Posted by nmae withheld on May 17, 1999 at 12:30:54:
I was a victim of a push in robbery and assault in my apartment on May 1. The asssailant, after hitting me and choking the near ca-ca out of me, asked where my NON-EXISTANT ROOMMATE, was, then asked for the drugs and money - also non-existant as I DON'T use drugs. The whole thing took less than an hour from start to finish. the assailant is/was a professional: he was COMPLETELY MASKED and wore full-fingered gl;oves. . . Now, in August, the Narcs broke my door down in error looking for a drug lab. Can You say: Inherent defect? If the broker had informed that the apartment was previously occupied by a drug dealer, I never would have rented it. The Landlord, the property Mangager and the current Landlord/Property Manager was/is aware of the drug dealing that occured and is possibly still occurring in the building. My apartment has apparently been a 'problem' new property manager's word for some time.
The assailant took my keys, which while not giving him access to my apartment, does give access tot he building, as the Property Owner/Manager has not changed the lock on the front door to the building.
Due to the danger in my returning to the apartment, the lease is breached according to the City - I am bunking with a friend while looking for another place.
The question is: Is the presence of drug dealers in a building or the prior occupancy by a drug dealer in a unit an Inherent Defect? Just as a Seller has to inform the prospective Buyer of any past history of the Property (i.e., crimes, hauntings) can this Law be applied to Renters? As I said: If I had been informed as to the prior history of hte apartment, I never would have rented it.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup