Skip to comments.Obama's Operation Whipcrack Prohibits 80 Year Old Couple From Entering Own House In Nevada
Posted on 10/08/2013 3:30:59 PM PDT by joeclarke
Lake Mead Property Owners forced Out Until Shutdown Ends Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) -- The government shutdown is being felt close to home for some locals. They say they're being forced out of private homes on Lake Mead because they sit on federal land.
Joyce Spencer is 77-years-old and her husband Ralph is 80. They've been spending most of their time in the family ice cream store since going home isn't an option.
The Spencers never expected to be forced out of their Lake Mead home, which they've owned since the 70s, but on Thursday, a park ranger said they had 24 hours to get out.
"I had to go to town today and buy Ralph undershirts and jeans because I forgot his pants," Joyce Spencer told Action News.
Read At http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/Lake-Mead-Property-Owners-Forced-Out-Until-Gov-Shutdown-Ends-226557661.html
(Excerpt) Read more at ktnv.com ...
I hope they get some legal help and a judge hands these thugs their asses.
Looks like the Feds own the land, the old couple only owns the structure.
The bottom line is that the taxpayer should not have to subsidize these people’s vacation homes.
Buy your own land for a vacation home.
You can’t buy Federal land and 80% of NV is Federal. They offer 100 yr leases.
pray America is waking up
The Feds should be selling that land and not leasing it.
And when you lease land, you do not always have full property rights.
I think this is their primary residence. The other Lake Mead families were forced out of a vacation home.
It’s basic property rights. They have likely had access for many years. That establishes an easement and they have the right to use it. If the government doesn’t like that they can always buy the house.
It may be their primary residence, but apparently it is a violation of the lease agreement for it to be a primary residence.
But they are retired, right?
They are primarily on vacation :)
No one owns their land - only the structures.
...and will be billed accordingly
(wonder how much they pay in property taxes)
The Feds need to put that land up for sale.
We should not be in the business of providing vacation properties.
Yes, it sure is blatantly illegal.
From the Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 118A - Landlord and Tenant: Dwellings:
NRS 118A.390 Unlawful removal or exclusion of tenant or willful interruption of essential items or services; procedure for expedited relief.
1. If the landlord unlawfully removes the tenant from the premises or excludes the tenant by blocking or attempting to block the tenants entry upon the premises, willfully interrupts or causes or permits the interruption of any essential item or service required by the rental agreement or this chapter or otherwise recovers possession of the dwelling unit in violation of NRS 118A.480, the tenant may recover immediate possession pursuant to subsection 4, proceed under NRS 118A.380 or terminate the rental agreement and, in addition to any other remedy, recover the tenants actual damages, receive an amount not greater than $2,500 to be fixed by the court, or both.
2. In determining the amount, if any, to be awarded under subsection 1, the court shall consider:
(a) Whether the landlord acted in good faith;
(b) The course of conduct between the landlord and the tenant; and
(c) The degree of harm to the tenant caused by the landlords conduct.
3. If the rental agreement is terminated pursuant to subsection 1, the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security recoverable under this chapter.
4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, the tenant may recover immediate possession of the premises from the landlord by filing a verified complaint for expedited relief for the unlawful removal or exclusion of the tenant from the premises, the willful interruption of any essential item or service or the recovery of possession of the dwelling unit in violation of NRS 118A.480.
5. A verified complaint for expedited relief:
(a) Must be filed with the court within 5 judicial days after the date of the unlawful act by the landlord, and the verified complaint must be dismissed if it is not timely filed. If the verified complaint for expedited relief is dismissed pursuant to this paragraph, the tenant retains the right to pursue all other available remedies against the landlord.
(b) May not be filed with the court if an action for summary eviction or unlawful detainer is already pending between the landlord and tenant, but the tenant may seek similar relief before the judge presiding over the pending action.
6. The court shall conduct a hearing on the verified complaint for expedited relief not later than 3 judicial days after the filing of the verified complaint for expedited relief. Before or at the scheduled hearing, the tenant must provide proof that the landlord has been properly served with a copy of the verified complaint for expedited relief. Upon the hearing, if it is determined that the landlord has violated any of the provisions of subsection 1, the court may:
(a) Order the landlord to restore to the tenant the premises or essential items or services, or both;
(b) Award damages pursuant to subsection 1; and
(c) Enjoin the landlord from violating the provisions of subsection 1 and, if the circumstances so warrant, hold the landlord in contempt of court.
7. The payment of all costs and official fees must be deferred for any tenant who files a verified complaint for expedited relief. After any hearing and not later than final disposition of the filing or order, the court shall assess the costs and fees against the party that does not prevail, except that the court may reduce them or waive them, as justice may require.
(Added to NRS by 1977, 1340; A 1985, 1417; 2003, 426; 2011, 238)
Looks like they only have 5 days to file for an order of relief to get possession back, so they had better get a lawyer and file pronto.
That’s irrelevant, unless the Feds got an order of eviction from the courts on that basis. It sounds like they did not, which makes this an illegal eviction. The residents can easily get a court order to deliver possession and are pretty much guaranteed to collect some damages as well.
You and I own the property. I bet they are not paying market rates.
Why should we as taxpayers provide these people with land for a vacation home?
Your lease is an agreement with the proprty owner allowing you full access to the property as long as you fulfill your payment obligations. Neither party is allowed to arbitrarily revoke the contract, but must follow the lease agreement. The gov is breaking arbitrarily breaking the lease contract
This is blatantly illegal.
Wonder what the Feds would say about a legit private sector landlord doing this, even if the landlord had legit right to do it? They’d have a hissy....
And what happens when they need to sell this home? Who is gonna buy a home you can be kicked out of every time a damned bureuacrat throws a tantrum???
(UN) intended consequences....??
If it is a violation of the lease agreement, they should sue.
However, they appear to be in violation of the lease agreement since it is not their vacation home but rather a primary residence.
Sounds like grounds for federal suit: 42 USC § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.
Can you post your copy of the lease agreement?
There are a lot of enclave situations in the West just because of how the land came to be divvied up.
Generally, neighbors work things out or the courts decide the access issue. But when you have an obustard in the Spite House . . .
You've no idea what you are talking about....