Rental Agreements / Contracts: Does yours have a "morals" clause in it?

[GeekDrew]

While reviewing a rental agreement (for an apartment) that I was planning on signing last weekend, I found a number of disturbing clauses, including a morals clause. This contract permitted the property owner to evict the tenant for acting in any manner which the property owners felt to be immoral. According to the contract, eviction would then let the property owner charge the tenant any amount of fees, above and beyond the standard rental amount, with no set maximum liability, for any reason they felt necessary. Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I did not consult a lawyer for this particular purpose (at least yet...), but I did scan the contract and send it to a couple of paralegals and a friend of mine that is a property manager for a rather large apartment complex elsewhere. Everybody that looked at the contract told me that I should absolutely not sign the contract as is, and the morals clause was one of the main reasons (but not the only one: the contract was poorly worded and had many other problems IMO).

A previous tenant told me that he has reason to believe that the owners (or part of the owners management group) is homophobic, and he wouldn't put it past them to evict someone just for that reason.

Does anyone else here have any experience with a 'morals' clause in a rental agreement? Any bad experiences as a result?

 

[KeithTalent]

I've never seen that, but there is no fucking way I would sign it. You are essentially giving them the ability to evict you and ding you with charges at any time and with no real reason. IANAL but I can't really see how that would hold up in court, whether you signed it or not. Very strange.

KT

 

[Saga]

The last few times I've been moved by my work, the agreements both included this. Is the establishment considered somewhat "upscale" for apartments? In my city, there is a VERY large amount of traditional apartments, but there are three complexes in particular that come to mind as being tailored more towards corporate and transitional housing - few month blocks at a time for work relocation, rich guy getting his ass handed to him by the legal system due to pending divorce who is going to owe most of his income for the next 50 years to the ex so she can stay at home and get fat off him, etc, etc. THOSE rental agreements both included something similar, though it did not specify a morality clause. They simply said that they reserve the right to evict any tenant for any reason that they deem to be disruptive to the environment. That could be anything from a noise violation to driving a shitty car if they felt like it - and I HAVE seen them remove a tenant because his daily driver was an old 90's Nissan.

This place is gated, covered with Camera's, has 24/7 security guards, and there is a BMW, CTS-V, and Denali/Yukon in every other parking stall. I'd imagine that places like mine are extremely few and far between. They make tons of money off constant corporate contracts and if my company wasn't footing the bill for mine I would honestly feel that everything they provide was worth the cost if I intended to rent forever and own nicer things.

Now if it's some shitty apartment complex right off the highway with section 7 housing across the street, that shits bananas.

 

[RKS]

my main issue is the vagueness of what is moral or immoral. this would probabbly be construed against if it went to court anyway but it gives the landlord a lot of leeway.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Saga
The last few times I've been moved by my work, the agreements both included this. Is the establishment considered somewhat "upscale" for apartments? In my city, there is a VERY large amount of traditional apartments, but there are three complexes in particular that come to mind as being tailored more towards corporate and transitional housing - few month blocks at a time for work relocation, rich guy getting his ass handed to him by the legal system due to pending divorce who is going to owe most of his income for the next 50 years to the ex so she can stay at home and get fat off him, etc, etc. THOSE rental agreements both included something similar, though it did not specify a morality clause. They simply said that they reserve the right to evict any tenant for any reason that they deem to be disruptive to the environment. That could be anything from a noise violation to driving a shitty car if they felt like it - and I HAVE seen them remove a tenant because his daily driver was an old 90's Nissan.

This place is gated, covered with Camera's, has 24/7 security guards, and there is a BMW, CTS-V, and Denali/Yukon in every other parking stall. I'd imagine that places like mine are extremely few and far between. They make tons of money off constant corporate contracts and if my company wasn't footing the bill for mine I would honestly feel that everything they provide was worth the cost if I intended to rent forever and own nicer things.

Now if it's some shitty apartment complex right off the highway with section 7 housing across the street, that shits bananas.

It's not upscale, nor is it a shitty complex. It's what I'd call "average".

I can understand certain complexes having rules much like a HOA that would maintain the look/feel/stature of the facility and etc, having to do with disruption to the property in looks, sounds, etc. Many may not agree with it, but I do understand that logic. But a morals clause, I just don't understand.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I've never seen that, but there is no fucking way I would sign it. You are essentially giving them the ability to evict you and ding you with charges at any time and with no real reason. IANAL but I can't really see how that would hold up in court, whether you signed it or not. Very strange.

KT

++

 

[Stiganator]

..

 

[trmiv]

So, is this the ad you got it from? http://consumerist.com/5130759...artment-rental-ad-ever

 

[guyver01]

so what you're saying is you do alot of morally questionable things, and afraid it might bite ya in the ass?

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
While reviewing a rental agreement (for an apartment) that I was planning on signing last weekend, I found a number of disturbing clauses, including a morals clause. This contract permitted the property owner to evict the tenant for acting in any manner which the property owners felt to be immoral. According to the contract, eviction would then let the property owner charge the tenant any amount of fees, above and beyond the standard rental amount, with no set maximum liability, for any reason they felt necessary. Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I did not consult a lawyer for this particular purpose (at least yet...), but I did scan the contract and send it to a couple of paralegals and a friend of mine that is a property manager for a rather large apartment complex elsewhere. Everybody that looked at the contract told me that I should absolutely not sign the contract as is, and the morals clause was one of the main reasons (but not the only one: the contract was poorly worded and had many other problems IMO).

A previous tenant told me that he has reason to believe that the owners (or part of the owners management group) is homophobic, and he wouldn't put it past them to evict someone just for that reason.

Does anyone else here have any experience with a 'morals' clause in a rental agreement? Any bad experiences as a result?

Other than the fact that it's illegal under FHA rules... no, I wouldn't sign it. Then I'd take a copy of the least and report the landlord for FHA violations just to be a dick.

 

[Tsaico]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

It's not upscale, nor is it a shitty complex. It's what I'd call "average".

I can understand certain complexes having rules much like a HOA that would maintain the look/feel/stature of the facility and etc, having to do with disruption to the property in looks, sounds, etc. Many may not agree with it, but I do understand that logic. But a morals clause, I just don't understand.

I would also vote for the don't sign. While certain "moral" descision such as your landlord finds out your are gay is protected under equal housing laws, but whos to say they wouldn't find something else immoral? They don't like that you slap your kids, or they don't agree with NOT slapping your kids, think it is immoral to have your GF stay the night, where would it end? Unless they had an approved list of "immoral" things they have objections about and update you regularly on new things added, I wouldn't even consider it. If they had a list, then I would at least read some items, but probably not sign. Either way, the only reasons I say cause for eviction would be non-payment, and/or interfering with others who live there from enjoying their apt.

Don't bother finding a lawyer, just find a different place since it is just average place.

 

[trmiv]

Originally posted by: guyver01
so what you're saying is you do alot of morally questionable things, and afraid it might bite ya in the ass?

What is your definition of something "morally questionable"?

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
While reviewing a rental agreement (for an apartment) that I was planning on signing last weekend, I found a number of disturbing clauses, including a morals clause. This contract permitted the property owner to evict the tenant for acting in any manner which the property owners felt to be immoral. According to the contract, eviction would then let the property owner charge the tenant any amount of fees, above and beyond the standard rental amount, with no set maximum liability, for any reason they felt necessary. Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I did not consult a lawyer for this particular purpose (at least yet...), but I did scan the contract and send it to a couple of paralegals and a friend of mine that is a property manager for a rather large apartment complex elsewhere. Everybody that looked at the contract told me that I should absolutely not sign the contract as is, and the morals clause was one of the main reasons (but not the only one: the contract was poorly worded and had many other problems IMO).

A previous tenant told me that he has reason to believe that the owners (or part of the owners management group) is homophobic, and he wouldn't put it past them to evict someone just for that reason.

Does anyone else here have any experience with a 'morals' clause in a rental agreement? Any bad experiences as a result?

Other than the fact that it's illegal under FHA rules... no, I wouldn't sign it. Then I'd take a copy of the least and report the landlord for FHA violations just to be a dick.

Yeah, I would report this bigot.

 

[alkemyst]

average is what those with money call shitty.

 

[CountZero]

Originally posted by: trmiv

Originally posted by: guyver01
so what you're saying is you do alot of morally questionable things, and afraid it might bite ya in the ass?

What is your definition of something "morally questionable"?

I'd say even reading ATOT is morally questionable, let alone posting!

The first thought I had before even reading the post was that it was essentially an attempt to keep 'the gays' out of the apt complex.

In no way would I ever sign a contract that held me accountable for unlimited liability without even knowing exactly what could land me in such a situation. As others have said the gay thing is probably legally covered but who really knows what they consider immoral.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
average is what those with money call shitty.

Is that you JLGatsby?

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: trmiv
So, is this the ad you got it from? http://consumerist.com/5130759...artment-rental-ad-ever

Bwaahaha that is so fake. But funny.

To OP, it may be illegal to have a moral cause, but I can understand why a landlord might have one. Unfortuanaly with what attorneys do, landlords can get dragged into any problems the tenants cause. I have seen it happen many times. They could just be trying to protect themselves from bad tenants?

Why not just ask the landlord what he means, simple at that.

 

[maziwanka]

i actually wouldn't worry. a clause like that is unlikely to be upheld in a court.

to avoid hassle, i would strike that provision and anything like it. if management refuses to cooperate, look elsewhere.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Why not just ask the landlord what he means, simple at that.

Originally posted by: maziwanka
i actually wouldn't worry. a clause like that is unlikely to be upheld in a court.

to avoid hassle, i would strike that provision and anything like it. if management refuses to cooperate, look elsewhere.

In response to both of you, the owner's agent refused to even consider striking any of the provisions that I found unacceptable, so I don't plan on ever moving into any of their complexes, ever. Unfortunately, that rules out a significant number of the decent places in this town...

 

[Codewiz]

When I was in college there was this super religious guy that rented awesome studio apartments. He had all sorts of crap like that in his rental agreements. He said that you couldn't drink alcohol in the apartment along with no guests of the opposite sex could stay overnight.

 

[JS80]

My guess is to avoid prostitutes and home drug makers but who knows there are some crazies out there. But then again who wants to have a lawsuit and lose their apartment building because you tried to evict a buttsexer.

 

[AreaCode707]

If used as a way to discriminate against a protected population, this would be in violation of fair housing and is illegal.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA

However, it probably would involve a legal battle and be a giant PITA. I'd view this as a great tip-off that your landlord is going to be a dick about stuff and is somebody you probably want to avoid having to deal with.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

If the "immoral behavior" involves protected areas such as age, sex, sexual orientation, race etc. than the contract would be void. You cannot sign away your rights.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
If the "immoral behavior" involves protected areas such as age, sex, sexual orientation, race etc. than the contract would be void. You cannot sign away your rights.

Really? So what about the whole 'lack of disclosure' part of a Non-Disclosure agreement?

You can sign away your rights, and you can do so even if the right is legally protected, but only so long as you do so voluntarily, for consideration, and for a legal purpose.

A contract that says "I pledge to not be gay or you may evict me", while ambiguous in its enforcement, is perfectly legal. A statement of "You may not be gay or I will evict you" is not legal in that you are being mandated to not be gay, it is not something you have voluntarily contracted away. Likewise, refusing to contract with someone solely because they refuse to sign a contract that says "I pledge to not be gay or you may evict me" is also illegal, but oftentimes difficult to prosecute.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
If the "immoral behavior" involves protected areas such as age, sex, sexual orientation, race etc. than the contract would be void. You cannot sign away your rights.

Really? So what about the whole 'lack of disclosure' part of a Non-Disclosure agreement?

You can sign away your rights, and you can do so even if the right is legally protected, but only so long as you do so voluntarily, for consideration, and for a legal purpose.

A contract that says "I pledge to not be gay or you may evict me", while ambiguous in its enforcement, is perfectly legal. A statement of "You may not be gay or I will evict you" is not legal in that you are being mandated to not be gay, it is not something you have voluntarily contracted away. Likewise, refusing to contract with someone solely because they refuse to sign a contract that says "I pledge to not be gay or you may evict me" is also illegal, but oftentimes difficult to prosecute.

Except under FHA laws you can't use any protected status as grounds for discrimination, period. You can't legally enforce such a lease, even if the tenant lied in signing the lease. You also can't prevent any member of protected status from signing said lease on offer. Further more, you can't withhold offer from a qualified tenant based on those criteria (though this one is most of all nearly impossible to enforce).