After he returned to South Carolina on leave, the landlord won't let him stay with his wife and newborn baby. You can read the full story here:
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Page won't display, but read a bit of this earlier. Lots of things left out. Sounds like she is in a taxpayer paid or subsidized apartment. There would be no reason on earth for the landlord to care about her husband being there if it was a straight out and out rental with her being responsible for all the rent unless there are some other specific rules for some reason. People who run the 'projects' say women will get the apartments, boyfriends and hubbys will stay as long as possible, then leave for a day or two, so they can't be said to be living there, but they actually are living there rent free too even if they are working. When something just sounds wrong, it bears further investigation, and to claim the landlord is just a meanie and refusing to let hubby live there sounds wrong. Again, there has to be a reason for those rules to be in place.
Read a little more and this is a college town and she is in college. Some college town apartments have this 7 day limit on people not on the lease to stop students from sub leasing. Seems the easy way is to add him to the lease but some of these landlords in college towns a hard to deal with and a little shady to boot.
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Read a little more and this is a college town and she is in college. Some college town apartments have this 7 day limit on people not on the lease to stop students from sub leasing. Seems the easy way is to add him to the lease but some of these landlords in college towns a hard to deal with and a little shady to boot.
============
===========
Yes, there has to be a reason. I purely hate this one sided 'reporting' crap. Read the comments, stupid people with a mob mentality talking crap about the landlord, putting out his face book page, saying to contact him, when they have no idea of the real or full story. People are just idiots. Even if he was just cold hearted, whose business would it be as long as he's not breaking any laws or causing anyone physical injury? Why isn't her husband on a lease anyway? Shouldn't a husband be responsible for housing his pregnant wife/family? How odd is that?
The following is an excerpt from The Groves at Clemson contract:
“Although Tenant may have visitors from time to time, it is understood that occupancy of the Premises is expressly reserved for Tenant only, and any person occupying the Premises as a guest for more than seven (7) days during the Term shall be treated as a guest only if the Agent is notified in writing by Tenant and consents thereto. Otherwise, the occupancy of the Premises by an unauthorized guest in excess of said seven (7) day period shall be deemed a breach of this Lease, and Landlord shall be entitled to recover from the Tenant and guest (whose liability shall be joint and several) an amount of rent equal to that being paid by Tenant, in addition to the right of Landlord to declare this Lease in default and pursue any of Landlord’s other remedies hereunder or by law.”
The Groves at Clemson released the following statement on their website:
“We are a military family and we welcome veterans and others who follow proper procedures to stay in our community which is federal law regulated. We are an exclusive student community that takes pride in the country we live in and our veterans who serve past, present and future. We are also a business that runs by rules, regulations and contracts. It is our responsibility to provide the safest environment possible to our students/tenants. Proper procedures were explained to both the tenant and the gentleman living there recently. The particular section that applies to this couple was set aside and initialed by the tenant as part of a signed contract. As it stands right now the tenant and her guest have refused to comply with a very simple procedure. Parents, guardians and grantors respect and appreciate our guest polices for the safety of their students who choose to live in our safe community. It is our goal to provide all of our tenants the same treatment no matter what gender, race, age, school or career they are or have chosen. Safety is our ultimate goal and we can not and will not jeopardize it.
We apologize that the media has misrepresented this entire situation based solely on the statements of only one individual and made it appear to be something it is not.”
This link should get you to a report of this incident:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...y-in-wife-apartment/
Could he stay there 7 days, then stay away for one day and return for 7 more days or is the 7-day limitation a monthly limitation?
Whatever the case, the landlord is an authoritarian cretin.
Had links to the incident. He's a cretin for doing his job, she's aces for NOT wanting to follow the rules. Got it. Why didn't the sergeant provide for his family? Are they really even married?
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Had links to the incident. He's a cretin for doing his job, she's aces for NOT wanting to follow the rules. Got it. Why didn't the sergeant provide for his family? Are they really even married?
___
Well, the article calls her his WIFE, which tends to suggest that they are married.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...y-in-wife-apartment/
This is a link to the FOX News article that repeatedly calls this woman the Sergeant Major's WIFE:
Just because they call her his wife doesn't mean she is. But what the heck, say she is, I ask again, why didn't he provide housing for his pregnant wife? Something is off, but it's no big deal. This story, like the fake high school shooting story, will be dead in a day or so anyway and all those that like to jump to conclusions about people and rant about what should happen to them, such as the slurs against the landlord (he's the landlord?), will find another false story to be outraged about.
There is definitely something fishy here. If this guy is a Sargent Major on active duty in the Army, then he would be making about $4400.00 (after taxes) per month in base pay, $1524.00 (not taxed) per month in housing allowance (with dependents), and $358.00 (not taxed) per month in Basis Allowance for Sustenance. That totals $6283.00 per month, or $75,396.00 per year in total military compensation. Lots of money and more than enough to provide for his wife and kids.
Something doesn't add up here though. Looking at pictures of this guy online, he doesn't appear old enough to be a Sargent Major (E9) and his scruffy beard is not what one would expect from a seasoned Sargent Major. In other stories he is mention as being a Sargent, which is a generic term for all E5 through E9 Army enlisted, or an E5.
An E5 makes $2300.00 (after taxes) in base pay, $1047.00 in housing allowance, and $358.00 in BAS, for a total of $3705.00 per month ($44,460.00 per year). Still this enough to provide a decent apartment or even a house for his wife and kid.
There is no doubt he is collecting his base pay. But, depending on the circumstances and actual status, as reported to and recognized by the Army, he may not be collecting the two allowances. If he is not, then that is his fault for not taking action in regard to his marital status and requesting the allowances. It may also be, and I saw it happen many times in my long Navy career, that this guy has already done this and is collecting these allowances, but is keeping his wife in the dark. The guy is living the high-life on all that money he is collecting while his wife struggles. I'm not saying this is what is actually going on, but I have seen it happen.
My dad was a master sergeant in the Air Force, he lived in base housing until he retired.