Landlord sentenced in fire deaths of tenants

No good deed goes unpunished. Good luck to other less-fortunate people looking for a cheap place to stay. Landlord insurance rates just went up with this ruling, so much so that you would probably have to charge 100 bucks a month just for insurance now...

Good government at work...

NoGoodDeed wrote:

No good deed goes unpunished. Good luck to other less-fortunate people looking for a cheap place to stay. Landlord insurance rates just went up with this ruling, so much so that you would probably have to charge 100 bucks a month just for insurance now...
Good government at work...

If you can't afford the insurance then maybe you should not own rental property!!! Just like this man, if you don't have the money for the upkeep of your property then you should not be a landlord.

This state has enough landlords who do not take care of their properties and expect the tenant to make fixes, I think the judge made the right decision. Maybe this will make landlords think twice!!!

100 dolaars a month?.....family should have put smoke alarms in....my god was the husband a drunk?

Once again you bleeding heart liberals win.
Now when the have nots don't have a place to go
and there are more vacant houses. Just blame yourselves.
I know there is no such thing as slum tenants.
The government just put the landlords out of business. How about a bailout?
When will you people realize government is the problem not the solution

jeff d wrote:

100 dolaars a month?.....family should have put smoke alarms in....my god was the husband a drunk?

I lived up there. I saw that trailer after the fire and it was pretty bad, I can't imagine what it was like before. That family was actually doing the best they could for their children, and the parents held local jobs around Ada to afford what they could. If you'd see some of the other apartments in that village, you'd ask who (besides the college students) would want to live there? Some of those apartments are fires waiting to happen...in fact one did, in 2005. Anyway, 5 people died because the landlord was negligent in his upkeep and ESPECIALLY sealed shut the back door. Why should he not face consequences? I would gladly pay a little higher rent to ensure an apartment that is taken care of. I am OK with not living in an apartment that looks like a Hilton room, but I have higher standards (and thankfully funds) for myself than living in a firetrap.

Not sure exactly the good deed here. Sending five people to their deaths?

and the husband worked?or was he wait for obama to pull him out...think before you say...what was the MAN of the house doing for a living?blame it on the landlord,for 100 dolars a month,i would do what i could as a father to fix everything i could.was he getting welfare?were was the father when this happen.drinking?..and y did he have 3 kids he could not take care of and living in this place.no blame on anyone? why he only got a light jail time....more than him to blame

jeff d wrote:

and the husband worked?or was he wait for obama to pull him out...think before you say...what was the MAN of the house doing for a living?blame it on the landlord,for 100 dolars a month,i would do what i could as a father to fix everything i could.was he getting welfare?were was the father when this happen.drinking?..and y did he have 3 kids he could not take care of and living in this place.no blame on anyone? why he only got a light jail time....more than him to blame

WHY DON'T YOU THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK!!!! You don't know this family but you are quick to judge them. Who really cares if they were on welfare or not, they didn't deserve to die!! You state you are a father...hopefully the mother of your children will teach them some compasion for others because they sure won't learn it from you!!!

I feel bad for the family that died because of a fire from faulty wiring. No matter who they are or if they work or not, they should not have to die this way.

Having said that, I also worry about what this decision will do to the landlords and the people who rent from them. Will landlords be afraid to rent because of a fear of a lawsuit? Will rents increase so fewer people can afford them? Will people have trouble finding a place to rent because so many have been pulled from the market?

I don't know the answer but I do believe that there will be fallout from this decision that will negatively affect both landlords and tenants.

A landlord is always responsible for having a safe environment for his tenants, regardless of the tenants. Check the law. No smoke alarm, faulty wiring and the back door sealed shut - landlord got off too easy by this sentance.

I hope all of you that are judging this family never end up homeless and desperate! Any shelter is better than living in a cardboard box. If the trailer was not fit to live in, the man should have never rented it to them in the first place. A true parent puts the needs of the children first, such as food and clothing. The parents were working to provide for their family. Obviously, those of you that are judging the family so harshly must have pretty good jobs and have never had to struggle to just survive. When that man rented the trailer to them he became a landlord of his own free will. That means he should be held responsible just as any other landlord in the state. If the property needs repair to be safe, it is the landlords responsibiliy.

landlord responsible wrote:

A landlord is always responsible for having a safe environment for his tenants, regardless of the tenants. Check the law. No smoke alarm, faulty wiring and the back door sealed shut - landlord got off too easy by this sentance.

Obviously you don't have your life savings invested in renatal property just some poor drunk deadbeat dad was to alzy to buy smoke detectors.
Please that might have cost him a six pack or a couple packs of smokes.
Get a life you need one.

Very sad that the family died, but it was definitely not the landlord's fault. It looks to me like he was trying to help out a needy family by renting a place to them very cheaply. The $1200 a year he earned from rent probably didn't even cover his property taxes.

If the landlord didn't charge the family rent, would it still be his fault?

My parents had several rental properties over the years. They would put new batteries in the smoke detectors every six months, but most of the time the batteries were gone. Renters usually said the batteries were used in something else or they didn't know what had happened to them.

He most likely would have gotten in trouble even if he did not charge the Hundred.

The landlord is always SOB #1. Remember that, judge, and keep it foremost in your decision to take 90 days of Mr. Sizemore’s life, then 500 working hours of his life, then $2,500 of his likely puny estate, and the threat of 15 years in prison.

And for what? Giving a family a place to live, because for $100 per month, giving is what it amounts to. After three calls from the family asking for a place to stay, though the owner never intended to rent it, he provided a roof for them and believed he was doing them a good deed.

No, not how it works. You own it, you’re SOB #1, no matter who’s guilty.

Additionally, Judge William D. Hart made a name for himself at the expense of some poor schmuck who is now poster boy for “landlords to be held criminally accountable for their actions.” These tragic deaths are in no way the fault of the parents, are they? These people who called Mr. Schmuck three times about needing a place to stay and he thought he was doing them a favor by letting them in?

When, in God’s name, are those of bureaucratic importance going to get real? You want Mr. Schmuck to stand outside his rentals and rap on the walls when he senses a fire inside?

JJRRHH wrote:

<quoted text>
WHY DON'T YOU THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK!!!! You don't know this family but you are quick to judge them. Who really cares if they were on welfare or not, they didn't deserve to die!! You state you are a father...hopefully the mother of your children will teach them some compasion for others because they sure won't learn it from you!!!

Over half of Hardin County is on some form of government assistance. This is not the inner city ghetto, this isn't even a 'big city' situation...this is a mostly agricultural county with a depressed economy and a huge drug problem. I had to get used to hearing a LOT of people say "When I get my check at the beginning of the month..."

Maybe this is just an issue of people not understanding the culture or the finances up there. I looked at very few apartments because I didn't want to live somewhere that, if it caught fire (through my fault or someone else's), would go up in seconds and not let me get out. I wanted an affordable place that was still up to code.

I too could question why the family had children they couldn't afford...but that is a NATIONWIDE PROBLEM. Government welfare pays to some extent based on how many kids you have, so people have kids in order to be on the payroll.

Someone tell me what is wrong with making landlords responsible for the property they keep, on which other people live. If this means higher rent, then I will gladly get myself a second job (however menial) so that I can afford a place to live that won't burn down or buckle at the seams, or whatever myriad of problems that turn an 'apartment' into a 'slum.' No human should have to live in those conditions...so why are some of you arguing that they remain doing so just so they don't have to pay more to live there?

jeff d wrote:

and the husband worked?or was he wait for obama to pull him out...think before you say...what was the MAN of the house doing for a living?blame it on the landlord,for 100 dolars a month,i would do what i could as a father to fix everything i could.was he getting welfare?were was the father when this happen.drinking?..and y did he have 3 kids he could not take care of and living in this place.no blame on anyone? why he only got a light jail time....more than him to blame

According to several newspaper articles the "man of the house" was employed at the time of the fire. He had been looking for a better job and was to start working at a new position which would have provided more money. I find your comment about the father being a "drunk" as vey insensitive and unfounded. This man is dead and those that he has left behind are grieving. Character asassination is not he answer to this siuation. How do you expect him to fix up the trailer that doesn't even belong to him when it is obvious this family was in a financial crisis. I am sure that he and his family would have prefered to live some where else but this was the best that they could do under their circumstances. More than likely, providing food and clothing for the family was probably extremely difficult. I understand that buying a couple of batteries for smoke detectors sounds quite simple, for a struggling family, they may not of been able to pay for the batteries. There are many more families like this one that need a hand up.

Sniper wrote:

Very sad that the family died, but it was definitely not the landlord's fault. It looks to me like he was trying to help out a needy family by renting a place to them very cheaply. The $1200 a year he earned from rent probably didn't even cover his property taxes.

Actually, I owned a much nicer mobile home in a nicer part of this area (Lima.) My property taxes were only $102 per year. The landlord was making plenty of money off of the rent, definately enough money to fix the wiring, have working smoke detectors, and unseal the back door. This was HIS responsibility.