Conference vmszoo::new_hampshire

    Would anyone like to comment and/or offer suggestions on our
    predicament?  Our one-year lease at Royal Crest is up 2/28/96.  They
    are raising our rent and insisting we sign a new one-year lease.  We
    told them we decided to buy a place and will be moving out when we find
    what we want, and that we've been looking since September.  We have no
    idea when we are going to move, but it is our hope within the next 2 or
    3 months.  They are INSISTING that we sign a lease, and since we are
    planning to buy a place, they will insert in the lease a
    "break-the-lease" clause requiring $200 from us upon signing the lease,
    60 days' notice of our move-out date, and an additional $500 when/if we
    exercise the "break-the-lease" clause.
    
    We have paid our rent on time for the past year.  I cannot imagine them
    taking us to court/throwing out on the street good-paying tenants.  I
    think they are extremely greedy "allowing us to break the lease for a
    'mere' $700."  
    
    This is unfair.  They should just let us continue to live there on a
    month-to-month basis.  We are good tenants.
    
    What can we do?  Thanks.

My wife and I had had a similar problem back in 86. My wife had just signed a 1
year lease when we decided to get married. We went to the management folks and
asked them to convert the lease to a 6 month lease, which they offer, but they
refused stating the lease has been signed; live with it or pay the penalty.

I informed them that they could do as they please, that as far as I'm concerned,
they have 6 months notice, and that she will be returning the keys to them
at that time. We offered to find renters to take over the lease and a few other
things, and they basically said no way, you leave, you pay the penalty.

When the time came she turned over the keys and I moved her out. We got many 
collection letters, each one more brazen than the last. While the letters got
my wife upset (which is the intent), I just laughed.

When the banks would ask about the credit report entry for this, I told them
it was a dispute with the landlord and that they will never be paid. That
explaination was enough for the banks and it has never been a problem.

Eventually the letters stopped coming.

Doug.

I don't ever pretend to be a lawyer, but here's what I 
think I'd do...

I'd sign the year's lease, but I'd cross out and initial the
break-the-lease clauses that they added just because you
were honest.

It's been a long time since I rented, but I "broke" 2 leases.
In both cases, the rental market was hot and the landlord had
no trouble getting a new tenant.  If there are lots of vacant
apartments in your complex, you may not want to follow this
strategy.  

Many apartments require 1 year leases, no exceptions.  Some 
apartments require a 1 year lease for the first year, then 
allow tenant at will monthly.  If Royal Crest requires yearly
leases, then I don't think you can force them to provide you
a tenant-at-will lease just because you've been excellent tenants.
But you may want to try writing letters to Flatley stating your
case.  Exceptions are always possible, though perhaps not by 
working through your on-site rental office.

It is my belief that, if you break the lease and the landlord
is unable to rent your apartment, then you are responsible for
the rent for the remainder of your lease.  If your lease has a 
"no sublets allowed" clause then you cannot legally find a renter 
on your own (at least not having them pay you the rent).

Good luck.  There's bound to be more advice -- renters who buy
almost always have this situation!

    	Having been on both sides of this fence, I think I can understand
    both positions. The hard part for the owner about this is that you cannot 
    provide them with a move out date.
    
    	On a smaller scale, this becomes more of an issue as the owner
    can't really actively pursue looking for a new tenant until they know for
    sure when the property will be available. Try putting yourself in the
    owners shoes if you can. It's from this point of view that you may be
    able to negotiate with them.
    
    	Although you are good tenants, the owner has no clue whether
    you'll be there for a month or two, or maybe even close to another
    year. If you were staying, your rent would go up anyway, so be prepared 
    to have to pay the increase either way.
    
    	If you do try to negotiate directly with the owner, expect to have
    a move out date you can provide them with. If after this time, they
    have no new tenant waiting to move in, you may be able to work out
    something where you can stay until one is found, and then agree to move
    out within a month, but that's iffy. Your basically asking the owner to 
    risk losing a potential one year lease based on your being good tenants
    and you're not willing to offer any compensation for the risk.
    
    	Ray

    I second trying to call Flatley, or work it directly with the owner.
    You know that they've had trouble renting those apts, so you NOT being
    there is going to do them more harm than you being there for "only 4
    mos" (or whatever).  
    
    They should be willing to provide a 60-day-notice lease.  I wouldn't
    argue it with the person at the rental office - they can't usually do
    anything special, and some of them are REAL anal about the rules, and
    won't even try.  
    
    $700.00 to break the lease seems like a *LOT*.  You could have all your
    stuff moved (by a moving company) into a CHEAPER apt for less than
    $700.00 and get a 30-60-90-day lease.  I believe that Woodlands (right
    across from DEC) offers a 2br, incl ht/hw, 30-day lease for ~$600/mo.
    
    I certainly wouldn't hand out $700.00 for "nothing".  You're trying to
    tell them right NOW that you won't be staying a year, and they're not
    willing to work with you at all.  
    
    Good Luck!
    Patty

    Thanks, everyone, for your suggestions and input.  It is much
    appreciated.  I had guessed a lot of people have had run-ins with
    Flatley!
    
    Please keep those replies coming if you have something to add.

  I think in the current climate (heavy demand for apartments) it would 
probably be worth the risk to stay on without the "short timer" clause.
What would probably happen when you move out is that the landlord would
quickly re-rent the apartment and your penalty would be much less than the
$700 charge for a "short timer" lease. (That is my expression; I don't know
what the professionals call such a lease.)
  Unfortunately, for a large impersonal company such as this, having been a
"good tenant" for a year doesn't carry much weight. This is one of several
reasons why I prefer to rent from "mom and pop" landlords.

  .4 was posted while I was writing .5. If Flatley is really having trouble
renting these apartments, it might not be worth the risk to renew as a 
standard lease and then break it.
  It sounds like a vicious circle here: Flatley is losing money due to the
vacancies and is trying to recoup part of the loss by charging higher fees,
which discourages people from moving in.

    .7 Bob -- you've got it!

You've tried to be upfront and work with them. You've offered a 60 day
notice. They simply don't want to bend and they've got you by the SH 
and they know it.

You could just not sign the lease and continue the pay the rent. It's
unlikely that they will try to evict a paying tenant. Then there is the
process of eviction that gets sticky for them.

Breaking the lease may make you contractually responsible for the penalty
but what are they willing to spend to chase you down? They'll hand it off
to a collection agency which you can summarily ignore.

Don't let them treat you like a number.

Doug.

>Breaking the lease may make you contractually responsible for the penalty
>but what are they willing to spend to chase you down? They'll hand it off
>to a collection agency which you can summarily ignore.

and other previous notes...


    Not to be rude, but is this what we are teaching our young people
    today?  Its OK to break a promise as long as you don't get caught?
    Or it is a big corporate entity or the government?

    Where is the respect for the law and taking responsibility for your
    own actions?

    If they word the contract with a penalty, you are welcome not to sign
    or try to change it.  It is a free country.

                                -John

    re: Mom and Pop landlord
    
    	That's what I am, and paying rent on time does mean something. However, 
    if my tenants did the same thing to me and couldn't provide me with a move 
    out date, I'd be a bit upset.
    
    	I can't actively look for a new tenant until I know when the
    existing one is going to move out. Whether they paid the rent on-time
    or not would have no bearing on this. Their timely rent payment isn't 
    going to pay my mortgage after they move out.
    
    	What "I" would be looking for is someone that could work with me.
    I'd consider a lesser term lease but would need a move out date. If
    that date were to come and they hadn't found anything, and I had a
    tenant waiting and willing to sign a one year lease, then the choice
    would either be to compensate me for the risk they're asking me to
    accept (i.e. loss of a signed lease), or move out.
    
    	Does anyone think this unfair ? Just because it's a larger complex
    doesn't change the principle. It's essentially the same thing. If you 
    want to try to do the "RIGHT" thing, call the owner directly and see if 
    they'd be willing to work with you (i.e. 6 month lease). 
    
    	They may be a larger company, but they still have bills to pay too. 
    If you approach them from this angle, they may be willing to work with you.
    Kind of a mutual benifit thing. Don't come at them like they somehow owe 
    you something, because they don't. 
    
    	Ray

    
    re -1 ... which is exactly why a 60-day notice should be PLENTY.  That
    would satisfy both parties.  Have you ever TRIED to find an apt more
    than ~45 days in advance??  Everyone says "Come back the beginning of
    next month - we don't know anything that far in advance!", so the odds
    of having someone renting, willing to wait MORE than 60 days, is slim
    to none.
    
    I was going through this last year, couldn't move till the end of Jan,
    started looking in Nov, and was promptly laughed at by most people
    involved.
    
    I am still inclined to think that Flatley would work with you on this -
    their vacancy rate is something like 20-30% isn't it??  That's HIGH!!
    
    -Patty

    Re .75:
    
    > Just because it's a larger complex doesn't change the principle. It's
    > essentially the same thing.
    
    The larger complex DOES change things -- not the moral principle, but
    the economic essence is changed.  A larger complex CAN advertise before
    it has the specific vacancy, because the complex knows it will have
    SOME vacancies.  Economically, the loss to a larger complex when a
    lease ends early is less than the loss to a small landlord.
    
    Furthermore, it is clear that Flatley would be lying if they said the
    reason for the termination premium is compensation for the loss they
    would suffer.  Although .64 does not say so explicitly, it appears
    Flatley offered the new lease with less than two months to go on the
    old lease.  They pulled the same thing with my lease renewal.
    
    In my case, they raised the rent, delivered the new offer to me on
    Friday, and asked for an answer on Monday, with about a month left on
    the old lease.  Fortunately, I had flexibility and found a new place --
    better and cheaper -- over the weekend.
    
    If Flatley were really concerned about the notice period and the
    apartment going vacant, they would offer the new lease with much more
    advance notice.  Clearly, they are trying to take advantage of tenants'
    immobility.                              
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    .64 Go see youself a good tenants lawyer like Margrett C. Hall in
    Milford. She is very good in this sort of hurra.:]
    
    

 >   Not to be rude, but is this what we are teaching our young people
 >   today?  Its OK to break a promise as long as you don't get caught?
 >   Or it is a big corporate entity or the government?

 It is exactly the pressure that finding a new, and presumeably temporary,
 residence that puts the 600lb gorrilla in the drivers seat, and they know it.
 They will loose NOTHING by extending the lease one month at a time after the
 initial 1 year lease. But they have you by the SH, and they abuse that position.

 By staying as month to month tenants at will with a 60 day notice the landlord
 avoids the cost of preping the unit for the next tenant AND avoids a vacancy.
 The 1 year lease garantees that these overhead costs are covered, after that
 the rent money is gravy. The penalty to break the first year lease is to cover
 these costs. There is no reason to reinstate them after the first year.

 So, while I don't take the position lightly, there are times, after an honest
 attempt to be reasonable is made, to worry only about yourself.

> If they word the contract with a penalty, you are welcome not to sign
> or try to change it.  It is a free country.

  And this should be the first attempt. If all else fails, tell them exactly 
  what you are going to do, and do it. They will cash your checks with or 
  without a lease. Continue to pay the rent while working up the management 
  chain until an equitable and reasonable arrangement can be agreed to.

  If an alernative place of residence can be found during this period, by all
  means, move.

>  Where is the respect for the law and taking responsibility for your
>  own actions?

  Last I heard, blackmail was a bad thing ... and this situation seems to have
  similar aspects.
 
  Doug.

    	re: .77
    
    	When I talked of principle earlier, it was from a moral, not an
    economic standpoint. It's easy for someone to try to justify that the big 
    bad management firm is trying to take advantage of them. Maybe they are, 
    but to coin a phase that I suspect the author of .77 is no stranger to, 
    "They are in business to make money, period". 
    
    	People know when they sign a lease that the options at the end of the 
    lease are to move or renew. Whether someone's buying a house or not has 
    no bearing on the lease agreement. It's also not a big surprise that the 
    rent could be raised.
    
    	From an economic standpoint, it's easier to track the status of a 
    lease in a mom and pop operation. Especially if there's only one. In a 
    large complex, trying to track different lease lengths will be more 
    difficult and costly to administrate. It's easier for them to limit it 
    to one choice (1 year). The benefit to Flately in providing 60 day leases 
    is apparently not worth the hassle.
    
    	In the end, each party will do what they have to, and the courts 
    will decide who was "legally" right (if it makes it to court). It 
    certainly wouldn't hurt to document that a reasonable effort was made 
    to negotiate an amicable agreement in the event you do wind up in court. 
    That was my main point.
    
    	Ray

    Re .80:
    
    > It's easy for someone to try to justify that the big  bad management
    > firm is trying to take advantage of them.
    
    What do you mean "justify"?  I can prove the big bad management firm is
    taking advantage of people -- its actions are inconsistent with other
    motivations (such as covering costs of an empty apartment) but are
    consistent with taking advantage of people.  But if by "justify" you
    imply an ethical justification for breaking a lease was justified, then
    you are wrong -- I wrote no such thing.
    
    If you do want to talk about principle, then let us consider this
    question:  A party offers you a contract.  While making their offer,
    they lie to you.  Should the contract they offer be considered as
    binding as the contract offered by an honest party?
    
    > People know when they sign a lease that the options at the end of the 
    > lease are to move or renew.
    
    People do not know when they sign a lease that the landlord will give
    them at the end the option of signing a new lease with a requirement of
    answering within three days.
    
    > In a large complex, trying to track different lease lengths will be
    > more difficult and costly to administrate.
    
    Baloney.  It is just as easy for them to write one termination date in
    their records as it is to write any other.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
    

    re:81
    
    	Are you saying that they raised the rent prior to the lease expiring ? 
    Is this the lie you alluded to ? 
    
    	They can certainly ASK you to sign a new lease and ASK you to do it
    in a couple days. They wanted to know ASAP if you were moving or not. If 
    you intended to move, you tell them that and that you're not signing a new 
    lease. What's to decide ? Either you're staying or your not. I see this as 
    a 30 day notice.
    
    	It's not unusal to want 30 days notice as to whether your moving or 
    not. So after you, in essence, complained that they only gave you 30 days, 
    then you said you found a new place and moved all within a weekend. So
    what's your problem ?
    
    	And lets say that you go a year, signing 60 day leases because
    you can't find a place to buy/move to. Now add a few hundred units 
    where a few dozen people may be doing this at any given time. How can
    you not see that as more difficult and costly to administrate vs. signing 
    and filing one piece of paper per year, and tracking one date vs. six ?
    
    	The lease is a contract that expires. Once expired, you must sign
    another for it to be legal. This is likely filed in hard copy, mailed
    to a home office for signatures/approvals, electronically entered and 
    tracked, possibly kicking off automatic credit checks, and whatever else 
    they decide to do with it. 
    
    	Ray

    Re .82:
    
    > 	Are you saying that they raised the rent prior to the lease expiring ? 
    > Is this the lie you alluded to ?
    
    I described the potential lie in .77.  To wit, if the landlord says the
    reason for the $200 fee for the lease and the $500 fee for the early
    termination and the 60 days notice is to cover their losses for the
    potential vacancy, then their statement would contradict the fact that
    the same landlord deliberately acts to leave themselves with a much
    shorter notice and less money in the event a tenant decides not to
    renew a regular lease.
    
    If the landlord honestly were concerned with notice, they would give
    the tenant renewal information further in advance.  From the regular
    leases, we can see that the landlord is quite capable of conducting
    business without the extra $700 and without 60 days notice.  So they
    must have some other motive for the onerous charges.  That motive is
    greed -- it is taking advantage of the tenants.
    
    > They can certainly ASK you to sign a new lease and ASK you to do it
    > in a couple days.
    
    This is irrelevant to the point I was making.  Clearly, you have not
    grasped the elements presented.  I did not state the landlord could not
    ask the tenant to sign a new lease or could not ask it to be done
    within a couple of days.  I did state, in contrast to your statement
    about what the tenant could expect, that the tenant could not expect
    the landlord to use the element of surprise.  And I did state that this
    tactic of the landlord demonstrates their intent and contrasts with the
    terms offered in the lease with 60-day termination.
    
    You did not answer my question.  If party A lies to party B while
    negotating a contract, should the contract be considered as binding on
    party B as if it were offered by an honest party?
    
    > How can you not see that as more difficult and costly to administrate
    > vs. signing and filing one piece of paper per year, and tracking one
    > date vs. six ?
    
    How can you not see that it is not necessary to sign six pieces of
    paper per year, only one?  You don't need six 60-day leases, only one
    lease just like the regular lease except it says "The tenant may move
    out and stop paying rent with 60 days notice."  This piece of paper has
    one date when it expires, just like the regular lease.  Rent is paid
    monthly with this lease, just like the regular lease.  The tenant will
    terminate the lease once, not six times.  The termination procedures
    (advertising a vacancy, et cetera) will be executed one time, not six.
    
    Let us also consider the extra $500 fee.  What is the purpose of the
    $500?  To pay for the period the apartment may be vacant?  At the
    moment the special lease is being considered, the landlord is faced
    with a tenant who has the option of moving out shortly, as their
    regular lease expires.  In this case, the landlord will have less than
    60 days to find a new tenant.  By signing a new lease, the tenant would
    be filling the apartment for some time and agreeing in that lease to
    give the landlord 60 days notice.  Therefore, the landlord's situation
    would improve:  They currently have less than 60 days notice if the
    tenant moves out but would have at least 60 days if the tenant renews. 
    So the landlord is NOT losing any rent or opportunity of rent by
    agreeing to the new lease, so the $500 is NOT compensation for the
    potential vacancy.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Chances of the court system holding someone to not giving 60 days
    notice is unlikely to be upheld in the court systems. I have had
    tenants bolt on me with nothing more than a 12 hour notice, and in the
    lease it stated 30 days written. And this one sleez-oid had the gaul to
    haul me in and chalange the lease and WON! I thought of apealing, but
    figured to give.
    

    I agree with what EDP said as well.
    
    I lived in a place that had a 1-yr lease.  When that lease was up, they
    wanted me to sign another 1-yr lease.  I said "Well, I don't really
    have PLANS of moving, but I'm not really willing to sign on for another
    whole year.  Can we do anything different?"  So, they took the original
    lease-form, and added a clause to the bottom of it that said that the
    lease may be broken at any time, with 60-days notice from the 1st of
    the month (it HAD to be the 1st, which ended up killing me, but was a
    LOT better than waiting out the whole year.  When I called to say I was
    moving, they had to stop me and look up the lease before they'd even
    continue talking.  There wasn't anything "proactive" done on their part
    except for the yearly renewal.  This is consistent with my many many
    years of leasing.
    
    My CURRENT lease is never-ending, and only states that I must stay a 
    minimum of 12 mos, and give 30 days notice.  My 12 mos was up last
    month, and I didn't hear a word from the landlord, and don't expect to
    (and I have spoken to him, so the opportunity was there).
    
    Good Luck!
    Patty

    Patty, I'm glad you're able to keep track of all this.  I'm confused.
    
      :-)  *Susan*

    	re:83
    
    	A more appropriate hypothetical question is -
    
    	A party offers you a contract.  While making their offer, they lie to 
    you. KNOWING THIS PRIOR TO SIGNING THE CONTRACT, should you enter into
    a contract with them ?
    
    	Since the penalties are part of the terms and conditions of the
    contract, then you would (or should have) known about this "potential
    lie" prior to signing the contract.
    
           You knew the lease expiration date. You got upset when they 
    asked you 30 days prior to this date, if you could sign and return a new 
    lease ASAP. I don't see the "element of surprise" here. If you expected 
    or wanted something sooner, you could have called them. 
    
            Flately's actions convey a message that they prefer to deal
    ONLY with 1 year leases. They gave no indication or impression that
    they allowed any other form of lease. Certainly there are alternatives 
    with their ethical/financial implications, but it doesn't matter. It's 
    not your decision to make. It was your decision to sign the lease though.
        
    	Ray
    	

    RE .87:
    
    > A more appropriate hypothetical question is . . . KNOWING THIS PRIOR
    > TO SIGNING THE CONTRACT, should you enter into a contract with them ?
       
    What makes that more appropriate?  Your question address efficacy more
    than ethics, which makes it less appropriate.  Also, you are changing
    the situation -- the people in the situation in .64 might not have
    known the landlord were being deceitful if other information were not
    brought to their attention.  Please answer the question I posed in the
    situation I posed.
    
    > You knew the lease expiration date. You got upset when they  asked
    > you 30 days prior to this date, if you could sign and return a new 
    > lease ASAP.
    
    a) I did not get upset.  Please do not make up facts.
    
    b) The request was not to return the new lease as soon as possible; the
    request was to return the lease within three calendar days.
    
    > I don't see the "element of surprise" here.
    
    It is a surprise to be asked to do something within three days when one
    had no reason to expect such a deadline.  And you are still missing the
    point:  The issue with the short deadline is not how short it is
    (although this contributes to the evidence that the landlord's intent
    is to weaken the tenant's negotiating position) but that the landlord's
    choice of how to handle lease renewal contrast with the terms offered
    in the new lease.
    
    The terms in the new lease suggest the landlord wishes to avoid having
    little notice.  The tactics of offering the renewal show the landlord
    can handle little notice.
    
    > Flately's actions convey a message that they prefer to deal ONLY with
    > 1 year leases.
    
    That hypothesis would explain the onerous terms in the new lease.  It
    would not explain the contrast between the long notice required in the
    new lease and the short notice for the lease renewal.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re:88 

	The "potential lie" you keep speaking of is irrelevant. The fees that 
    existed and the conditions they would be applied in appeared on the 
    contract, which you agreed to when you signed it. Are you trying to say 
    you or .64 weren't aware of these fees/conditions before signing ? So 
    whether the fees are justified or not is irrelevant. If you didn't like 
    them, you were welcome to go elsewhere. No matter how you word it, the 
    essence of your question is whether or not two wrongs make a right. My 
    answer is no.

    	Your lease was about to expire at the end of the month and you're
    given 3 days to sign a new lease. What's to decide ? Either you're
    staying under the new terms or you're leaving and you have a month to 
    find a new place and move. By giving you 3 days to decide, they have
    the better part of a month to schedule a maintenance/cleaning crew into 
    your apartment if need be. 

    	Ray

    Re .89:
    
    > The "potential lie" you keep speaking of is irrelevant.
    
    I disagree.  A lie can void part or all of an agreement.  E.g., if
    Smith tells me he has the cheapest apartment in town, and I rent from
    Smith, and it turns out Brown has a cheaper apartment and Smith knew
    it, then Smith is legally liable to me for the difference.
    
    Similarly, if Smith tells me the fee is to cover Smith's expenses, and
    that is not true, and Smith knows it, then Smith owes me the amount of
    my damages, which a court might decide equalled the difference between
    Smith's actual expenses and what Smith charged me.
    
    > Your lease was about to expire at the end of the month and you're
    > given 3 days to sign a new lease. What's to decide?
    
    ONCE AGAIN, I have not made ANY COMPLAINT about the landlord's right to
    set whatever deadline the landlord wants.  Can you show ANY SENTENCE
    where I wrote any such thing?
    
    By repeating this, you have proven that you do not understand the
    point.  Since your understanding is at fault, nobody should give any
    credence to your opinions in the matter.
    
    Suppose a hit-and-run accident had occurred, and a witness saw that a
    green car was involved.  The police investigate and find out that Smith
    has a green car.  Combined with other facts, this demonstrates that
    Smith was the hit-and-run driver.
    
    Now, by itself, there is NOTHING WRONG with having a green car.  Smith
    did nothing wrong by having a green car.  But the green car is EVIDENCE
    of a DIFFERENT ACT.
    
    Similarly, by itself, there is NOTHING WRONG with the landlord offering
    short notice.  The landlord does nothing wrong by offering short
    notice.  But the short notice is EVIDENCE of a DIFFERENT ACT.
    
    The short notice is evidence that the landlord really does not need
    long notice, so it would be false of them to say otherwise.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re:90
    
    	Did they really lie ? Did they not provide you with what you
    paid them for, and at the agreed upon price ? If you lived up to 
    your agreement would any of these fees be applied ?	
    
    	The basis of the fee is to provide them with compensation for a 
    potential vacancy due to short notice. Regarding this "short notice" 
    in your own words - 
    
    > Flatley offered the new lease with less than two months to go on the
    > old lease.  They pulled the same thing with my lease renewal.
    
     	If the contract says that you'll give them 60 days notice if moving, 
    after you have less than 60 days on your lease, they can assume your 
    staying another term. Just in case, they'll ask you at least 30 or more 
    days prior to the expiration to sign a new lease. This only indicates that 
    they may be able to deal with 30 days notice, but they would prefer 60. 
    
    	I'd say that Flately IS concerned with notice. The above reasoning 
    also explains the 3-day notice to sign the new lease when you didn't 
    contact them 60 days prior to your lease expiring. In any event, this 
    supposed "evidence" does not support your point. 
    
    	The unwillingness to provide one with a 60 day lease also proves
    nothing. As I said, maybe they prefer to deal with only 1 year leases. 
    
    	From regular business, they have enough time to schedule a maintenance
    crew in the day that you leave. Their actions provide them with at least 
    30 days notice. With proper notice, they can co-ordinate the services 
    needed to prep the apartment in a day, and rent it the next. If so, then 
    they get the maximum yearly rent out of the apartment. This, no doubt, is 
    the goal.
    
    	You tried to draw support for your point by saying the fee was not 
    required for regular business. This, and other statements you made are
    based on knowledge you'd have *PRIOR* to entering into a contract with 
    these people. If you knew, or even suspected a "potential lie" prior to 
    signing the contract, why did you sign it ? The time to do something about 
    it was *BEFORE* you signed. 
    
    	Ray

    Re .91:
    
    > Did they really lie ? Did they not provide you with what you
    > paid them for, and at the agreed upon price ? If you lived up to 
    > your agreement would any of these fees be applied ?	

    In the situation under discussion, yes, yes, and yes.
    
    > Just in case, they'll ask you at least 30 or more  days prior to the
    > expiration to sign a new lease.
    
    Huh?  That doesn't fit into the situation.  Again you demonstrate you
    do not understand the circumstances.
    
    > The above reasoning also explains the 3-day notice to sign the new
    > lease when you didn't contact them 60 days prior to your lease
    > expiring.
    
    There's nothing in the original lease about 60 days notice.
    
    > If you knew, or even suspected a "potential lie" prior to signing
    > the contract, why did you sign it ?
    
    a) *I* did not sign any such thing.
    
    b) If Smith tells Jones a lie and also offers Jones an agreement, Jones
    is legally and ethically free to accept the agreement and hold Smith to
    it.  Jones is also legally and ethically right to hold Smith
    accountable for Smith's lie.            
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re:92
    
    >> If you knew, or even suspected a "potential lie" prior to signing
    >> the contract, why did you sign it ?
    
    > a) *I* did not sign any such thing.
    
    	So the old lease YOU signed had no lies, they provided YOU with 
    what you paid them for, and these fees were not applied to YOU. 
    
    	If by "the situation under discussion" you mean .64, you have not
    proven that Flately lied, the tenants received use of the apartment for
    the agreed price and duration, and the tenant will incur no penalties if 
    they move at the end of the lease. 
    
    	You attempted to use as evidence of the lie the fact that they can 
    deal with a shorter notice. Then when I point out that their actions 
    assured them of at least 30+ days notice, you respond by saying that 
    doesn't fit into the situation. 
    
    	I can think of at least 2 or 3 situations right off the top of my 
    head to support a need for more notice. Without knowing the reasons for
    sure, it doesn't prove anything, including your alleged claim that they
    lied.
    
    > Did they really lie ? Did they not provide you with what you
    > paid them for, and at the agreed upon price ? If you lived up to
    > your agreement would any of these fees be applied ?
    
    	So in both cases, the answers were really No, No, and No.
    
    	Ray
    

    an update from the person who initiated this 1997 string about Royal
    Crest lease problems (.64)
    
    Last night I had to go to the office to pick up a package.  I was asked
    if we (my husband and I) had gotten our lease "settled" (signed, I
    guess is what they were asking).  I said that no, we had not nor were
    we going to sign another lease because (I reiterated) we are looking
    for a place to purchase and won't be renting for another whole year. 
    They, in turn, reiterated our choices:  a 30-day "extension" (they have
    their own unique definition of an extension), a "break-the-lease
    clause" (cost: $700), or another 12-month lease.  I said I would not be
    signing any of these.
    
    An hour ago I heard a message on my home machine from the property
    manager stating that if it were indeed true that we would not be
    signing any of the choices offered us, he would begin EVICTION
    PROCEEDINGS.  Can you believe this?  (That's a rhetorical question; no
    need to start more arguments in here.  I need guidance.)
    
    I just hung up from speaking with him personally.  He said that we
    could have a 60-day extension, which I don't think I knew about before,
    and he will send it to us for our signature (my request).  He said
    we'll have 60 more days to find a place to purchase or else we'll have
    to sign a new lease.
    
    He also said that Royal Crest makes no exceptions, and hasn't in the 2
    years he has been the property manager there; otherwise, they would be
    discriminating if they made me a special agreement.  I wonder whether
    anyone can dispute what he says.  I also wonder whether everyone pays
    the same amount of rent for the same size unit; because if they don't,
    then Royal Crest is already practicing discrimination.
    
    Right, Eric?  :-)
                     

    re:94
    
    	It might be worth while to talk to a lawyer at this point. I
    believe the initial consultation is free. You need to find out what 
    the laws are pertaining to this. There's likely a state wide agency
    you could call for information as well. You could try the State 
    Attorney General's office for starters.
    
    	If you went for a 60 day lease and couldn't find anything, at least it
    would hold off the eviction process. I don't know how long this takes,
    but if it's a month or more, it gives you the 2-3 months you were looking 
    for. The lawyer may also be able to offer suggestions on ways to give you 
    more time or other helpful tips.
    
    	Although it may sound like it, I have no feelings either way towards 
    Royal Crest or Flately. I can sympathize with your position because
    I've been there myself. I wound up moving in with friends while I was
    closing on my first home purchase because of very similar circumstances.
    
    	Regards......Ray

    
    In most apt complexes, people aren't paying the same rent for the same
    type of unit.  There's the "basic" difference of what floor you're on,
    and typically non-basement is $10-20/mo more than the bottom floor.  On
    top of that, there are the "times" that they  change the rent amount. 
    Your rent is going up now because your lease is expiring.  Someone
    else's may have gone up 6 mos ago, and someone else's may not go up for
    another 4-5 mos, depending on when the increase was effective.
    
    And there's the issue of individual apts, which may not apply in your
    case since it's so huge but it may ....
    
    In my current situation, I rent 1/2 duplex.  The whole complex is owned
    by a father and his 2 sons.  Dad charges a different amount for rent,
    as does each of the sons.  And the sons charge an addt'l $30/mo if the
    unit that you're renting has new carpets when you move in.  And if you
    have a unit w/ older carpet, you are allowed to have a cat.  If it's
    new carpet, you're not.  Those are the rules, and all of the rules are 
    applied equally, so I don't think that it's discrimination. 
    
    -Patty
    

>    He also said that Royal Crest makes no exceptions, and hasn't in the 2
>    years he has been the property manager there; otherwise, they would be
>    discriminating if they made me a special agreement.

 Don't you just love this kind of logic ...

>    I just hung up from speaking with him personally.  He said that we
>    could have a 60-day extension, which I don't think I knew about before,
>    and he will send it to us for our signature (my request).  He said
>    we'll have 60 more days to find a place to purchase or else we'll have
>    to sign a new lease.

 If this lease states you'll sign a new lease or leave at the end of the 60
 days I wouldn't sign ...

Doug.

 >   They, in turn, reiterated our choices:  a 30-day "extension" (they have
 >   their own unique definition of an extension), a "break-the-lease
 >   clause" (cost: $700), or another 12-month lease.  I said I would not be
 >   signing any of these.
  

  You might humbley suggest that their policy be changed such that a break the
  lease clause is not required after the first lease term expires and 30 or
  60 days notice is given.

  Then, they could avoid 'discriminatory' practices and not hold folks up
  for money they have no right to. 

  Doug.  

    re:97
    
    > If this lease states you'll sign a new lease or leave at the end of
    > the 60 days I wouldn't sign ...
    
    	Just out of curiousity, why ? I would think that the lease which is
    already signed says that you either need to sign a new lease or move by
    the end of the lease.
    
    	Ray
    

   > 	Just out of curiousity, why ? I would think that the lease which is
   > already signed says that you either need to sign a new lease or move by
   > the end of the lease.
 
   If, having already stipulated to that agreement in the first lease, you
   failed to comply with that agreement, I see agreeing to this again as
   continuing the cycle of false expectations.

   I think it is important at this point to let the landlord know exactly
   what you expect to do, and why the landlord will not loose out.

   In this new 60 day lease, I would make certain that the landlord understands
   that, if a new place of residence has not been secured by then, that he can
   expect continued monthly payments, but that such payments will not be made
   under a 1 year lease with a lease break penalty unless a waver of that
   penalty is allowable given 30 or 60 day notice.

   It is easily done if the management is reasonable.

   Doug.

>   It is easily done if the management is reasonable.

From reading the previous replies (long compile & link!), the mangement
is not reasonable.  Period.  They apparently don't have to be, they seem
to stay in business.  Sounds like they think the 60 day mini-lease is being
reasonable.  As opposed to evicting, it probably it is.

I'd suggest moving, since you don't like the landlord, either to a better
appartment, or to the house you want.  If you weren't prepared to move
ASAP, then sign the 60 day extention, and move at the end. Unless they
decide to give you another 60 day at the end.

Charlie

    
    Ya, these rental giants are like big gorrilas. But in the end, it is
    against their best interest to start the eviction process because
    it can take a LONG time to reach the end, and can cost more than
    its worth in laywer fees and uncollected rent.
    
    Asking them to explain he purpose of the $700 break lease hit
    on a 1 year lease, and then asking them it's purpose AFTER the
    first year, and pressing the issue, will usually bring them
    around to a breakable lease with a notice, which is what you
    want in the first place.
    
    But they won't go voluntarilly ;-)
    
    And remember, they still have your deposits, so the agreement
    should stipulate that they won't use those funds for a
    penalty payment. 
    
    Best of luck.
    
    Doug.
    

    	This is where a lawyer can help. There are certain legalities
    around the security deposit. There are conditions where you can legally 
    apply the security deposit towards your last months rent. Since they are 
    in possession of the money, they can make it difficult to retrieve it 
    under these circumstances.

    	Also, I've heard (but never verified) that you don't have to pay
    rent after you've been served with an eviction. If true, this may be
    a bargaining chip to use. Again, a lawyer consultation can help,
    because they'll likely try to recover costs from your security deposit.

    	Their 60 day lease offer is their cut at being reasonable. To some
    degree, it is. Their policy clearly seems to be 1 year lease or move.
    If you do neither, they want to penalize you. They just aren't stating
    it that way, and probably can't for some legal reason. Based on their 
    actions though, it seems fairly apparent.

    	Ray

    Thanks, everyone, for your support and suggestions.  Keep 'em coming,
    and I'll keep you updated.
    
    Last night we received the "60-day EXTENSION."  Ha.  It is a brand-new
    lease, stating that if we do not move out by April 30, 1997, then we
    automatically begin a new 12-month lease.  Also, the property manager
    phoned me this morning, confused because he just opened the letter I
    sent him dated February 10, stating that we request a tenant-at-will
    lease because we are planning to purchase property.  He wanted to know
    if I sent that letter before or after we had spoken on 2/14.  I told
    him I'd mailed it before, and the reason for the letter is to go on
    record in writing with our intentions just in case we needed to prove
    this at any time in the future.  
    
    The new lease is dated March 1, so we have until then to locate what we
    want to purchase!

    Cross out the part that says that you agree to "automatically go into a
    12-mos lease", initial the change, sign it and return it.
    
    Contracts are NOT cast in stone, and are only what BOTH parties agree
    to.  If you don't agree, don't sign.
    
    Personally, I think I'd have such a headache of it all now, that I'd
    just PLAN to move out after 60days, even if you don't have a house, and
    move to a different apt.  
    
    What happens if, in 45 days, you find the house you want, but can't
    close for another 30days??  Do you have 60-days to give notice, or
    60-days to move?
    
    And make a copy before you send it back ........
    
    -Patty
    

    Re .93:
    
    > So the old lease YOU signed had no lies, they provided YOU with 
    > what you paid them for, and these fees were not applied to YOU. 

    Since nobody's claiming Flatley snared me with their practices, that's
    not relevant.  It has nothing to do with whether Flatley catches other
    people.
    
    > Then when I point out that their actions assured them of at least
    > 30+ days notice, you respond by saying that doesn't fit into the
    > situation.
    
    That's because it doesn't.
    
    > I can think of at least 2 or 3 situations right off the top of my 
    > head to support a need for more notice.
    
    Like what?
    
    >>> Did they really lie ? Did they not provide you with what you
    >>> paid them for, and at the agreed upon price ? If you lived up to
    >>> your agreement would any of these fees be applied ?
    >>
    >> [Elided by Dodier:] yes, yes, and yes.
    >
    > So in both cases, the answers were really No, No, and No.

    That's three questions, not two, and the answers are yes, yes, and yes.
    Or did you really mean to assert that no, Flatley did not provide what
    was agreed upon and paid for?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
    

    Re .94:
    
    > I also wonder whether everyone pays the same amount of rent for the
    > same size unit; because if they don't, then Royal Crest is already
    > practicing discrimination.
    
    Why would you think it is not completely legal to charge different
    amounts for the same-size unit?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .103:
    
    > . . . they want to penalize you. . . .  Based on their actions
    > though, it seems fairly apparent.
    
    Hmm, where have I seen that before?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    	For something more constructive, I think .105 has the right idea. 
    It can take many months just to find the "right" place. Even after you do, 
    it can easily take 2-3 months to get through the offer/counter-offer
    bit, coordinate a home inspection, appraisal, financing, other typical
    closing requirements, plus the time needed for existing owners to 
    close/move (if applicable). Since Flately clearly doesn't want to enter 
    into a tenant-at-will agreement, it's probably best to move someplace more
    agreeable to tenant-at-will leases.
     
    	Ray

    re:106

    > Since nobody's claiming Flatley snared me with their practices,
    > that's not relevant.  

    > Flatley offered the new lease with less than two months to go on the
    > old lease.  They pulled the same thing with my lease renewal.

    	So the part where they tried to get you to sign a new lease is
    relevant, but the fact that you basically had no problems when you 
    fulfilled your agreement and moved on time is irrelevant. Hmmmm ;-)

    	From: 2952.90
    
    > The short notice is evidence that the landlord really does not need
    > long notice, so it would be false of them to say otherwise.

    	It's not evidence of anything. You are walking a very fine line here. 
    You are implying that a company, that you specifically named, lies and 
    tries to "snare" people with its business practices. Since this company has 
    no voice here, and your "evidence" is strictly conjecture, you may be
    over that line regarding negative comments about a business entity. The 
    situation in .64 could also wind up in "pending legal action", which makes 
    things even stickier. The comment from 2952.90 -
    
    > Since your understanding is at fault, nobody should give any credence to 
    > your opinions in the matter.

    	and others like it, aside from being very rude and unnecessary, 
    were also based on conjecture and likely fall under the category of 
    "devaluing statements" in P&P section 6.54. 

    	Ray

    Re .110:
    
    > So the part where they tried to get you to sign a new lease is
    > relevant, but the fact that you basically had no problems when you 
    > fulfilled your agreement and moved on time is irrelevant. Hmmmm ;-)
    
    When you figure out that 60 days is more than 30 days, let us know. 
    Flatley's deliberate maneuvering to give themselves only about 30 days,
    or less, is relevant because it proves they do not need 60 days.  That
    they honored a contract is irrelevant because it has no bearing on
    anything anybody is claiming.  If you think otherwise, then demonstrate
    HOW it is relevant.
    
    Even if a person who commits fraud honors the contract they sign, they
    may still be legally and ethically liable for their fraud.  E.g.,
    suppose Circuit City tells you their price for a VCR is $300 and
    Lechmere's is $200, and Circuit City knows this is false, and they
    agree to sell you a VCR for $300 and they do so.  Now Circuit City has
    fulfilled their agreement.  But they are still liable for fraud and
    still owe you $100 for it.
    
    > You are implying that a company, . . .
    
    No, I didn't.  In my first note in this thread, I wrote "Flatley
    *would* be lying *if* they said . . ."  That is subjunctive, not an
    implication, and that has consistently been my position.
    
    > . . . you may be over that line regarding negative comments about a
    > business entity.
    
    Oh, dear, whatever will I do.
    
    > . . . being very rude and unnecessary . . .
    
    The statement is relevant and necessary since it should be pointed out
    to readers that you have repeatedly misrepresented my statements and
    should not be trusted.  You had several chances to correct your errors
    but chose instead to wrongfully characterize my statements.  The
    consequences of your actions are your own fault.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    	If this was SOAPBOX, this crap would be expected, but it's not. Unless 
    anyone has a compelling reason otherwise, I'll refer this discussion to 
    Human Resources for them to determine its relevance to section 6.54. In 
    any event, this will stop.
    
    	Ray

    Re .112:
    
    > In any event, this will stop.
    
    You're going to stop misrepresenting my notes?  That's a relief.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    May I, the 1997 base noter, jump in here? Thank you.
    
    Gentlemen, taking this disagreement of yours to H.R. is not going to
    help me or anybody else.  We noters ask for help.  If 2 replying noters
    lock horns like elk in rutting season or kindergartners on a playground
    and run to H.R.to tell on each other, whom does that help?  No one.
    It would endanger and maybe erase the wide field we currently have for
    ideas exchange and suggestions.
    
    Please cut it out.
    
    And thanks again, everyone, for all your help.  When my situation is
    over and done with, I will post the how I did it.  Things are really
    looking up thanks to the noting community!

    Re .114:
    
    > . . . whom does that help?
    
    Would you like a lecture on the value of adversarial examinations of an
    issue?
    
    > It would endanger and maybe erase the wide field we currently have
    > for ideas exchange and suggestions.
    
    I would like to erase Notes as a forum in Digital Equipment Corporation
    precisely because it is not a wide field.  It is a inbred forum,
    focusing too narrowly on internal matters when Digital needs to be part
    of the world-wide conversation on the Internet.  I recommended that
    about a decade ago, before the Internet exploded, and Digital lost out
    on the opportunity to lead Internet advances instead of follow them.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    from the 1997 base noter (.64)
    
    I've just discovered that someone else is paying considerably LESS than
    we are.  First I must go see theirs to be sure it's the same size as
    ours to be absolutely sure.
    
    What recourse do we have?  This is discrimination, charging 2 different
    rents for comparable units.
    
    Thanks.
    
      *Susan*

    Re .116
    
    Did you and those other people rent your units on the same day?
    
    Are the two units on the same floor, with the same scenic overlook, the
    same distance from parking and recreational facilities, and in all
    other respects the same or so nearly the same as to constitute no
    advantage of any sort to one over the other?
    
    Your landlord may quite legitimately have changed the rent schedule
    between the time the other people moved in and the time you moved in,
    and it is not unusual for units having different benefits/features to
    go for different rents.  I used to work as a rental clerk in a 200-
    unit complex; I've seen this, and I understand its legitimacy.

    Thanks for that food for thought, Binder-san.

It's not discrimination any more than it is for different people to pay
different prices for the same car - it happens all the time and is legal.  Now 
if you could prove that you were charged more due to some bias the landlord 
had, that might be something, but that seems a very much uphill battle.

					Steve

At least for Flatley anyway ...   A neighbor of mine was told there was to
be a big rent hike. So she went off and found an apartment that was about the
same size and was cheaper than what she was currently paying. She gave notice
in to the Manager and thought that was the end of it.  Then the manager
comes back and talks about a little 'mix-up' and by the way  ... they could
match that lower rent!

So you may find people on all sorts of different rents for the same
appartments. Flatley do bluff and if you are prepared to call it you may
get a better deal. 


This was a few years ago as well, I don't know what the current market is
like. 


Mark
  

    interesting.  very interesting.  Thanks, guys.

>     	Also, I've heard (but never verified) that you don't have to pay
>     rent after you've been served with an eviction. If true, this may be
>     a bargaining chip to use. Again, a lawyer consultation can help,
>     because they'll likely try to recover costs from your security deposit.

	If I recall, this is not true.  See .61 where I previously posted
	the text for RSA 540, which covers evictions, and reply .63 where I
	posted the text for RSA 540-A, which covers prohibited practices
	and security deposits.

    a happy ending from the 1997 base noter (.64)
    
    Today we are moving out of Royal Crest and into a "mom and pop" owned
    house which has no lease.  We are welcome to stay for as long as we
    want.  I found the new place via a Notes ad.  Thank goodness for
    Digital!
    
    We ended up signing a new Royal Crest lease that had a 30-day extension
    clause to it.  We signed with no qualms because we had already found
    the new place to rent.
    
    Thank you, everyone.  Your support and suggestions are great.
    
      *Susan*

    You're living in a place with no lease?  A lease protects you as well
    as the owner.  Just hope that "mon and pop" don't turn mean on you...
    
    				-John

> You're living in a place with no lease?  A lease protects you as well
> as the owner.  Just hope that "mon and pop" don't turn mean on you...

	Leases are worthless for the owner as far as I'm concerned.
	My first couple of tenants I didn't even bother with a rental
	agreement.  I do have a signed rental agreement with my current
	tenants, but the fact that it's signed by them is worthless to me.
	My current tenants are in violation of several items in my
	rental agreement.  All you can do is turn a blind eye unless
	they violate something major.  The important things to me are
	that they are quiet (even if I wasn't owner-occupied) and they
	pay their rent pretty much on time.

	But like I said, a lease or rental agreement is worthless.  If
	they stopped paying rent, etc etc, I could kick them out, but
	I'd never see a penny.  And being owner-occupied (and less than
	4 units) I can give them the boot anytime even if they paid
	their rent and I had signed a lease that expires months or
	more into the future.  Read the RSA's whose text is posted in
	this topic.