TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:Landlord can technically do anything until a judge restricts that or the AG (or other Texas Peace Officer) enforces the real estate codes (good luck).

This being a civil matter, not criminal, the AG (or other Texas peace officer) has nothing to do with enforcing the RE codes, at least to the extent that changing the provisions (not the terms) of a lease is not a crime.

I understand that the lease in question allows making rules post execution of the lease, as long as the term and cost of a lease is not affected. The question then becomes whether and to what extent a landlord can change rules.

I would venture to say that to the extent conduct affects other tenants, boisterous conduct, hours of playing loud music, overhauling cars in the parking lot, storing washing machines on the lawn, holding IDPA matches in the game room, etc., the landlord is probably OK. When it devolves into private interior matters, changing the sheets on your bed, what color toilet paper to use, requiring all tenants to brush and floss twice daily, etc., enforcement of the rules is less likely.

WildBill wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:That is what I have been wondering while reading this thread. What defines the contract as illegal?

Again IANAL, but I will give an example of an "illegal contract." Let's say I want you to kill someone so I have you sign a paper that states that you will kill a person for the sum of $10,000. You sign the contract, but don't follow through with your side of the agreement. I can not sue you for not killing the person because murder is an illegal act. This is a very obvious illegal contract.

Let's say that I sell you a house and tell you that you can't sell or rent the property to "black people" and you sign the contract and buy the house. If the original property owners tried to sue you at a later date for selling the property to "black people", even though you agreed to the terms of the sale, that would be an illegal contract. Again IANAL. If any lawyers want to give their opinion, please do so.

Things such as gun ownership are not so clear. I don't know if there is any case law on this subject.

Some issues are off the table, not subject to agreement between the parties. The law will not enforce provisions like that. The law and public policy restricts it. Other issues are not, and are left to the bargaining between the parties, who are not always equal in bargaining power.

Maybe the landlord decides everyone will wear little red hats while a tenant. If not, hit the road. Well, that maybe the landlord's prerogative but it will empty out his properties pretty fast. Everyone who dislikes wearing little red hats will leave and find accommodations elsewhere. Landlords can no longer require tenants of opposite gender from cohabiting, or require them to be married, or in CA, prevent them from marrying, if same gender. As long as no illegal discriminatory purpose is claimed, and no statute is involved, tenants are free to avoid that place and the landlord can be as silly as it pleases.

A tenant has certain rights under lease, usually quiet enjoyment, working utilities, healthy, sanitary, etc. Beyond that, the landlord can usually reserve such rights to enforce such rules as it pleases, apparently what is involved here. Is there a statute restricting that? An appellate case interpreting the language?

I am not a Texas lawyer, but a California real estate lawyer, where the rights and duties of landlords and tenants are somewhat differently defined.

I recall going to a seminar years ago, on the topic of doing real estate business in Texas. Some title company sponsored it and had a lawyer from Houston, one from Dallas, a Texas broker and a Texas developer on the panel. At the end of the program, they opened it up for questions from the attendees. One fellow went to the microphone and said, "I want to know about subdivision regulations and tenant's rights!"

The panelists kind of looked at each other back and forth in uncertainty, not quite sure who would take the response, and finally the lawyer from Houston grabbed the microphone and said, "Few, and none!"

The answer to the question probably involves conflicting values under the law, and the answer will be given in a case involving the lease language and the existing statutes and case law in Texas. On the one hand, the lease reserves the right to the landlord to impose rules, and modify those rules during the term of the lease, as long as the term and cost of the lease is not involved. On the other hand, the claim of Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, self-defense, having a permit, etc. come into play. I have the feeling the outcome might be different in Houston or Austin than in, say, Junction or Amarillo.

When I grew up back there, property rights were often paramount, so an owner could do pretty much what (s)he wanted. Conflicts were most often resolved in favor of the owner. Whether that continues to be so now, I can't say.