Ken Scalir to appear on Judge Judy on January 18, 2018

[Alvin Finklestein]

Regarding the legal basis of Judy's ruling, there really was not one. She attempted to frame it as an unenforceable illegal contract, but that's not really what was going on here. As noted in the previous post, a subtenant cannot simply deem his tenancy "illegal" and then decide he has a right to live there for free. That is not legal in any of the 50 states.

Judy took a dislike to Ken and his situation because she felt he was attempting a sneaky play regarding the eviction. Because Ken did not pay the back rent until AFTER the eviction was ruled in his favor, Judy erroneously concluded that Ken was simply going to abandon the building upon losing, without paying that back rent. Given that Eric lost the eviction case and was indeed removed from the unit, Judy felt that Ken was applying a double standard.

She believed that Ken deemed it fine for himself not to pay rent if he lost the eviction case, but expected Eric to pay that same back rent either way.

However, this entire premise completely fails -- even morally -- due to the fact that Ken was prohibited from paying rent during the eviction proceedings. Therefore, her conclusion that he intentionally avoided paying rent during eviction proceedings was fallacious. There was no way for him to pay rent.

Ken, however, erred by not bringing a copy of the money order he used to pay for May's rent, which was subsequently returned to him. This might have satisfied Judy that he actually was trying to pay rent, and perhaps things would have gone differently. However, this was sheer ignorance on Judy's part to believe that California landlords accept rent during eviction proceedings. They absolutely cannot.

I am personally very disappointed in the legal research team working for Judy. This was a very simple premise of eviction which Judy flubbed royally, and she also completely flubbed the application of a prior (and very related) adjudicated case. Rather than applying Ken's victory in the eviction case in his favor, she used it against him and treated him as if he had lost.

Judge Judy would deserve to be removed from the bench if she were a real judge at this point.

Are you sure about the fact he couldn't pay rent?
I think this only applies to someone who is being evicted for not paying rent.

"if you attempt to pay all the past-due rent demanded after the three-day period expires, the landlord can either file a lawsuit to evict you or accept the rent payment. If the landlord accepts the rent, the landlord waives (gives up) the right to evict you based on late payment of rent."

Yes, I am sure.

While the vast majority of evictions involve the non-payment of rent, there are indeed evictions for other reasons, such as the one in this case involving Mr. Scalir.

Accepting any sort of rent after filing an eviction requires the current eviction filing to be terminated. If it is not, the court will immediately terminate it upon learning the landlord has accepted rent.

Why?

The unlawful detainer process (eviction) is essentially a declaration of termination of the rental contract. It is the landlord stating, "You have violated your lease, and therefore we are terminating our contract with you." The landlord then takes the matter to court in order to affirm the termination of this contract, at which point the tenant can be legally removed (and back-rent awarded).

However, when a landlord accepts rent, it signals a continuance of this contract, thus their move to terminate it (the eviction) is no longer valid.

I can compare it to the following situation:

Say you are at a party, and you meet a woman you find attractive. After some banter back and forth, you make a suggestion that the two of you go off to the side somewhere and engage in sexual activity.

The woman doesn't take kindly to this, tells you in no uncertain terms to leave her alone, and informs you that any attempt to touch her will result in a police complaint regarding sexual assault.

You quickly back off and avoid her.

However, 30 minutes later, she returns to you, and seems friendly again. After awhile of chatting, you give it one more shot, and ask her to go to the other room with you to mess around. Surprisingly, she agrees this time, and you go off to the side somewhere and she blows you.

Could she later make the claim that you committed sexual assault against her, because she told you 30 minutes prior not to touch her?

Clearly not, because her later consent supersedes the prior lack of consent. Of course, in this situation you may have trouble proving she gave the later consent, but provided you could (say several people witnessed the second conversation), you would be legally in the clear.

In this case, a landlord accepting rent during an eviction process would be like the landlord taking you in the back room, blowing you, and then complaining that you sexually assaulted her.

I hope this is more clear.

[Alvin Finklestein]

I should clarify one difference, however.

If the eviction is for nonpayment of rent, and then the landlord accepts rent after the eviction is filed, then the matter is complete. Not only is the eviction case out the window, in addition the landlord cannot re-file.

However, if the landlord accepts rent during the eviction process over a non-monetary issues, the landlord DOES have a right to start the process over.

For example, in this case, had Mr. Scalir's landlord accepted his May 2017 rent, the eviction filed then would be toast. However, they could at that point give him a new "Three Day Perform or Quit" notice regarding removal of the roommate, and then re-file the eviction if the roommate did not leave after three more days.

[Salty_Aus]

Are you sure about the fact he couldn't pay rent?
I think this only applies to someone who is being evicted for not paying rent.

"if you attempt to pay all the past-due rent demanded after the three-day period expires, the landlord can either file a lawsuit to evict you or accept the rent payment. If the landlord accepts the rent, the landlord waives (gives up) the right to evict you based on late payment of rent."

Yes, I am sure.

While the vast majority of evictions involve the non-payment of rent, there are indeed evictions for other reasons, such as the one in this case involving Mr. Scalir.

Accepting any sort of rent after filing an eviction requires the current eviction filing to be terminated. If it is not, the court will immediately terminate it upon learning the landlord has accepted rent.

Why?

The unlawful detainer process (eviction) is essentially a declaration of termination of the rental contract. It is the landlord stating, "You have violated your lease, and therefore we are terminating our contract with you." The landlord then takes the matter to court in order to affirm the termination of this contract, at which point the tenant can be legally removed (and back-rent awarded).

However, when a landlord accepts rent, it signals a continuance of this contract, thus their move to terminate it (the eviction) is no longer valid.

I can compare it to the following situation:

Say you are at a party, and you meet a woman you find attractive. After some banter back and forth, you make a suggestion that the two of you go off to the side somewhere and engage in sexual activity.

The woman doesn't take kindly to this, tells you in no uncertain terms to leave her alone, and informs you that any attempt to touch her will result in a police complaint regarding sexual assault.

You quickly back off and avoid her.

However, 30 minutes later, she returns to you, and seems friendly again. After awhile of chatting, you give it one more shot, and ask her to go to the other room with you to mess around. Surprisingly, she agrees this time, and you go off to the side somewhere and she blows you.

Could she later make the claim that you committed sexual assault against her, because she told you 30 minutes prior not to touch her?

Clearly not, because her later consent supersedes the prior lack of consent. Of course, in this situation you may have trouble proving she gave the later consent, but provided you could (say several people witnessed the second conversation), you would be legally in the clear.

In this case, a landlord accepting rent during an eviction process would be like the landlord taking you in the back room, blowing you, and then complaining that you sexually assaulted her.

I hope this is more clear.

Nope, that's not how I see it.

If you are being evicted for a reason other then not paying rent, if you intend to fight the notice and intend to stay you must continue to pay rent.

Accepting rent from someone you are evicting for non payment of rent is very particular, and payment be it part payment or payment in full waives your specific rights in regard to non payment only.

Pretty sure Judge Judy is correct on this specific matter.

[Salty_Aus]

I should clarify one difference, however.

If the eviction is for nonpayment of rent, and then the landlord accepts rent after the eviction is filed, then the matter is complete. Not only is the eviction case out the window, in addition the landlord cannot re-file.

However, if the landlord accepts rent during the eviction process over a non-monetary issues, the landlord DOES have a right to start the process over.

For example, in this case, had Mr. Scalir's landlord accepted his May 2017 rent, the eviction filed then would be toast. However, they could at that point give him a new "Three Day Perform or Quit" notice regarding removal of the roommate, and then re-file the eviction if the roommate did not leave after three more days.

Nope, that's not correct.

You are confusing a pay or quit scenario.
"Pay or Quit Notice
The pay or quit notice is the official written document that tenants receive from the landlord when the payment is late. The notice gives the tenant time to pay the late rent before you will take the next step and file the proper paperwork with the municipal court. Depending on the state, that time period may be anywhere from 3 to 14 days. When you accept that payment in full, with the appropriate late fees, it means you are dismissing the eviction process. In other words, accepting the payment waives your rights to proceed in evicting the tenant for non-payment of rent."

[Alvin Finklestein]

Sorry, Mr. Aus, but you are incorrect.

You are reading websites describing evictions for nonpayment of rent, which comprise such a high percentage of evictions that nearly all eviction advice online follows that particular circumstance.

However, accepting rent from a tenant in the process of eviction for ANY REASON signifies the continuance of the contract, and the matter is dropped.

The website snippets you are posting ARE correct advice for nonpayment of rent situations. However, notice they do not exclude non-monetary situations like Ken's in their advice. They simply don't cover it.

In BOTH cases, rent should not be accepted.

I am not just arguing this in theory. I was physically present with Mr. Scalir when his complex's highly-experienced, longtime attorney instructed him that his rent would not be accepted.

Indeed, they returned Ken's rent check for May, and then he did not attempt to pay in June, July, or August. His own attorney (working the best eviction defense firm in Los Angeles) also told him not to pay rent, as it would not be accepted. I was also present with him when he was given this guidance.

Finally, at the court proceedings, while his building's attorney threw everything but the kitchen sink at Mr. Scalir, the fact that he did not pay rent for all those months was NEVER brought up. This is because it's commonly known by any competent attorney or judge that rent is never accepted during any kind of eviction proceeding.

In fact, any attorney who would argue otherwise would look like a fool.

[Alvin Finklestein]

I decided to research some case law regarding my assertion.

Bedford Investment Co. v. Folb took place way back in 1947, but still applies to case law in California today.

Despite being 71 years ago, this case bears some similarity to Mr. Scalir's! An eviction was filed against a tenant (in this case a commercial tenant) for subleasing the premises to another tenant! Sound familiar?

The case was tried on August 2, 1946. Alex Folb testified that the rent was "paid right up to date." There was no objection to the question, no motion to strike the answer, and no cross-examination. The evidence of payment must be taken as true since the record does not contain any denial of the testimony or any evidence that the rent was not accepted by respondent. . . Respondent's acceptance of payment of the rental after the action was filed bars the right to forfeit the lease.

https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...2d/79/363.html


This case is still referred to today, despite its age, and its legal precedent still applies in 2018.

[GrenadaRoger]

I decided to research some case law regarding my assertion.

Bedford Investment Co. v. Folb took place way back in 1947, but still applies to case law in California today.

Despite being 71 years ago, this case bears some similarity to Mr. Scalir's! An eviction was filed against a tenant (in this case a commercial tenant) for subleasing the premises to another tenant! Sound familiar?

The case was tried on August 2, 1946. Alex Folb testified that the rent was "paid right up to date." There was no objection to the question, no motion to strike the answer, and no cross-examination. The evidence of payment must be taken as true since the record does not contain any denial of the testimony or any evidence that the rent was not accepted by respondent. . . Respondent's acceptance of payment of the rental after the action was filed bars the right to forfeit the lease.

https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...2d/79/363.html


This case is still referred to today, despite its age, and its legal precedent still applies in 2018.

No, that case does not "stand on all fours" (exactly match the facts of the Scalir case)...the cited case contains a lease amendment AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES that allowed subleasing...the Scalir lease did not have such an amendment plus Scalir could not provide proof to the court that the landlord had agreed to a subtenant being in the apartment, thus your cited case would not be precedent setting....so Judge Judy ruled the sublease illegal and unenforceable by the court...Mr Finkelstein, you need to prove to the Judge that the sublease was completely legal, she did not allow the eviction settlement was proof

[The_Lurker]

I decided to research some case law regarding my assertion.

Bedford Investment Co. v. Folb took place way back in 1947, but still applies to case law in California today.

Despite being 71 years ago, this case bears some similarity to Mr. Scalir's! An eviction was filed against a tenant (in this case a commercial tenant) for subleasing the premises to another tenant! Sound familiar?



https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...2d/79/363.html


This case is still referred to today, despite its age, and its legal precedent still applies in 2018.

No, that case does not "stand on all fours" (exactly match the facts of the Scalir case)...the cited case contains a lease amendment AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES that allowed subleasing...the Scalir lease did not have such an amendment plus Scalir could not provide proof to the court that the landlord had agreed to a subtenant being in the apartment, thus your cited case would not be precedent setting....so Judge Judy ruled the sublease illegal and unenforceable by the court...Mr Finkelstein, you need to prove to the Judge that the sublease was completely legal, she did not allow the eviction settlement was proof

You can't be throwing facts around all willy nilly like this, Finkelstein is gunna bust a vein.

[GrenadaRoger]

No, that case does not "stand on all fours" (exactly match the facts of the Scalir case)...the cited case contains a lease amendment AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES that allowed subleasing...the Scalir lease did not have such an amendment plus Scalir could not provide proof to the court that the landlord had agreed to a subtenant being in the apartment, thus your cited case would not be precedent setting....so Judge Judy ruled the sublease illegal and unenforceable by the court...Mr Finkelstein, you need to prove to the Judge that the sublease was completely legal, she did not allow the eviction settlement was proof

You can't be throwing facts around all willy nilly like this, Finkelstein is gunna bust a vein.

I can't, you can't, no one else here can except Mr Finkelstein it seems....okay, I get it

/*

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

Would a regular court even accept this case? It just doesn't seem like it would be legal to sue a retarded person.

Edit: Retarded might be too strong of a word but he's obviously developmentally disabled or special needs or whatever word it is for being like one chromosome above retarded. That was the main reason I couldn't watch past the first two minutes when I tried again. Ken should have not only been getting rent from him but also extra for being a care taker.

[TMMLK]

TMMLK watched the episode and found that the master got completely destroyed. It reminds TMMLK of having to "kneel before zod" from one of our great members.

[sonatine]

You can't be throwing facts around all willy nilly like this, Finkelstein is gunna bust a vein.

I can't, you can't, no one else here can except Mr Finkelstein it seems....okay, I get it

/*

mr finkelstein is off his game it seems.

[jacosta24]

That Judge Judy is a cunt, bet her vag looks like a wizard sleeve

[Dan Druff]

I decided to research some case law regarding my assertion.

Bedford Investment Co. v. Folb took place way back in 1947, but still applies to case law in California today.

Despite being 71 years ago, this case bears some similarity to Mr. Scalir's! An eviction was filed against a tenant (in this case a commercial tenant) for subleasing the premises to another tenant! Sound familiar?



https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...2d/79/363.html


This case is still referred to today, despite its age, and its legal precedent still applies in 2018.

No, that case does not "stand on all fours" (exactly match the facts of the Scalir case)...the cited case contains a lease amendment AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES that allowed subleasing...the Scalir lease did not have such an amendment plus Scalir could not provide proof to the court that the landlord had agreed to a subtenant being in the apartment, thus your cited case would not be precedent setting....so Judge Judy ruled the sublease illegal and unenforceable by the court...Mr Finkelstein, you need to prove to the Judge that the sublease was completely legal, she did not allow the eviction settlement was proof

Los Angeles city law provides that one adult roommate can always be added to a rent control apartment currently occupied by one adult. By city law, the building cannot deny Ken's right to add a roommate.

Where Ken erred was by simply adding the guy to the unit without having him approved as a roommate. However, Ken always had the right to add a roommate, and the building could not refuse his request to do so, unless the roommate didn't qualify.

But this is all irrelevant.

This isn't about enforcement of a sublease. This is about an individual choosing to claim his sublease was invalid AND staying on to live there for five months, rent free.

If you are leasing an apartment and you feel your lease is legally invalid, you have two choices. You can either leave with no penalty (provided that you can prove the lease was invalid if challenged), or you can stay and continue to pay rent.

You can't have the best of both worlds, where you announce, "Hey man, we're being evicted, and therefore my lease with you is bogus" and yet still stay for five more months and refuse to pay any rent.

No state would ever allow this.

The only time it's ever permissible to stay rent-free is when the apartment is uninhabitable -- such as lacking water, heat, or electricity for a substantial period of time. But obviously that didn't apply here.

It would be like going to a restaurant, noticing that their business license lapsed, eating a full meal anyway and finishing every morsel on your plate, and then refusing to pay the bill because you don't consider them to be a "valid restaurant". That's basically what Ken's roommate did here.

Ken's legal wranglings with the building (which he already WON in court) were irrelevant, and yet Judy made it all about that.

[tgull]

Random Thoughts:

This was about as uncomfortable as it gets watching this.

Technically, Ken is in total violation of the spirit of the rent control, which is not allowing roommates without a 10% vig. I get the fact the staff onsite did not know or care (it probably happens all the time), but he should have added the person to the lease and just paid the 10%. Given the rent, it would have been an extra $100+ a month, so $50 a person. Why would you not want the other guy on the lease anyway for such a nominal amount?

I have never seen Judge Judy before, she makes like $40M a year, and I have no idea why. Who could watch that shit every day? That was just hard to watch.

The bottom line is Ken had an off the market agreement with some homeless guy and got stiffed. He did not add him to the lease and got screwed. He has no legal recourse whatsoever, he got burned by a drifter and that is the way it goes.

What is much more curious is why Ken agreed to sleep on the couch all these years while the homeless guy got the bedroom? I cannot even fathom that.

Sad to say Ken looks like he is not doing well. If you Youtube him you get dozens of videos from the last 20 years having fun and full of life. He just looks life defeated in this very sad TV show. The only guy that looks worse is the defendant.

[Dan Druff]

Random Thoughts:

This was about as uncomfortable as it gets watching this.

Technically, Ken is in total violation of the spirit of the rent control, which is not allowing roommates without a 10% vig. I get the fact the staff onsite did not know or care (it probably happens all the time), but he should have added the person to the lease and just paid the 10%. Given the rent, it would have been an extra $100+ a month, so $50 a person. Why would you not want the other guy on the lease anyway for such a nominal amount?

I have never seen Judge Judy before, she makes like $40M a year, and I have no idea why. Who could watch that shit every day? That was just hard to watch.

The bottom line is Ken had an off the market agreement with some homeless guy and got stiffed. He did not add him to the lease and got screwed. He has no legal recourse whatsoever, he got burned by a drifter and that is the way it goes.

What is much more curious is why Ken agreed to sleep on the couch all these years while the homeless guy got the bedroom? I cannot even fathom that.

Sad to say Ken looks like he is not doing well. If you Youtube him you get dozens of videos from the last 20 years having fun and full of life. He just looks life defeated in this very sad TV show. The only guy that looks worse is the defendant.

Actually some fair points being raised here, with one exception.

Ken did have legal recourse for being burned by this drifter. He just got screwed by this bad decision by Judy. However, part of the reason he agreed to go on Judy was because payment was guaranteed if he won (and he'd get $500 if he lost), whereas collecting from the drifter might have been tough if he won in real court.

Ken agreed to take the couch because he doesn't really give a shit where he sleeps, and he wanted to make the bad situation more enticing for potential roommates. I agree it's an awful way to live, and I constantly tell him that he shouldn't have a 1-bedroom (even one with a great deal) if he is going to have a roommate.

Also, the landlord knew this guy was living there, but the managers were too lazy to demand he sign a lease, so they just ignored it for 20 months. By LA city law, that makes him a valid tenant AND they can no longer collect the 10% increase. However, Ken would need to prove that the landlord knew about him for at least 60 days in order for this to take effect, which could be tricky.

Part of the reason Ken beat the eviction was because it was going to be very difficult for the landlord to prove in court that they were unaware of this guy for 20 months. Furthermore, it was going to be a jury trial, and juries are very reluctant to evict a longtime rent-control tenant over petty matters such as these. After a lot of legal wrangling at various court hearings, the building owners gave up and agreed very shortly before trial to settle. The settlement involved evicting the roommate, keeping Ken, returning Ken's parking space which the building stole from him, and Ken agreeing to pay 10% and get approval if he were to want future roommates. Ken also had to agree to pay the full back rent within 5 days.

[tgull]

Random Thoughts:

This was about as uncomfortable as it gets watching this.

Technically, Ken is in total violation of the spirit of the rent control, which is not allowing roommates without a 10% vig. I get the fact the staff onsite did not know or care (it probably happens all the time), but he should have added the person to the lease and just paid the 10%. Given the rent, it would have been an extra $100+ a month, so $50 a person. Why would you not want the other guy on the lease anyway for such a nominal amount?

I have never seen Judge Judy before, she makes like $40M a year, and I have no idea why. Who could watch that shit every day? That was just hard to watch.

The bottom line is Ken had an off the market agreement with some homeless guy and got stiffed. He did not add him to the lease and got screwed. He has no legal recourse whatsoever, he got burned by a drifter and that is the way it goes.

What is much more curious is why Ken agreed to sleep on the couch all these years while the homeless guy got the bedroom? I cannot even fathom that.

Sad to say Ken looks like he is not doing well. If you Youtube him you get dozens of videos from the last 20 years having fun and full of life. He just looks life defeated in this very sad TV show. The only guy that looks worse is the defendant.

Actually some fair points being raised here, with one exception.

Ken did have legal recourse for being burned by this drifter. He just got screwed by this bad decision by Judy. However, part of the reason he agreed to go on Judy was because payment was guaranteed if he won (and he'd get $500 if he lost), whereas collecting from the drifter might have been tough if he won in real court.

Ken agreed to take the couch because he doesn't really give a shit where he sleeps, and he wanted to make the bad situation more enticing for potential roommates. I agree it's an awful way to live, and I constantly tell him that he shouldn't have a 1-bedroom (even one with a great deal) if he is going to have a roommate.

Also, the landlord knew this guy was living there, but the managers were too lazy to demand he sign a lease, so they just ignored it for 20 months. By LA city law, that makes him a valid tenant AND they can no longer collect the 10% increase. However, Ken would need to prove that the landlord knew about him for at least 60 days in order for this to take effect, which could be tricky.

Part of the reason Ken beat the eviction was because it was going to be very difficult for the landlord to prove in court that they were unaware of this guy for 20 months. Furthermore, it was going to be a jury trial, and juries are very reluctant to evict a longtime rent-control tenant over petty matters such as these. After a lot of legal wrangling at various court hearings, the building owners gave up and agreed very shortly before trial to settle. The settlement involved evicting the roommate, keeping Ken, returning Ken's parking space which the building stole from him, and Ken agreeing to pay 10% and get approval if he were to want future roommates. Ken also had to agree to pay the full back rent within 5 days.

I don't disagree with any of the legal stuff you are saying, bottom line is the guy he was suing has no money and lives in a Homeless Shelter, so financial recourse is over.

The larger issue is Ken looks like fucking shit, depressed and WTF happened? To be sleeping on the couch while a homeless roommate gets the bedroom, I just cannot think of anything more humiliating. Not sure what happened to the guy, in the You-Tube videos from the 90s and early 2000s he looked full of life and happy. He might be depressed I dunno, but something is off for sure. The defendant looked more stable than he did and that is saying something. Also, ask him to go to Walmart and buy reading glasses, or maybe buy them for him, so he does not press a piece of paper to his eyeballs. That was flat out sad to see. Reading glasses are like $5 a pair.

[herbertstemple]

[
I don't disagree with any of the legal stuff you are saying, bottom line is the guy he was suing has no money and lives in a Homeless Shelter, so financial recourse is over.

The larger issue is Ken looks like fucking shit, depressed and WTF happened? To be sleeping on the couch while a homeless roommate gets the bedroom, I just cannot think of anything more humiliating. Not sure what happened to the guy, in the You-Tube videos from the 90s and early 2000s he looked full of life and happy. He might be depressed I dunno, but something is off for sure. The defendant looked more stable than he did and that is saying something. Also, ask him to go to Walmart and buy reading glasses, or maybe buy them for him, so he does not press a piece of paper to his eyeballs. That was flat out sad to see. Reading glasses are like $5 a pair.

Poor guy looked pitiful when he was trying to read. Gotta say, I felt uneasy watching this episode. It was like rubber necking a traffic accident & then seeing something you wish you hadn't seen.

Ken did get screwed though. She really wasn't fair with him & I believe that the landlords knew he had room mates. He'd been doing this since 2008 so they had to have known.

A rent controlled apartment the size of a cracker box goes for $1000 a month in LA? Good God!!!

[hongkonger]

I don't know how the process works but I think the parties are supposed to supply background info ahead of time. If Ken was more in the right under CA/LA city laws than Judge Judy thought, shouldn't Ken have supplied that info ahead of time? That he won against the landlord and that by law the roommate became legal after not being legal at first? Either Ken or Judge Judy was ill-prepared and I'm guessing it was Ken.

Also how did they get to NYC, does the show fly them in? I know Ken didn't pay for it.

[GrenadaRoger]

This isn't about enforcement of a sublease. This is about an individual choosing to claim his sublease was invalid AND staying on to live there for five months, rent free.

[/B].

It sure is about enforcement....Scalir is trying to use the court to force performance (payment) by the subtenant

control Z