Personal Property of Evicted Tenant at Curb
Suzie-Q
trash on more than one occasion. Whenever I see unusual items in
a neighbor's trash I'll go over and see if there's anything I can
use.
A few days ago I drove by a house where there was a lot of furniture,
etc., out by the curb. At first I thought "trash" but then I realized
it was probably the property of someone who had been evicted and their
personal property had been removed from the house by the landlord.
My question is, does that personal property become fair game for
scavengers like me? Or would it be more like stealing?
I'm really just sort of curious since this sort of thing doesn't happen
much around here.
I'm in central Texas, if that makes a difference.
Thanks in advance.
--
8^)~~~ Sue (remove the x to e-mail)
~~~~~~
"I reserve the absolute right to be smarter
today than I was yesterday." -Adlai Stevenson
http://www.suzanne-eckhardt.com/
http://www.intergnat.com/malebashing/
http://www.intergnat.com/pussygames/
Timothy
Suzie-Q wrote:
> I have been know to remove a restorable item or two from my neighbor's
> trash on more than one occasion. Whenever I see unusual items in
> a neighbor's trash I'll go over and see if there's anything I can
> use.
>
> A few days ago I drove by a house where there was a lot of furniture,
> etc., out by the curb. At first I thought "trash" but then I realized
> it was probably the property of someone who had been evicted and their
> personal property had been removed from the house by the landlord.
>
> My question is, does that personal property become fair game for
> scavengers like me? Or would it be more like stealing?
>
>
The landlord was undoubtedly operating on the following theory: the
tenants left all this stuff behind, it's now my stuff, I have no use
for any of this crap, so I'm going to put it out for the garbageman.
The fact thay they were evicted is of secondary importance: the
landlord would have done the same thing if they had simply moved out at
the end of the lease without removing all their stuff.
I suspect you could have gotten away with swiping some stuff from the
pile of trash without anyone suing you or throwing you in jail :-)
fredf...@spamcop.net
Suzie-Q wrote:
> ...
>
> A few days ago I drove by a house where there was a lot of furniture,
> etc., out by the curb. At first I thought "trash" but then I realized
> it was probably the property of someone who had been evicted and their
> personal property had been removed from the house by the landlord.
>
> My question is, does that personal property become fair game for
> scavengers like me? Or would it be more like stealing?
Not something like stealing. It plainly would be stealing.
There are laws for abandoned property that might apply to dumpster
diving, or not, but curbside property of evicted people is not likely
to be considered abandoned property.
>
> I'm really just sort of curious since this sort of thing doesn't happen
> much around here.
>
> I'm in central Texas, if that makes a difference.
>
In Central Texas maybe you can be shot for taking it.
Anyone who is seriously considering stealing from people who
are so down on their luck as to be evicted from their home
probably needs to be shot.
--
FF
Gerald Clough
> I have been know to remove a restorable item or two from my neighbor's
> trash on more than one occasion. Whenever I see unusual items in
> a neighbor's trash I'll go over and see if there's anything I can
> use.
>
> A few days ago I drove by a house where there was a lot of furniture,
> etc., out by the curb. At first I thought "trash" but then I realized
> it was probably the property of someone who had been evicted and their
> personal property had been removed from the house by the landlord.
>
> My question is, does that personal property become fair game for
> scavengers like me? Or would it be more like stealing?
>
> I'm really just sort of curious since this sort of thing doesn't happen
> much around here.
>
> I'm in central Texas, if that makes a difference.
>
> Thanks in advance.
The Texas Property Code provides that the proper court that orders the
eviction authorizes an officer or the landlord to remove personal
property to a location outside the rental unit but not when its raining,
snowing, etc. It's up to the (former) tenant to do something with it.
The officer can, at his discretion store the property in a bonded
warehouse but cannot order the landlord to store it. Mostly, it gets set
at the curb.
I don't know if this has been tested, but stuff put out at the curb is
generally taken to be up for grabs. The tenant had some kind of notice
of the pending action, although they may not have bothered to look at
the notice posted on the door. What you don't know is if the eviction
was lawfully done. You'd have to ask the landlord or perhaps the justice
of the peace of the precinct in which the property lies to see if a writ
of possession was issued.
But no law enforcement agency is going to think you had any reason to
think it wasn't abandoned, put out as trash. Here, also in south central
Texas, most anything useful I put out at the curb is gone by sundown.
Even stuff that's not so useful.
--
Gerald Clough
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
William Brenner
> I have been know to remove a restorable item or two from my neighbor's
> trash on more than one occasion. Whenever I see unusual items in
> a neighbor's trash I'll go over and see if there's anything I can
> use.
>
> A few days ago I drove by a house where there was a lot of furniture,
> etc., out by the curb. At first I thought "trash" but then I realized
> it was probably the property of someone who had been evicted and their
> personal property had been removed from the house by the landlord.
>
> My question is, does that personal property become fair game for
> scavengers like me? Or would it be more like stealing?
>
> I'm really just sort of curious since this sort of thing doesn't happen
> much around here.
>
> I'm in central Texas, if that makes a difference.
>
> Thanks in advance.
Considering the large number of armed Texans, I think I would pass.<g>
And even if it is "fair game", taking it would not be a very nice thing
to do.
fredf...@spamcop.net
Timothy wrote:
> Suzie-Q wrote:
> > I have been know to remove a restorable item or two from my neighbor's
> > trash on more than one occasion. Whenever I see unusual items in
> > a neighbor's trash I'll go over and see if there's anything I can
> > use.
> >
> > A few days ago I drove by a house where there was a lot of furniture,
> > etc., out by the curb. At first I thought "trash" but then I realized
> > it was probably the property of someone who had been evicted and their
> > personal property had been removed from the house by the landlord.
> >
> > My question is, does that personal property become fair game for
> > scavengers like me? Or would it be more like stealing?
> >
> >
>
> The landlord was undoubtedly operating on the following theory: the
> tenants left all this stuff behind, it's now my stuff, I have no use
> for any of this crap, so I'm going to put it out for the garbageman.
Not likely if it was an eviction. Locally here in Maryland when
tenants
are evicted the sheriff's deputies come out to relocate the tenants'
property curbside. In one instance, they found $50,00 in cash and
$70,000 in cocaine when evicting the tenants for non-payment of
rent. Now you know why they call it dope.
I presume that there is legal reason, such as enforcing a court order,
why the sheriffs/ deputies do this, instead of the landlord. OP
was writing from Texas though.
> The fact thay they were evicted is of secondary importance: the
> landlord would have done the same thing if they had simply moved out at
> the end of the lease without removing all their stuff.
It is arguable that property has been abandoned when left behind
by a tenant who voluntarily vacates at the end of a lease. A similar
argument does not apply when the tenant involuntarily vacates the
property. Absent a very ill-considered an/or mean spirited statutes
or unlikely case law to the contrary I do not see how relocting the
tenenats property to a public location voids their right to their own
property. I would expect that most states address this muc like
English common law, whatever that may be.
>
> I suspect you could have gotten away with swiping some stuff from the
> pile of trash without anyone suing you or throwing you in jail :-)
Except that OP noted that in the instant case, the property was not
trash. She might have gotten away with it. Doesn't make it right
or legal.
--
FF
Stan Brown
> There are laws for abandoned property that might apply to dumpster
> diving, or not, but curbside property of evicted people is not likely
> to be considered abandoned property.
The problem is, how can one know? How can a law-abiding citizen know
whether something on the curb is intended by its owner as trash or
has been improperly put there by someone else without the owner's
consent?
The condition or value of the items is not a reliable guide. For
example, when I moved out of my house I put lots and lots of stuff on
the curb, nearly all of it perfectly usable but just not fitting in
my apartment or not needed any more. (This was after a moving sale in
the house, by the way.)
It seems to me if someone has a good-faith and reasonable belief that
the items put out are trash, he can't be guilty of the _crime_ of
theft since he has no criminal intent. (I believe "intent to deprive
the owner of use" is an element of the crime.)
Can a Real Lawyer comment, at least in general terms?
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Daniel R. Reitman
<Timothy....@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
>The landlord was undoubtedly operating on the following theory: the
>tenants left all this stuff behind, it's now my stuff, I have no use
>for any of this crap, so I'm going to put it out for the garbageman. . . .
>. . . .
I didn't know there were still states where that was still legal. Here
in Oregon, the landlord has to store the property, notify the tenant,
and then try to sell for the tenant's account, with excess refunded.
Daniel Reitman
Timothy
>argument does not apply when the tenant involuntarily vacates the property.
Except typically during eviction proceedings, the court will try to get
both parties to come to an agreement--- so oftentimes the tenant will
in fact have agreed to move out. Also, eviction almost always occurs
because the landlord alleges that the tenant has violated the terms of
a lease which this tenant volunatrily agreed to at some point. Also,
the date of eviction date is typically set in advance, giving the
tenant time to move their stuff out, so if it's still there on that
date the landlord can argue that it was voluntarily left there.
fredf...@spamcop.net
Stan Brown wrote:
> Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:50:28 -0500 from <fredf...@spamcop.net>:
> > There are laws for abandoned property that might apply to dumpster
> > diving, or not, but curbside property of evicted people is not likely
> > to be considered abandoned property.
>
> The problem is, how can one know? How can a law-abiding citizen know
> whether something on the curb is intended by its owner as trash or
> has been improperly put there by someone else without the owner's
> consent?
>
He can ask.
A similar quandry exists for many cases of putative abandoned property.
> The condition or value of the items is not a reliable guide. For
> example, when I moved out of my house I put lots and lots of stuff on
> the curb, nearly all of it perfectly usable but just not fitting in
> my apartment or not needed any more. (This was after a moving sale in
> the house, by the way.)
>
> It seems to me if someone has a good-faith and reasonable belief that
> the items put out are trash, he can't be guilty of the _crime_ of
> theft since he has no criminal intent. (I believe "intent to deprive
> the owner of use" is an element of the crime.)
OK, but, if it looks like an eviction then a good faith belief it was
abandoned
is clearly lacking.
--
FF
Stan Brown
>
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:50:28 -0500 from <fredf...@spamcop.net>:
> > > There are laws for abandoned property that might apply to dumpster
> > > diving, or not, but curbside property of evicted people is not likely
> > > to be considered abandoned property.
> >
> > The problem is, how can one know? How can a law-abiding citizen know
> > whether something on the curb is intended by its owner as trash or
> > has been improperly put there by someone else without the owner's
> > consent?
>
> He can ask.
WHOM, pray? If the "trash" is attended, then it's pretty clear it's
not abandoned property and not up for grabs. And if it's not
attended, what is a passerby to do -- start knocking on random doors
in the building, assuming he can even get into the building? (Or what
if it's a single-family house, not obviously empty, but no one's
home?)
> A similar quandry exists for many cases of putative abandoned property.
This is why I'm asking my question. :-)
[snip]
> OK, but, if it looks like an eviction then a good faith belief it
> was abandoned is clearly lacking.
And this comes back to my question. I'm driving by and see some stuff
on the curb. What "looks like an eviction" and what doesn't?
L K Williams
wrote:
>My question is, does that personal property become fair game for
>scavengers like me? Or would it be more like stealing?
>
>I'm really just sort of curious since this sort of thing doesn't happen
>much around here.
>
>I'm in central Texas, if that makes a difference.
>
>Thanks in advance.
IANAL, so take this for what it is worth. In some states a landlord
cannot simply have personal property placed on the curb. Instead, the
landlord must dispose of such property in a "commercially acceptable"
manner and, if he sells it, must advertise the sale for a specified
period of time before sale. In at least one state I know of, a
landlord may be required to store the property but can do so "at the
tenant's expense." If I understand this correctly, a landlord who
places an ex-tenant's property on the curb could be held liable for
the value of such property.
Lanny K. Williams, CPA
Nawarat, Williams & Co., Ltd.
Income Tax Services for Expatriate Americans
fredf...@spamcop.net
Stan Brown wrote:
> Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:08:28 -0500 from <fredf...@spamcop.net>:
> >
> > Stan Brown wrote:
> > > Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:50:28 -0500 from <fredf...@spamcop.net>:
> > > > There are laws for abandoned property that might apply to dumpster
> > > > diving, or not, but curbside property of evicted people is not likely
> > > > to be considered abandoned property.
> > >
> > > The problem is, how can one know? How can a law-abiding citizen know
> > > whether something on the curb is intended by its owner as trash or
> > > has been improperly put there by someone else without the owner's
> > > consent?
> >
> > He can ask.
>
> WHOM, pray?
Here in MD it is not unusual to see something like what OP described
on the curb in front of apartment complexes. In that case, one can
ask at the office.
> If the "trash" is attended, then it's pretty clear it's
> not abandoned property and not up for grabs. And if it's not
> attended, what is a passerby to do -- start knocking on random doors
> in the building, assuming he can even get into the building?
The office for apartment complexes is usually pretty clearly marked
and accessible.
> (Or what
> if it's a single-family house, not obviously empty, but no one's
> home?)
Here common sense dictates the same action for any other circumstance
in which the party one needs to contact is temporarily unavailable.
>
> > A similar quandry exists for many cases of putative abandoned property.
>
> This is why I'm asking my question. :-)
>
> [snip]
> > OK, but, if it looks like an eviction then a good faith belief it
> > was abandoned is clearly lacking.
>
> And this comes back to my question. I'm driving by and see some stuff
> on the curb. What "looks like an eviction" and what doesn't?
>
There are numerous situations in which a 'reasonable person' standard
is applicable. This would appear to be one such.
--
FF