Ridiculous


I just watched Pacific Heights for the first (and last) time last night. This movie was ridiculous from beginning to end. So, some random person can go into someone's house, lock himself into a room, and be considered a tenant? That makes no sense. This is called trespassing! The guy was never invited in, never paid rent, changed the locks, started destroying property, etc. The landlords should've called the police and that would be the end of it. Alas, that never happened and this is what made the movie so frustrating and preposterous. Time after time throughout the movie, Drake makes the most obviously bad decisions. And on top of that, the movie writer tries to justify everything that's going on by saying it's California law. It's a shame too because Michael Keaton plays a really good bad guy. The only redeeming part of the movie was when Keaton got a taste of his own medicine at the hotel. Also, the remodeled house was nice.

reply

You're absolutely right and last week I submitted a goof to this very effect. I actually researched it thoroughly, because the whole movie is preposterous and campy:

GOOF--FACTUAL ERRORS: The entire premise of the movie has no basis in fact. According to the California Department of Consumer affairs (even at the time of the movie), the landlord can terminate the tenancy by giving the tenant three days' advance written notice if the tenant has done any of the following: failed to pay the rent (which was made patently clear from the beginning), violated any provision of the lease or rental agreement, materially damaged the rental property ("committed waste"); Carter did this throughout his illegal tenancy; substantially interfered with other tenants ("committed a nuisance"); Carter did this when he released the cockroaches, and unlawful conduct involving weapons or ammunition; Carter did this when he shot Drake and especially when he planted the weapon illegally on Drake to make it look like Drake committed the crime. So even if Carter had paid the rent within the three days, Drake had more than enough (legal) cause to forcibly evict Carter, even through the use of the State Marshall or County sheriff if Carter had refused to leave. The notion that Carter would have had any right to the property, for any reason, is completely absurd and without merit.

Of course, the purpose of any movie is to entertain, but when it comes off as this one did, overly dramatic and campy, it's just not credible even as a photoplay because even the lawyer and the cop in the movie got it wrong. You just can't walk into a building of your choosing without paying and have tentant's rights. It doesn't work that way. The whole movie is not believable, and because it is flat out wrong in its depiction of the landlord-tenant relationship it is not entertaining. The landlord-tenant laws, of course, vary significantly from state to state, but I researched the laws for California and they are clear as I mentioned in my submission.

You have a right to disagree, even if you are wrong.

------------------------
"I really don't like talking about my flair."

reply

This movie is not as ridiculous as you believe. In 10 years of dealing with rentals, I've seen almost every situation in this movie except never had a restraining order against me.

I had a tenant refuse to move out after lease ended and they didn't pay rent for last 3 months. I called police and told me I had no right to force her to leave (even though she had no lease).

To this day, I've never gotten one cent from 4 court judgements (almost 12 years since first one) and never once successfully evicted a tenant through the court system

reply

this is a perfect example of what happens 'when idiots watch movies' lol You post was someone picking up a match textbook, skimming 2 pages and deciding all the answers are wrong! hahahaha Seeing as how many other have ripped you a new a-hole I won;t bother...just give you some advice - know what you're talking about before posting nonsense like this.

You Suck...now deal with it.

reply

I've seen it in real life.

A man rented a room in a house in Baltimore. His girlfriend who never paid rent said she would be staying over occasionally. She started staying all the time, stealing food, drinking and assaulting the man.

The man left voluntarily. The monster woman got the police to let her back in because she plotted to receive food stamps at the address which established her residency and now the owner is stuck going to court to evict her while the other tenant is scrambling to find a place to stay until the monster is gone.

reply

It's very important for you to pay your rent on the day it's due. Not paying on time might lead to a negative entry on your credit report, late fees, and even eviction.


NONE of this would have made any difference to Keaton's character....wasn't he using a fake name, or stolen identity, when he applied for the apartment..?!

If a scammer is using someone else's ID, or a fake name, fake SS number etc, none of the above makes any difference to them. They are scammers, grifters etc....whatever you want to call these types of people....they simply do not care, they want everything for free.

reply

According to the San Francisco, two idiots used AirBnB to rent a home in Palm Springs for 30 days, which then gave them rights as tenants. Now they are refusing to leave.



Cory Tschogl says she has an Airbnb squatter - a guest who rented her Palm Springs vacation condominium, then stopped paying rent, refused to leave and threatened her with legal action.

"It's a horror story," said Tschogl, 39, who lives in San Francisco.

It's also a cautionary tale, illustrating the tenuous nature of new marketplaces that let people rent homes or rooms to strangers.

Although Airbnb and similar platforms use reviews of hosts and guests to try to weed out bad players, and require credit card information from guests, those systems are far from ironclad. And although Airbnb has a $10 billion valuation and handles more than 600,000 temporary rentals worldwide, it's still a startup whose customer service sometimes seems to lag.

Tschogl said she begged Airbnb for help through numerous e-mails and phone calls without getting much assistance.

Now she's hired a lawyer, who will cost several thousand dollars and take three to six months to evict the tenant, who now has renters' protections under California law because he has occupied the unit over 30 days.

Similar issues can arise with any tenants, of course, whether they book through Airbnb or find a place through the classifieds.

"Our initial response to this inquiry didn't meet the standards we set for ourselves and we've apologized to this host," said Airbnb spokesman Nick Papas in a statement. "In the last week, officials from our team have been in incredibly close contact with this host and she has been paid the full cost of the reservation and we're working with her to provide additional support as we move forward."

Tschogl, who works as a rehabilitation therapist for blind and low-vision people, was priced out of the San Francisco housing market, so she bought a one-bedroom condo in a gated Palm Springs community 18 months ago. She visits it often and her father lives nearby.

She's rented it occasionally through Airbnb and Flipkey for about a year. The income from guests who paid around $450 a week helped meet her expenses for the mortgage, taxes and insurance.

But her current tenant's stay had issues from the beginning.

"When he first checked in, he complained about the tap water - it's hard water with minerals because it's in the desert," Tschogl said. "My gut alarm-bell went off. I agreed to give him a full refund, not even charging a cleaning fee. But then he changed his mind and decided to stay."

The guest booked the space for 44 days from May 25 to July 8 and paid for the first month in advance through Airbnb. After 30 days, Airbnb notified Tschogl that its attempts to collect the balance due "did not succeed" without specifying why. The company eventually paid her the two weeks' missing rent.

After numerous e-mails and calls from Tschogl, Airbnb offered to pay for the man to stay at a hotel for 30 days, but said he didn't respond to e-mails and his phone was disconnected.

Once the 44 days were up, Tschogl texted the renter that his reservation contract was over and that the power would be shut off in 24 hours.

The guest texted back saying he was legally occupying the condo and that loss of electricity would threaten the work he does at home that brings in $1,000 to $7,000 a day.

The texts threatened to press charges for "blackmail and damages caused by your negligence and malicious misconduct, including $3,800 PID Espresso machine as well as medical bills for my brother's hospital visit after he got sick here drinking unfiltered tap water."

Tschogl realized that she couldn't legally cut off the electricity, although her SoCal Edison account showed daily usage was triple to quadruple normal. Her father went by the unit several times and photographed it with the sliding glass doors and windows wide open, presumably while the air conditioning was going full blast to combat the 114-degree heat.

The guest, whose Airbnb "verified ID" says he is from Austin, Texas, did not respond to e-mail requests for comment and his cell phone did not accept messages.

"Airbnb made the whole process much more complicated than it needed to be," Tschogl said. "They were almost absent. There was no phone number or direct contact e-mail. I got e-mail responses only every 24 to 48 hours."

Copies of her e-mails with Airbnb, reviewed by The Chronicle, showed several delayed answers, for which the customer service representatives apologized. The company became more responsive after Tschogl's sister, a music executive, tweeted a stream of complaints about it in early July.

After The Chronicle contacted Airbnb, the company stepped up its assistance, Tschogl said. That included an e-mail saying "We're prepared to assist with your legal fees ... so we can help alleviate the financial stress caused by the stay."

Tschogl said her previous Airbnb experiences, both as a guest and a host, were positive.

"I understand that Airbnb is an emerging company, and I like the idea of it," she said. "However, I don't think they're equipped to deal with this type of situation. I'd like to see them change some policies and improve customer service so they can help people should something like this happen."

reply

So, according to this film, basically any bum or vagrant can wander into any living space he happens to come across, "take possession" of it, change the locks and boom! he's a legal tenant, even though he has no document to prove it nor does he ever pay the rent or communal costs? Sounds like total bullsh-t to me.



facts are stupid things - Ronald Reagan

reply

It's absolutely true.

The key problem to begin with is that Keaton's character had permission to be there. He not only wandered in, he convinced them that it was fine. They knew they had already approved him as a tenant and they were just waiting on money, which he convinced them he had.

If they had said "No no no. GTFO until you pay. I'm calling the police." RIGHT THEN, they should have had no problem getting him out. That's assuming that he doesn't convince the COPS that he was a legal tenant, which he very well may have done.

The minute he had permission live there, he had full tenant's rights and was subject to the eviction process. It doesn't matter if he had a lease. It doesn't matter if he's a buddy who was only supposed to crash for a night. If they CLAIM to be a tenant, then for all intents and purposes, they are. The cops can do nothing in these situations ... You have to go to landlord tenant court. And it takes time.


Now, there is also "adverse possession," which is totally different. The idea with this one is that you can take over an abandoned property and eventually it becomes yours. In order to do this, you have to NOT have permission to be there. (If you have permission, you're a tenant and subject to eviction as above.) You have to move in, and live there "openly," eg leaving the curtains open and lights on like a normal person. You also have to "care" for the property and do a minimal amount of basic things, eg making inprovements or caring for the lawn. You have to pay taxes and utilities on the property, and receive mail there. If you do all of this for several years without getting evicted, the property would eventually become yours because even if there is an established owner, they clearly have no interest in the property and haven't put anything into it while you have been.


Pobre de Dios que no sale en revistas, que no es modelo ni artista, o de familia royal...

reply

\ they were new owners and were
a) eager to rent to pay the bills
b) Keaton had impressed them with his wad of cash, fancy car etc
c) he was like "i travel all the time" meaning "easy tenant"
etc
he picked them for these reasons and was a pro, even using the back of the credit application to write down stuff. once they signed the lease I think they were screwed

reply