- NEWS
- Gift wrap causes roof fire in Newport 2 hours & 12 minutes ago
- Man bit by attackers, could lose 2 fingers 3 hours & 10 minutes ago
- Post-Christmas shopping outlook a mixed bag 2 hours & 16 minutes ago
- Robbers take $200 at knifepoint 2 hours & 15 minutes ago
- SPORTS
- 5 reasons the Emerald Bowl matters 2 hours & 42 minutes ago
- O.C. football: 2009 All-County team
- Lakers Rim Shots 12-22-09 3 hours & 2 minutes ago
- So-called expert takes on Boeing employee in NFL picks
- BUSINESS
- Really? Google eyes Trulia
- Who is 2009 Holiday Spirit winner? 2 hours & 19 minutes ago
- 88-year-old boss is tops, employees say
- Builder group chief foresees 3%-5% home price gain 2 hours & 10 minutes ago
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Landlord on hook for up to $44,000 - even though discrimination case was dropped
April 29th, 2009, 3:00 am · 70 Comments · posted by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent
We here at the OC Watchdog believe in justice and we’d like to think our government does too. But when we hear about guys like Dan Bader (left), we start to wonder.
We first wrote about Bader last year, when he was embroiled in a messy dispute with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Fair Housing Council of Orange County.
Back in 2006, Bader advertised on Craigslist a room for rent in his Newport Beach home. As an afterthought, he wrote that the 480-square foot rental unit was “Well suited for professional adults” and “Perfect for 1 or 2 professionals.” (Click here to see a republished ad on Bader’s Web site.)
That might not seem like a big deal to you, but the Fair Housing Council of Orange County thought those few words implied discrimination against people with children. The council filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which summ0ned Bader to a hearing in downtown Los Angeles.
Boy, Bader had no idea what he was getting himself into.
You see, it turns out the Fair Housing Council of Orange County is a very special entity; there’s only a few dozen like it in the country. The council is a nonprofit charged with enforcing fair housing laws — that is, the laws that prevent landlords from discriminating against blacks or Jews or gays.
Our research indicates that these nonprofits aren’t well funded, but they do have a way to make money: they’ve been granted special legal powers to seek money from the very people they accuse of discrimination. As one attorney told us, there’s nothing to stop these agencies from effectively blackmailing landlords.
“They hold all the cards,” Bader said.
At the hearing in Los Angeles, Bader found himself before a couple of fair employment staffers. The council wasn’t even represented. The bureaucrats told Bader they had investigated and found that Bader does not discriminate… BUT the ads were still a problem.
The complaint would be dropped — if Bader paid the Orange County council $4,000 and agreed to five years of classes at $250 a class.
Bader said no — the state itself said he didn’t discriminate! But that didn’t seem to matter. Before he knew it, the state turned around and sued him for discrimination, on behalf of the council, and sought “unlimited” damages.
That’s when we wrote about Bader last year. Bader was determined to fight the system and beat the suit. He countersued the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Fair Housing Council of Orange County and council’s CEO D. Elizabeth Pierson. Bader thought he would win.
He was wrong.
Last year, Orange County Superior Court Judge Andrew Banks dismissed Bader’s countersuit and said Bader would have to pay the department, the council and Pierson’s attorney’s fees.
Then, in the Fall, right before the trial on the Craiglist ads, the state dropped the suit. Two years after the initial complaint, all charges of discrimination were dropped. The case went away.
But by then Bader had spent quite a bit defending himself. Quite a bit. He asked the court to award him attorneys fees.
Nope. This month, Judge Banks denied his motion to have the department and council pay his legal bills. So now Bader is hurting. He’s already paid Pierson $7,500 in attorney’s fees. The council and the department haven’t asked for their money, but they could each ask for about $7,000. And Bader owes about $30,000 for his own defense.
So, Bader is on the hook for as much as $44,000. For a case that was dropped. Where the state already said he didn’t discriminate.
If he had it to do all over again, Bader says he’d have paid the $4,000, even if it was blackmail.
“There’s nothing you can do,” he said. “You have no ability to win this.”
We tried to ask Judge Banks about his rulings, but were told by the court he didn’t want to discuss the case. (If you want to try him, here’s a link to Banks’ phone number.) Meanwhile, the state says it dropped the suit because the council told it to.
So we asked the council’s marketing director, Connie Der Torossian, why it wanted the suit dropped. Via e-mail, she said the council, “after considering the continued diversion of the agency’s scarce resources, elected not to proceed in that part of the claim, particularly in light of the circumstances regarding the judgment the Fair Housing Council of Orange County has against Mr. Bader.”
Der Torossian is saying the council dropped the suit because Bader already has to pay the council attorneys fees. In other words: they dropped the suit because they’re getting their money.
That seems to back up Bader’s theory that this was just good, old fashioned blackmail.
Der Torossian, however, didn’t like that interpretation: “No, I believe you are misinterpreting, this was never about money and we have not received any funds from Mr. Bader. The Board of Directors elected not to proceed because our agency, as a nonprofit organization, has very limited resources and it was clear that Mr. Bader’s intention was not to resolve the matter but rather continue to expend the agency’s resources. Mr. Bader was offered the opportunity to mediate and resolve the matter many times but he declined.”
More Watchdog:
- Government plan won’t save anyone from disaster, anti-nuke pillmaker says
- AIG investigation goes criminal
- State Bar wouldn’t let guilty lawyer resign
- Free (well, $4.5 million) pills for nuclear neighbors!
- Color of money: Is it racist to ask accountants to have more training?
- Judge stops board from replacing ‘argumentative’ director in Laguna Woods
- 18-seconds missing from jail video taken of jaywalker who claims being beaten
- Manager at addiction center sexually harassed patients, says state report that may be withdrawn
- Two of America’s worst charities call OC home, watchdog says
- Three of OC’s top 10 employers are government agencies
- Oink! Lawmakers fry up $20 million in pork for OC, group says
- OC’s pork projects list
- OC pork breakdown, by lawmaker
- Surprise! Most think taxes are too high, but OK wealth redistribution
- Politicians climb aboard “The Money Train”
- Laguna Woods approves OC’s first mandatory spay-neuter law
- Controversial spay-neuter law heads to Laguna Woods council
- Vote! Should Laguna Woods approve mandatory spay-neuter law?
- Salt for your thyroid in a nuclear emergency: $4.5 million
- Stimulation, indeed: Feds to drop $285 million on new cars
- Transportation czars enjoy $300-a-night hotels while traveling
- White tabs just won’t do! Tustin pays $400 for color-coded tabs at councilwoman’s request
- Surfrider appears to benefit from its toll road fight
- KPCC public radio on ‘low-performing charity’ list
- Defying economic gravity: One OC city rakes in sales tax as others bleed
- Smile! More airborne government cameras snap pictures of your yard
- State moves to revoke embattled lender’s real estate license
- With $150 million in the bank, why is fire authority axing firefighters?
- Former top cop in Garden Grove guilty of embezzlement
- U.S. Postal Service seeks $25 billion federal bailout
- State considers ban on big screen TVs
- Backyard breeders (trying to evade taxes) oppose spay/neuter laws, OC activist says
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
70 Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow this blog: on 
Another victim of government “fairness”.
Thank you for putting up a good fight.
Fair Housing Council of Orange County, ACORN, and many other HUD- Affiliate organizations that have practiced this “thuggery”, or “extortion” as some call it. Ironically, HUD does the same thing and it is well documented. Our hat is off to Mr. Bader who had the courage to stand up to this shakedown racket that continues to this day.
The word of the day is “extortion” and when you look it up in the dictionary, it says “see Fair Housing Council of Orange County”.
The New Nazi’s are in charge
ther’s an old maxim in the law that the law should be used as a shield, not a sword.
It’s all great to shield people from discrimination, but why is the judge allowing the State to use a sword on this guy?
The government is very powerful. Its power must be checked when it is directed against a little guy. The judge is pretty much the only person who could check that power.
We the people deserve an explanation from the judge.
What a disgrace our government is!!!! It’s just stupid they way government intrudes on our lives. He’s discriminating against children? So what, if it was true he should have the right to discrimnate when his personnal property is concererned. Seniors discrminate all the time. Ever heard of a 55+ community? I applaud Mr. Bader for fighting these morons. They should be ashamed of themselves. They’re nothing but common criminals.
“The livelihoods of a lot of people are at stake here,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said,
Oh yeah, and the lives of everyone who eats pork is at stake !
Why does making money always trump the health and well-being of a person?
That’s what you call ‘Dead Right’.
Next time do what everyone else does, pay up and put it down to a cost of doing business, then pass the cost along in the rent, then it will only discriminate against poor people, which seems to be ok.
Once you have to pay a lawyer you have already lost. They know it which is why people are sued all the time.
It’s better to pay $4k and be guilty than pay $30k and be innocent.
Send one of your kids to law school, you will probably earn the tuition back in your first lawsuit!
Oh, the poor man probably is going to have trouble making his yacht payment. I was told more than once that I could not rent because of the children. I wish I knew about this council at the time. 55 and older is the same scam. People, the law in California is — no discrimination against people with children.
He never said “no children”. He just suggested that 1 or 2 people willing to live in a tiny 480 sq ft apt would be the best fit for the place. If you want to cram 5 kids into 480 sq ft then by all means do it. I just don’t see the discrimination here. If he had said, “no kids” then that is different. But he did not.
Why are you so jealous of someone owns a yacht? He may or may not own the yacht. That is just a photo taken in a yacht. You should be renting an apartment if you have children. You are expecting to pay minimum for a room but enjoy full privileges in someone’s house. That is not going to happen!
Actually in response to concerns about rentals banning children and to accommodate seniors the state passed a law that it is illegal to discriminate against children except that 55 plus communities are allowed. They are not a scam.
I remember that several adult communities with different age limits had to modify them to comply with the law. My aunt was living in a place in Hunt Bch that was 40 plus so they had to change. My folks lived in one that I think started at 45 or maybe 50 and they had to change to the 55 age limit.
This was an effort to accommodate both families with children and to also allow places that are geared toward seniors.
I believe that went through in the 80s some time.
The Federal Mafia always wins. Maybe the Fair Housing Council of Orange County have Jesse Jackson as a friend? This legal shakedown is unacceptable and if an Italian was running this, he would be in jail for Racketeering.
Unbelievable. The judge should be investigated and possibly disbarred.
And he should be tarred and fethered and forced to suck the toes of all welfare Moms.
Well one thing is that he should be up for election at some point so hopefully we can all remember or someone will and remind us so he is voted out.
Yeah, somebody should shove the guy off the bench and then administer swift kick in the booty for punitive damage.
It doesnt say “professionals without children”… give me a break! or ONLY 2 professionals. what, was fair housing bored or something? this is so frivolous its sickening
and since when is “gay” a protected class?
Having dealt with the State myself, I can tell you that they are NOT interested in what is right, what they are interested in is winning, and the system is gamed for them to exactly that.
I am ashamed we live in a State that is allowed to operate with protections not afforded to the average citizen, but you know we all have to pay for those obscene pensions they command….
Do your research before you try to save a buck.
That’s a great idea Digby. Raise the rent to $400.00 more. To cover frivolous cost and taxes. After all, the Fair Housing Council of Orange County is in the business to rip people off. And the have proven to show they can do anything they want to whoever they want. They are nothing but common criminals with a judge aiding them.
That’s why I sold my rental property and invested out of state where landlords have more power and control. I don’t care who I rent to as long they pay on time. Even if they are late I still work with them. And most of them are on some type of social service and have children.
great points
Those are good thoughts. I agree with the thought of moving rental property out of CA. the laws here in CA are too skewed toward tenants, apparently written by Dems who have heard about the big bad landlords and ignored the big bad tenants or the fact that some of us are not large apt owners. There are many who have one rental.
Iwps: You sound like a loser. No doubt you’re on Section 8.
Brian - your article brings light to some unfair bureacracy but then you describe the council as “a nonprofit charged with enforcing fair housing laws — that is, the laws that prevent landlords from discriminating against blacks or Jews or gays”. Or senior citizens or latinos or the blind/deaf. I mean your choice of phrasing is and example of the subtle problems that can become explosive if the council did not keep it in check. In the future be absolutely objective or let someone else write the article.
+1
I’m sorry, Shark. I’m not clear what it is you dislike about my phrasing or what you find subjective.
nowhere does it say professionals can’t have kids. where do they get this stuff??
he didn’t advertise for a “DINK” couple to rent it, nor did he even mention kids. he said who it would be ideal for, to help to attract potential renters to an apartment which is suited to their specific needs. if anything, he was doing people a favor by not wasting their time and doing himself a service by promoting the stronger points of his rental. therefore helping him to achieve the highest possible rent for said unit(s). after all, any business owner wants to maximize revenue.. who ever said rental units are one size fits all?? I can clearly tell you, as a longtime renter in OC (8+ years), they’re NOT!
what about all those ads when I first moved to OC that said “female only”? guess that’s OK? freaking government lowlifes, mind your own business.
cases like this is why I am hoping to sell all of my all of my rental properties,asap.Some day landlords will get fed up with rules and regulations by the government, and sell off their properties, reducing the inventory of rentals.then where will renters look for a place to rent.Thank the government renters.
Bleeding Heart Liberals - you make me sick. This man probably works had for every cent. Regardless, it’s his investment he should rent to whomever he chooses. What does he owe anyone else? His ad was perfectly acceptable. If I had children and was looking for a place to rent I wouldn’t not have read that into it. I think this is only the beginning of this kind of behaviour. Especially with the current Administration in gov’t, there is a green flag for everyone who wants to use and abuse the system and get something for nothing, to do so. You don’t even have to have deep pockets anymore!
My heart bleeds for this “poor” guy in Newport Beach. Isn’t that what this article is supposed to accomplish? Everybody talks about “family values” except when it comes to where you live. I was given the “professional” code word myself in Orange County. This happens all the time — too bad this guy got nailed — but dozens of others get away with it.
LWPS,
Sounds like they should have given you the boot - not a “professional code word”. This guy only got nailed by the criminal actions of a government sanctioned entity. For what? Because he suggested that his property may be better suited for some. He never stated that he excluded “others”; whether with children, or not. Get a grip.
What is your point here? You sound very bitter.
the point is that there is no evidence that this guy discriminates but because he happened to use some words they jumped on it and jumped on him.
The so called Fair Housing Council is supposed to be fair in looking out for the rights of tenants and should also look out for the rights of small landlords like him. They don’t.
Point is he wasn’t discriminating but they were extorting money from him making up something out of nothing rather than going after legitimate discrimination cases.
If you feel that someone is trying to illegally discriminate against you, do something to check it out. Don’t just jump to the conclusion that some code word meant discrimination. Verify that it is. If it is, go to the Fair Housing Council for help.
The small 1 bedroom apt next door to me rented to a family of 6, the noise and trash and water they use has effected my life the other in our complex. We are all paying more for water and trash, I can’t sit on my patio anymore because of the screaming kids. Its just too small of a apt for that many people. No discrimination involved its just not big enough for the whole family. Because of this 5 of us are are looking for new apts to get away from this family.
This whole thing is just stupidity on the OC Watchdog to even this is right to pursue. There are many of us who DO NOT like children nor want then living in our rentals - all they do is destroy property and bring down your values. Plus you’ll probably get 15 illegals trying to rent it and who rents from you is YOUR RIGHT - not the watchdogs or Fair housing.
I don’t know what you are saying is stupidity about posting this. If you are a landlord you need to be aware of what the laws say. They say that you can not discriminate against children. Maybe join one of the apt associations who can keep you informed of the laws you need to obey as well as how to things that can be done to protect property–including screening tenants.
So we may not like what some of the laws are, but if you discriminate against children, they can rightfully go after you. I believe that you can limit occupancy though for health and safety reasons.
In addition you can go to http://www.nolo.com which has books on California Landlord’s rights and responsibilities and other legal self help books.
“The Board of Directors elected not to proceed because our agency, as a nonprofit organization, has very limited resources ” If it really has very limited resources, it should not have messed up with this guy in the first place.
Well, what they didn’t mention is that they were actually trying to sue the guy to get some money out of him but decided to tuck tail and run once they realized he was going to put up a fight against their frivolous lawsuit. They’re right about having limited funds, it’s unfortunately that they chose to try to fix that problem by filing this type of lawsuit.
The reality is no additional resources were not being used by the agency. The Board of Directors does not understand the mission of the agency and FHCOC has not filed a discrimination complaint in over a year. I doubt anyone will have any more trouble with FHCOC because the Board is too busy being proud of themselves.
Looks like the Board of Directors, Deborah Reisdorph, esq., Bushra and Bader successfully brought down an agency that previously (since 1965) had a stellar reputation and almost a million dollar a year annual budget WITHOUT any fees from litigation.
Oh Liz, I think you seriously exagerate the imminent demise of FHCOC.
Perhaps if the agency had benefited from an engaged leader during the time that all this unfolded the agency would not have suffered from the result of an overblown, Libertarian-driven smear campaign. Perhaps such a leader could have reminded all the clucking tongues that it was Mr. Bader who took the matter into the courts rather than seeking to find a good faith resolution of the complaint in the administrative arena. Perhaps that leader could have made it clear that it was Mr. Bader who did most of the suing and has no one but himself to blame for the resulting attorneys bills.
He fought an extortion attempt. And you call him the bad guy? Geez. All your hot air hypothetic rhetoric doesn’t change the fact that the group only saw this guy as a target to pay their bills, and went after him only for money. They saw that they thought was an easy target, then got screwed by their own greed. Unfortunately, this private citizen, who did nothing wrong, got stuck with the bill of defending himself against extortion.
These types of ‘community organizations’ are ruining America, and doing everything they can to dumb everyone down to the lowest common (financial and social) denominator.
Just plain rediculous that an organization like this should even exist.
We, too, had a nightmare experience with the Dept of UN-Fair Employment and Housing. They are HORRIBLY CORRUPT. Where’s the investigation ointo this quack organization? I’ll sign ANY petition to further Mr. Bader’s cause. It’s very simple: He’s right, they’re wrong.
He’s a landlord from Newport Beach. What a bunch of saps you people are for feeling sorry for him. He has plenty of resources. He’s got an article in this newspaper. The people with children who have to spend a longer time looking for shelter because of landlords’ stated preference for “professionals” — these people are just looking for a roof over their heads. You people have your priorities backwards. Expensive lesson for Mr Landlord from Newport Beach. I had two children in a 600 sq ft place. California is expensive. Life in the big city.
Don’t assume he is rich because he is in NB. And even if he was well off, what is wrong with that? That is the American Dream to be able to move up.
My parents started out as hard working people, my Dad a carpenter my Mom a teacher. They worked hard, lived within their means and saved and gradually accumulated something so that they were able to purchase some rental properties.
Now my Dad has just owned one townhome. We always tried to treat our tenants right and normally had good relationships with them. If they called about something needing fixing we tried to get it fixed promptly.
I know there are bad landlords but there are also many of us who treat tenants well and who get really taken and lose thousands of dollars from non-payment of rent and damages that well exceed the security deposit. Landlords have a right to make a profit. But the fair housing people don’t seem to see it that way.
They seem to just have this image of the boogyman bad, uncaring landlord.
These so-called ‘non-profits’ pay their employees “bonuses?” So, it stands to reason that they have the incentive to file as many discrimination complaints as possible and let the State collect for them. It’s nauseating….
This is an usurping of our most basic of rights, to be dealt with justly. This guy did not discriminate, didnt intend to and that wasnt his meaning whatsoever. But on the basis that someone, somewhere, someday might possibly interpet that into the meaning; it was discriminatory. There’s no regard or balance given that it might also mean what he intended, or a half dozen other possible meanings. Its hard to write this and not be outraged.
They need to wedge in that there should be a warning first. Many people who rent are not up on the rules, many rent as a side occupation. Let them sharpen thier knives for the repeat, and therefore intent dicriminator. Otherwise, this kind of cure is worse than the complaint, and no justice is served whatsoever.
In this instance, with HUD and these non-profit (sic) opportunist organizations using the legal system to fleece simply unaware citizens, the machine has turned on itself. In the name of protecting the greater good, they are introducing scathing injustice to the final greater good; which is all of us, both landlords and renters alike as American citizens. Time to start over on this one.
Discrimination is bad for many. Being sued by the Government for something unintentional and that not being acknowledged or having a bearing is unimaginable ( and worse yet, the entire case was conjecture ). Whatever happened to Accidental, Involuntary manslaughter, Manslaughter, Second degree Murder, Murder 1,etc. Everything else seems to happen in gradients. There’s no defense to this being set up this way.
lwps, you should go back to where you belong. Listen to yourself, full of hatred and jealousy. Life is about choices. You made the choice to live in a 600 square feet place and have two children!!
His lawyers should have not let the countersuit against council’s CEO D. Elizabeth Pierson die! WHY DID SHE GET ATTORNEY’S FEE’S AND HE DIDN’T?
Sean,
He didn’t let his counter suit die, he appealed the court order. Pierson got attorney fees because Bader’s attorney refused to do his research and filed claims that violated the law.
Everyone is supposed to follow the law.
I would hardly call this guy a “landlord” - the article said he had a room for rent - read: he wanted a ROOMMATE. His ad didn’t say anything wrong and did not discriminate, but even if he had stated exactly who his ideal roommate would be, shouldn’t he have that right? Are we now not even allowd to choose with whom we live???
I just don’t get it - is this so called council hounding everyone on roommates.com and other roommate matching services too??
No actually he had an apt to rent. I just clicked on it and also sort of remember the original. I think it was on his property, but a separate unit. So it was not a room mate situation.
But these ridiculous, I was going to say laws but this isn’t even a law, it was a weird interpretation of a law or something, apply to small landlords of one unit as well as the large ones.
It seems like the Dems in power have it in for landlords and just think of the slum lords you hear about who should rightfully be prosecuted.
We also had a run in with the so called Fair Housing Council, specifically with that guy who was in the news some time ago who had an issue with the director and left and I said good riddance.
As I mentioned, my Dad had a small townhome in Aliso Viejo that was rented out. I made the mistake of not checking some prospective tenants out carefully enough.
Then after they had been in there 7 weeks they called me to report mold. I went right over to check it out and found an area about 4″ in diameter with also a small mushroom. Now after researching mold, I find that it takes 24-48 hrs for mold to grow. Also the remediation people that we later got in said that there would have had to have been a substantial spill of water into the kitchen from the laundry area.
The tenants denied knowing of any spill so they were either not paying attention or lying and were negligent in not reporting it at the time before the mold had a chance to grow.
I went over photographed it, and then wiped it up with a mold spray. Then I began researching how to take care of it. I arranged for a plumber to come out and notified them but they didn’t come down to assist in the investigation of the water source. The plumber wanted to run the washing machine but since it had clothes in it we did not feel free to do so without their permission.
I started online researching this on the EPA website and looking for a remediation co. They also called out a guy who looked at the pictures in my camera and told them it was botrys (stachybotrys, the so called “toxic black mold”). he also scared them and told them that he wouldn’t stay their with his child if it were him. They believed him. She got hysterical when I called later that day to tell them I had found a co that could come out that afternoon to begin the work.
She lied and said the fire dept was going to red tag the place and absolutely said no one was going to come out and touch things. So she refused us access to deal with the problem. And they were going to use proper containment procedures.
Also I talked to the guy at the county who deals with mold issues and he as well as others said it is impossible to identify mold from a photo.
She also then complained about nosebleeds–after not mentioning any health issues previously and in the same conversation as when she mentioned someone getting a million dollar settlement for hardly anything.
Then 2 days later she denied that she had denied us access and they were moaning about not having a place to live because they were saying it was unsafe.
We ended up having to get a mold inspector who didn’t find any of that kind of mold, but found normal amounts of mold that comes in from outside and some that are associated with sloppy housekeeping.
They totally would not cooperate with me in my efforts to remedy the problem (although I had wiped up the mold, the wall was wet so it needed to be taken care of although others ignore it if not visible and I’m not sure that it can hurt you if its inside the wall).
All the plumbers were not able to find the source of the leak. They tore the drywall out and looked for a leaky pipe–none were found. They thought it was likely something from the tenant’s washing machine but again no cooperation. The tenants had moved out during the remediation work and the plan was to fix the leak, fix the walls and have them back in ASAP. But we couldn’t find the water source. So I was unwilling to put the drywall back until we found it, and in fact the inspector had said not to.
We were at an impasse. Finally the subject of rescinding the lease came up. They seemed to be ok with that so I hired a lawyer to draw one up. But then she blew up and went hysterical again. Then she called Fair Housing.
the sticking point was that I was not willing to give their deposit back because in addition to the extensive damage (over $10k much of which wasn’t covered by ins) they also had stained the brand new carpet.
I was talking to a woman and it was taking awhile but we were negotiating and trying to come to a mutually agreeable settlement when Hani Bushra (who later was in the news with a dispute with the head of the council and left) who was the supervisor cut in and said it was taking too long.
He was very unprofessional apparently naively believing what the tenant had told him (she said I had burst in on them while they were in their underwear and made it sound like I was in the habit of it. The only basis at all for that was that when i was there with the plumber, after both of us knocking and no answer, I unlocked the door and entered. We were in there for over a half hr with no response from them. We left and then a few min later after being where I could see that no one had entered, I decided to go back and check something and made the mistake of not knocking–since there had been no indication they were there. I walked in and the Dad and his little girl were in the living room. I remember she had a dress on and he had what looked like surfer swim trunks–not underwear. I was ticked that apparently he had been upstairs the whole time and made no effort to come down and help figure it out.)
Without asking for my side of the story he just brushed my comments aside, said thats for walking in on a tenant and when I protested it wasn’t so and that other things weren’t so, he just said to take that up with the court.
So he just sabotaged the whole thing. We were later scheduled for a mediation session but in the mean time they had stopped payment on a rent check and another mo had gone by and they were still occupying the property. So I finally decided I need to call an eviction lawyer and did so. he told me to cancel the mediation, which I think may have been a mistake as it might have helped later on.
So Mr Bushra’s breaking in ended up being bad for both of us. Instead of allowing us to finish negotiating, we had to evict them so they have an unlawful detainer on their record. And that took a long time so we lost more rent.
And the law is really stupid in that the decision was only for back rent–not damages. That would have to be a separate proceeding.
So we lost a lot of money. I see now why some said we should have just given the tenants their deposit back. That would have been wrong but it would have been cheaper. And that is not right at all that the laws protect the tenants so much at the expense of landlords.
The laws and the way they are administered need to be changed to be more even handed. Right now they are very unfair especially to small landlords who may only have one property and thus don’t have a bunch of people to deal with things.
And it will hurt renters in the long run as landlords have to get more defensive by raising the sec deposit, etc.
Thank you Brian Joseph for covering this. Maybe you could alert people when that judge is up for re-election too or if you can think of any way to change the system so that it is more just, protecting tenants and landlords equally.
Obviously, the judge felt that there are consequences for defending yourself against this idiotic case, but no consequences for bringing the frivolous lawsuit in the first place and then running chicken and dismissing it before the trial. There was no case to begin with and the judge should have thrown it out at the beginning and fined the state for brining it.
What a stupid lawsuit ! ! ! The dude is just renting out a space, make some money and someone else happy to find a place to live. DUMB ! !
You guys are pretty tough on the Dems. The family discrimination law that Mr. Bader allegedly violated was enacted in 1988. Ronald Reagan was President and the Senate was Republican controlled. The feds then required every state to enact a similar law (or not get tax money) which is how we got the family status part of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. You might want to check on that judge also. He is Andrew Banks and was appointed by Pete Wilson (a Republican) in 1997. Based on my internet search he would appear to be a pretty conservative judge.
WHO IS THE JUDGE YOUR TALKING ABOUT?
They are not the government !!!!!!! Fair housing is a non profit, has funding but also relies on fees and fines so it goes for what looks easy and also often fails on real issues of discrimination against disabled and others in low income settings. WHY IS THERe STILL NO physically ACCESSIBle transitional SHeLTER in orange county and almost no physically accessible housing STIIl.?????????
These advocates and agencies ARE FUNDED BUT aren’t doing it in the REAL SITUATIONS FOR TENANTS EITHER and that means many get left in the road and who could work with access to housing and med care never will…. THEY FAIL MANY …
WE ALL LOSE….. SOME OF US FAR,FAR MORE THAN THIS.
I’m curious, and maybe Brian Joseph could clarify just how this whole set up came into being and who we could complain to in order to cut the abuses. Obviously this judge seems to think that it is ok for govt and quasi govt agencies to harrass a landlord, contrary to American property rights principles.
Is this from the state or feds or I guess maybe a combination or what?
I’m guessing that the concept sounded good to protect tenants against abusive landlords. There is a need for that.
But the state agency and the “Fair Housing Council” seem to be run by people who are biased against landlords and who are way overstepping.
I do seem to remember reading that the Fair Housing Council is funded at least in part or has contracts with various cities to handle fair housing issues for them. So maybe it would help to complain to the cities involved.
what they should have done in this case if they were concerned about whether the language meant that he was discriminating would have been to send a couple with children or a single Mom with children to apply to rent and see how they were treated.
Of course someone also needs to talk some sense into our state lawmakers to educate them that there are reponsible landlords and that current laws make it too easy for a lousy tenent to stay on in the property, not paying rent and causing damages exceeding the security deposit. And it is rather expensive, even if you get a judgement to collect. yeah, you can do it youself I guess which is easier for large landowners who can have people on staff. But for individual landlords it can be very burdensome.
And they should change the rules so that one action can both recover possession of the property, rent and damages together with enforcement of it.
We got judgements but the eviction lawyer wanted 50% of the judgement to collect it. I balked at that, but I guess it would have been better than nothing. And more recently we had to evict a tenant for not paying the rent. She lied and said she was moving out so we held off on proceeding. She also did a lot of damage–really stupid stuff like pulling the stoppers out of the wash basins and in one case breaking the pipe underneath, stealing 2 new smoke alarms and the front screen door, as well as the cover over the sprinkler. Not to mention holes in the walls. I’m still discovering damage like recently discovering that the pull cord on the fan/light doesn’t work to turn off the lights. I discovered in that case that the lawyer doing that eviction through a prop mgr didn’t even get a money judgement, just for possession. Oh, and she came by later in her brand new SUV/truck which I heard she paid cash for–but she couldn’t pay the rent–go figure.
Current law just makes it too hard for small landlords to recover lost rent or property damages which can easily exceed the security deposit. But my impression is that law makers seemed to be thinking of the big bad slumlords and not of the small individual landlords who may have one rental condo or townhome or house or just a few of them and who honestly try to provide decent housing and do repairs in a reasonable amount of time and as quickly as possible, depending on the urgency of the repair.
OC 4 Truth:
If you google HUD, it will give you their web page. I found it extremely informative. It has the federal Fair Housing Act right on it, one click away. I wouldn’t want to guess what the Republican lawmakers had in mind when they enacted the family status portion of the fair housing law but when I read it I didn’t see anywhere that it was meant solely for large landowners.
The ad said the place was well suited for Professional Adults. The owner, knowing the rental, it may not be suited for a family with kids. Now if someone came knocking at his door, quailified with cash and kids and he said no……… that is cut and dry. I side with the landlord in this matter, to bad it cost him $44K.
BRIAN JOSEPH should get his facts straight before he puts false statements in print. It is one thing to publish an editorial (opinion piece) based on actual facts. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But it is not acceptable to publish false statements to support that opinion. This is irresponsible and highly unethical. If you can’t get your facts straight then get out of the reporting business. The following errors should be corrected.
1. Mr. Bader violated the law that prohibits discrimination in advertising an his ads are not accurately quoted. Ronald Regan added families with children to the federal fair housing act in 1988 so if you don’t like the law blame him, not the people who try to enforce it.
2. You misquote the advertisements Mr. Bader published. You also fail to report that he ultimately rented the apartment – a two bedroom plus den to two adults.
3. The state did find that Mr. Bader violated the prohibition against discriminatory advertising.
4. The training cost was $75/year for 5 years NOT $250/year.
5. The last offer made to Mr. Bader to settle the case was $900 and $75/year for training so he would not violate the law again out of his admitted ignorance.
6. Mr. Bader launched a legal assault on the state, FHCOC and individuals who stood to gain nothing from the case against him.
7. Rick, Mr. Bader’s attorney buddy, does not collect from his client. This is a scam they pull whenever Mr. Bader is sued. They attack hard regardless of the validity or legality of their claims to run costs up for the plaintiff so they drop the suit - then Rick applies for legal fees far in excess of the value of the poor quality work he did. I’m sure it has worked often enough in the past.
8. Mr. Bader continues to run up attorney fees for FHCOC and Pierson that he will ultimately have to pay. When there is another judgment against him for attorney fees – he’ll cry again, but he’s been warned repeatedly that the law does not support his position.
It is reprehensible that the OC Register refuses to report the facts on this case in their editorials. You get lots of people riled up when you make up the ‘facts’ to suit your position. Perhaps it is just a matter of – don’t confuse me with the facts because I’ve already made up my mind. Either way it shows a lack of ethics and poor journalism. This is typical of people who want the government not to regulate business – but support the government’s intervention into the personal lives of others.
Advertising statements indicating an intention to make a preference like “mature person”, “ideal for quiet reserved single and-or couple”, and “professional male” have been held to violate fair housing laws. Morgan v. Sec. of HUD (1993) 985 F.2d 1451; Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia v. Montgomery Publishing Co. (1995) 141 F.3d 71; Jancik v. Dept of HUD (1995) 44 F.3d 553, 557. Bader should lose his appeal too. At least he’s made full employment for lawyers with his ranting.
Martin,
From the get go, I was falsely accused of discrimination. The State conducted a thorough investigation on me and found No history or practice of discrimintion. It was You, D. Elizabeth Pierson, AKA Elizabeth Martin, who accused me of “implying” discrimination.
You (FHCOC) justified your $4,000 demand and $250 per class in training based upon Your own self-serving interpretation. Judge Banks said he could read the ad in at least 3 different ways. So, too, would a jury and that’s why they dropped the lawsuit. You, however, could only read it one way, for the obvious reason that your Fair Housing Council was cash strapped and needed to make payroll. That’s abundantely clear since you admit that the FHCOC has ’scarce resources’.
The State pushed me all the way demanding the $4,000+ for the FHCOC. Then, just prior to the trial, offered to settle for $900 and one training class. They told me I would have to sign a confidentiality agreement and agree that the payment was a ‘donation’. That’s the dirty little secret that they do not want the public to know.
The FHCOC backed down prior to the trial for the simple reason that there was ‘no case’ to begin with and they were going to lose at trial and be forced to pay my attorney’s fees and costs.
The FHCOC is currently embroiled in a lawsuit against for racial discrimination, handicapped discrimination, wrongful termination and a host of other accusations. I guess, by your standards, that means the FHCOC is ‘guilty’. So, why is the Council fighting the charge - like I did- if they’ve been accused of discrimination? I’m afraid that it’s the old ‘double standard’. And it appears that the FHCOC has been hoisted on its own petard. Ironically, it’s the very same, Ms. Pierson/Martin who is the one who crying discrimination and who brought the lawsuit.
And why you consistently harp about law being instituted under Ronald Reagan is nonsensical? Your ‘former’ organization, and fellow affiliates, abuse the law and take advantage of their status as a quasi -governmental secret police force for private gain…period.
The system has been corrupted by people like Pierson/Martin.
In the mean time, we’re all awaiting the Criminal Contempt hearing on Ms. Pierson/Martin and her boyfriend/attorney Richard Spix that is being brought by Judge Horn.
You may have won the battle, but the war is far from over.
Hey IWPS,
It’s simple, I’ll rent my 2 bd, 450 sq ft. backunit apt that has no garage or storage to you and your children anytime it’s available. All you have to do is pay me $1975/month, plus utilities.
And, just for your information, I was renting the apt out to a couple who had 2 children under the age of 12 at the time the FHCOC tried to claim I wouldn’t rent to families with children. I had also rented to a single mom with a 1 yr old daughter. The State interviewed both of them just prior to concluding that I did not have a history or practice of discrimination.
Lastly, I don’t own a yacht, nor am I rich. It’s just the opposite.
So, if I were you, I wouldn’t be so quick to judge or draw such lame conclusions.
Many landlords are not rich and many of them depend on good paying tenants to pay on time so they can pay their mortgage. Long time ago, my parents bought their first house back in the 70’s. Our first home include a second house in the backyard with it own entrance. It was a perfect rental property. After the tenants moved out, my folks rented to a family. A few months later the family no longer pay rent, but was able to by beer and junk. They had tree children and lived on welfare. They had no intention to pay rent. We had no help from anybody. We could not evict them because they were protected from welfare and other programs. As homeowners they still have to pay the mortgage on time every time. My folks had to get second jobs to cover the cost of the squatters living at our expense. The only way out was to sale the property to have them evicted. That’s what happened and the squatters were out. We have many friends who own rental properties in California. Many of them are faced with dead beat renters. Many of the tenants do have good paying jobs but they find ways to not pay rent. Many time it the little problems that can be fixed like a leaking faucet and rent payments stops. Getting deadbeats out is very costly and cause serious financial hardship. Once the evection is done, the deposit does not cover the cleanup and damages. Even if the landlord wins the suite to recover cost of damages, most never collect. There are no laws to protect landlords from squatters. People think all landlords are rich and have a yacht. Not true. My tenants in my out of state property live on some type of social service and when I come to do maintenance they are always home watching their big screen TV. And me I have a fulltime job and work most of the time. I sometime wonder if they are living a better life. But again I would not want to live their lives. However, they are good tenants and I am happy to have them.
IWPS,
I understand you have 2 children and you live in a 600 square foot apartment. But unless someone had a gun to your head, having children was YOUR choice. The fact that you had more children that you can afford was YOUR choice. LIVE WITH IT!
And…the fact that the man’s rentals were in Newport Beach means nothing! It does not mean he is automatically rich and responsible for YOUR poor choices.
QUIT WHINING!!!!!
I’ll bet if the Feds find out about this waste of money the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, will be getting a big Obama bailout check.