Man pre-pays $732,000 in rent for 61 years. Now the landlord is trying to renege.

[Swirv]

Some people feels it’s better to lock in the rate early

And whomever purchases the property must honor the lease, at least in my state. Breh should’ve had the lease recorded with the county registry of deeds. Land evidence collected by officials is very hard to dispute in a court of law.

 

[EndDomination]

I followed this case while it was happening and i remember reading in the comments something similar to what you said, but they also said it's not law in Michigan which is where this case is taking place. Admittedly, i didn't verify if that's true or not.

EDIT: Also i tend to believe there is no such statute in Michigan cause the judge would have brought it up as soon as the tenant showed the 61 year lease.

Let me tell you, I go in front of judges and magistrates on a weekly basis who are entirely unfamiliar with the statutes governing leases, real property, and contract provisions (like the statute of frauds) - despite them being specialized Courts.

Looking at Michigan code 445 - I suspect a lease of this length would be treated as a rental-purchase agreement, and if it wasn't notarized as filed, it would probably have to either 1) be treated as a regular 2-year lease or; 2) be unenforceable because of unconscionability.

This is a bizarre case to be honest and a lot of the traditional principles we use for contract interpretation would have to be stretched

 

[Negro Caesar]

700k prepaid rent sound like a scam. No way someone did that

 

[Turbulent]

Let me tell you, I go in front of judges and magistrates on a weekly basis who are entirely unfamiliar with the statutes governing leases, real property, and contract provisions (like the statute of frauds) - despite them being specialized Courts.

Looking at Michigan code 445 - I suspect a lease of this length would be treated as a rental-purchase agreement, and if it wasn't notarized as filed, it would probably have to either 1) be treated as a regular 2-year lease or; 2) be unenforceable because of unconscionability.

This is a bizarre case to be honest and a lot of the traditional principles we use for contract interpretation would have to be stretched

Im no legal expert and i agree it's bizarre which is why I thought it was interesting. Ultimately it doesn't seem clear that the lease has to be notarized. But then again there's the law in theory and then how it's practiced in the real world which you most likely have more experience in than me so at the end of the day you're probably right. All I'm saying is that if it wasn't an obvious scam and if i would have been the tenant, i would have tried to argue for the validity of the lease.

 

[EndDomination]

Im no legal expert and i agree it's bizarre which is why I thought it was interesting. Ultimately it doesn't seem clear that the lease has to be notarized. But then again there's the law in theory and then how it's practiced in the real world which you most likely have more experience in than me so at the end of the day you're probably right. All I'm saying is that if it wasn't an obvious scam and if i would have been the tenant, i would have tried to argue for the validity of the lease.

I don't disagree - I do tenant defense a good chunk of the time and any contract, written or verbal, evidencing intent to lease is something that I will argue in favor of (and construe against the drafter).

 

[Richard Glidewell]

This sounds like a mortgage......

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Why didn’t he just buy a house?

This whole shyt seems stupid as fukk.

 

[⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐]

Civil asset forfeiture .... Thwarted

 

[DrunkenNovice]

If I remember this case correctly

The land lord was a trust fund baby who was into some shyt.

The tenant worked out a deal where he could stay as part of a repayment of debt, and the landlord credited him that amount. They are questioning whether he ever really paid it.

The people who are suing are the owners who let the let landlord sublease.

It is dumb unless you have a fiend landlord who is gonna credit you 50k for 10k

 

[Turbulent]

I don't disagree - I do tenant defense a good chunk of the time and any contract, written or verbal, evidencing intent to lease is something that I will argue in favor of (and construe against the drafter).

I appreciate your experience in these types of issues. If you don't mind, i had another question about this case. I don't know if you watched the whole case but in the final hearing, the owner brought the land contract he had with his son/the previous owner and the lawyer claimed that there were clauses in the contract that prevent the previous owner from renting out the house and he cited the paragraphs. When the judge read it out loud, it was something like "the owner of the house must get permission from the land owner before making any changes to the property that would decrease its value". And the judge agreed that the 61year lease decreases the value of the house and based on that the owner of the house at the time was not allowed to enter into a lease which made the lease invalid.

In your opinion, do you think the tenant could have argued the following two points?:

1. The value of the property is not decreased since the lease would guarantee income for 61 years for a total of more than 700k and the lawyer himself said the house was worth about 250k. Plus they still keep the asset in the end.


2. "Changes to the property" should mean like if they destroy a wall or convert a room or basement into something else. Entering into a lease agreement changes the use of the property but not the property itself.

I could be wrong and maybe i missed something in the videos but that's the way i would have attacked it. Don't really care either way, just trying to "excircise my logical muscles", lol

 

[maxamusa]

If you had that type of cash on hand why not buy outright

I'm saying; even if this legit you deserve to get got for being such a sucker