Not really?

 

1、下雪天，房客不小心在出租房處摔倒，房東甚至要負責任: umbrella? Not really either.

2、房客不交房租，房東自己無權直接趕人: of course not. Landlord is not authorized to live during lease.

3、走法律程序，費時1~5個月(視不同州而異)而不顧房東的得失: ask TT, especially JY101's "bible".

4、Eviction後期房客自己搬走，順手牽羊把房東的財物搬走或蓄意毀壞財物，房東財產難以得到有效保護 Read JY101's Bible!

5、 Eviction等到set out那一天，要自己請人把房客的東西搬出去，且要小心看管好並避免雨淋 Really? Read JY101's Bible!!

6、水費（前owener的或租客的）永遠與當前房東有關（也許不同州有異）: probably not. Why the previous owner's?

7、房產稅往往高與房子價值計算、每年上漲、不管是否有人住: Of course this is the correct way.

Your examples are not enough to show SB or BS.

 

 

所有跟帖： 

• But those examples are common sense, -backchina888- ♂ (0 bytes) () 07/23/2012 postreply 14:08:53

• where is JY101's Bible?? thanks -HappyWed- ♀ (0 bytes) () 07/23/2012 postreply 14:21:16

• JY's bible to eviction............. 2008-07-17 19:09:01 -wooddiy- ♂ (1671 bytes) () 07/23/2012 postreply 14:27:06

• 說的容易，實施起來難。首先要能找到他人去哪裏了，否則法庭傳票沒地方送 -說的好- ♀ (137 bytes) () 07/23/2012 postreply 16:55:20

• 對了，這就是政府保護弱者造成的結果。 -backchina888- ♂ (0 bytes) () 07/23/2012 postreply 18:30:41