applies to the case, Federal, Illinois, New York, or California.
Sumthin-Sumthin44692 t1_irjwei1 wrote
A landlord renting a unit for an illegal purpose can be criminally liable as a co-conspirator. The lease is also void so they won’t be entitled to contractual rent. A court could order some payment to the landlord based on equitable principles but the doctrine of unclean hands and public policy considerations would most likely bar or limit recovery.
Bottom line: landlords, don’t lease out space for criminal activity.
PullDaLevaKronk t1_irk0xll wrote
Never made the argument. Just provided a reliable link to a mention of the law you were looking for.
droi86 t1_irk23h5 wrote
It wouldn't be a problem if asshole landlord would've filed the suit in Illinois, but they wanted to make the renters spend more money and that's why the filed under federal, the renter is not innocent, but the landlord should be screwed for playing shenanigans
dclxvi616 t1_irk38no wrote
The IRS has always required taxes be paid on income generated from illegal activity, doesn’t matter what that activity is or which state it is in or what the state laws are at all.
Ronin_Mustang t1_irk3t1y wrote
They might have held rent due to issue landlord wouldn't fix.
peensteen t1_irk475e wrote
I was thinking about these exact idiots. The "You can't touch me, nyah, nyah!" defense. At least gold flag fringes weren't mentioned.
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.
jjnefx t1_irk4m47 wrote
TBF&H If I were the landlord and I had to bring a tenant to court I'd be as big of a dick as possible to them. We would not be in court if they just paid the rent.
But there's obviously more to this story, that length of contract is way longer than a standard commercial rental agreement.
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_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.
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.
lorgskyegon t1_irk5wl7 wrote
The landlord can't ask a federal court to enforce a contract that is illegal under federal law.
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.
Uncle_Father_Oscar t1_irk69di wrote
Yes he does. So what? Doesn't matter. No it's not.
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.
plugubius t1_irk7emx wrote
The applicability of state law is straight-forward Erie. The federal court must ask whether the Illinois Supreme Court would hold the lease is invalid. In answering that question, the federal court is allowed to ask whether federal law preempts any state court or legislative pronouncements, but preemption is narrow.
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.
Katana1369 t1_irk8gd4 wrote
Wouldn't that be the defense instead of this?
Intrepid_Ad_1539 t1_irk8jxg wrote
Why didn't the change venue when they had the chance?
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.
BillHicksScream t1_irkawgj wrote
Why not? Esp if they're still a member of the Republican Party, where I dont trust them.
The Roberts Supreme Court is illegitimate anyways.
lilgem369 t1_irkb6cp wrote
Pot did. If Illinois taxed the heck out of it like CA did they may not have gotten the expected profits.
ArNaSTy t1_irkbakv wrote
What a shit lawyer they must have. That’s like law 101 right there.
BillHicksScream t1_irkbiz4 wrote
I think this is a reasonable conclusion. The existence of more appropriate, identical in spirit, morally clear local level laws makes this easy.
Are you paying attention Chief inJustice Roberts? Hello, McStooge...
Aleyla t1_irkbsos wrote
? Not sure what you are asking. The landlord picked the venue. The cannabis business is taking advantage of that choice.
Intrepid_Ad_1539 t1_irkcosl wrote
Right but you can have the case removed for improper venue under FRCP Rule 12
BernItToAsh t1_irkkk5v wrote
Cool idea and maybe could bring some attention to the right places, but ultimately not gonna work
MandoRodgers t1_irknbq8 wrote
playin chess while they playin checkers
RunningNumbers t1_irkqw3w wrote
Like they are scummy tenants who don’t pay rent?
tryingtodefendhim t1_irl0pni wrote
The weed is the good guy.
EmergencyGrab t1_irla3oj wrote
Strictly speaking, this headline isn't really that Onion-y.
Leto2AndTheCrew t1_irldlx6 wrote
It’s such bullshit how many loopholes pot stores have to jump through to run a business. Even in Washington state (where I can buy an ounce for under $100) I’ve gotta pay in cash because banks cannot fuck themselves over for engaging in federally illegal business (and I don’t blame them). Better to have $300 ounces where the money goes to criminals… ugh, I hate it all.
Then the cash business gets fucked from every side - it’s all a bunch of bullshit. It’s ludicrous that this is still a problem
Was glad to hearing the recent news about pardons. Fucking schedule 1 drug at the federal level.
hellslave t1_irlf8dc wrote
> (where I can buy an ounce for under $100)
Yeah, but, an actual good ounce? And if so, where? For reference, I'm in Pierce County, and I've not often found ounces of quality flower anywhere.
tryingtodefendhim t1_irlflua wrote
Right! Like the cheapest ounce I’ve seen is 160 for shake. Plus they have no problem taking debit just no credit cards.
Leto2AndTheCrew t1_irliz8x wrote
It’s a medium quality ounce because I enjoy smoking out of a bong. But even better than buying bags of pot, check out the infused pre rolls. 24% THC at $4 a gram - take that, load it up in a bong and you’re set.
[deleted] t1_irljagm wrote
[deleted]
yogfthagen t1_irlknsl wrote
Under federal law, there is no such thing as a legal pot business. So the pot shop refusing to listen to the federal judgement is equivalent to the mob refusing to pay income tax on the money they illegally extort.
Hydroquake_Vortex t1_irlmkui wrote
You have to pay taxes on illegal goods as well. That’s how they got Al Capone
TehOuchies t1_irm7jha wrote
But renting and leasing is what they are going to court for. Not pot sales.
No need to change courts.
steboy t1_irm8pse wrote
Sure, but it’s not about the business. It’s about rent.
You sign a lease, you pay rent. If operating an illegal business was grounds to not pay rent, everyone would do it.
immibis t1_irma340 wrote
Whoever a landlord is mad at is usually the good guy.
immibis t1_irma7ng wrote
I assume the cannabis firm doesn't have to argue that it does illegal stuff, only that the landlord is trying to enforce a contract for something illegal, which may or may not have actually happened.
immibis t1_irma8s7 wrote
Landlordism is theft.
Katana1369 t1_irmciu6 wrote
No it really isn't.
ash_274 t1_irmdfdh wrote
He’s not paying his rent
ash_274 t1_irmdr1g wrote
This happened in Illinois, so a California filing would make even less sense than the Federal filing
Fxate t1_irmgdim wrote
Isn't this pretty much how they got Capone?
tryingtodefendhim t1_irms4fg wrote
I don’t mean the weed seller. I mean the weed itself.
yogfthagen t1_irms85s wrote
Take it up in a jurisdiction that actually recognizes the business' right to exist.
In federal court, the owner of the pot shop, by stepping into the court, has admitted to federal drug trafficking.
If the political winds change, the owner has basically set themselves up for a multi-decade stretch in a federal prison.
I wouldn't show up, either.
hawkxp71 t1_irnoqpx wrote
Good point. I misread. The pot company is based in Cali but this franchise was in IL.
So yes, they will refile in IL
immibis t1_irntrz0 wrote
Is taxation theft?
bob4apples t1_iro7xco wrote
Generally illegal contracts are unenforceable. Ostensibly, the law is not intended to help secure ill gotten gains.
This is a weird one because pot isn't very illegal. If the landlord had gone to the state court, this wouldn't be an issue. At the state level it is legal to possess, buy and sell weed. Dispensaries are just another tenant.
However, the landlord went to federal court. In federal court, it is NOT legal to possess, buy or sell weed. In fact, it is illegal to even rent to "dealers".
Which brings up the question. If the federal judge rules that the contract is enforceable then he's ruling that it is legal.
Katana1369 t1_irosy4k wrote
No. My taxes pay for services and infrastructure and our military. I may not like where some of it is spent but it isn't theft.
TheNikephoros t1_irp22ra wrote
Income tax was made SPECIFICALLY to get Capone.
immibis t1_irqfz7p wrote
What do your rents pay for
Redoran_simp t1_irtjfou wrote
You're right. It's scalping.
Katana1369 t1_irubddh wrote
Oh for heavens sake. Somebody owns a property and offers it for rent. This isn't evil. It a business.
Geeze
Redoran_simp t1_iruc6mx wrote
There's a housing shortage. Somebody buys a house then rents it to someone for more than it would cost them in mortgage. That is scalping. That is evil. Fuck landlords.
Yung_Corneliois t1_is3a323 wrote
Isn’t there laws about the rent though? Like after 30 days of being over rent the owner can do what he wants with the property (this is a wild guess obviously I have no clue how this works).
Can’t he just destroy the stuff on the property?
Katana1369 t1_irib1j3 wrote
Geez. Pay the fucking rent.