Serial Eviction: landlord repeatedly evicts tenants in quick succession, often for reasons that may seem arbitrary, financially motivated, or part of a strategy to raise rents, reduce tenant rights, or avoid long-term tenant agreements. In such cases, the landlord may regularly evict tenants after a short period of time, usually to replace them with new tenants who pay higher rents or to take advantage of financial incentives such as security deposits, illegal fees, etc.
From Water Damage to Eviction: A Tenant’s Nightmare with Kindness Between Friends
Click here for November 16, 2024 Update!
- After a major downpour, pre-existing water damage caused the first-floor ceiling to collapse, which the tenant reported immediately.
- Instead of hiring a professional, the landlord sent an unlicensed friend, who quickly blamed the tenant’s air conditioner without inspecting the exterior.
- Two independent contractors identified the real issue as an unsealed window frame, allowing water to seep into the walls, which the landlord ignored.
- Although quoted $700 for the repair, the landlord later claimed it cost $2,300 and withheld the receipt, deducting the inflated amount from the tenant’s security deposit.
- When the tenant requested transparency, the landlord retaliated with eviction and withheld key details needed for an insurance claim, raising concerns about hidden motives.
Pre-Existing Water Damage
When the tenant moved into the property, it was clear that a section of the ceiling had already been replaced due to prior water damage. As seen in the picture, there was fresh paint over the repaired section. However, right in the center of this newly painted area, new water damage began to appear, indicating the ongoing structural issues that were never fully addressed.
Instead of a professional roofing contractor, as promised, the landlord sent Chuck Ellmore, a personal friend who had just recently been awarded a volunteering recognition by the nonprofit–hardly impartial.
Despite the severity of the damage, Chuck didn’t even inspect the exterior of the home or the roof.
He walked directly upstairs, took one glance at the air conditioner, and declared that was the cause—ignoring every sign of the real issue: the severely damaged window frame.
From the start, the tenant knew this wasn’t right. When they moved in, that section of the ceiling had already shown signs of previous water damage, with obvious repainting. But Kindness Between Friends refused to acknowledge this and continued to place the blame on the air conditioner, which the tenant had installed according to standard procedure.
The Real Problem: A Failing Window Frame
Not satisfied with Chuck’s hasty inspection and dubious conclusion, the tenant sought out two independent contractors—both highly respected in the local area—to perform thorough inspections of the home’s exterior. Both roofing and siding experts pointed to the same culprit: the window frame.
According to their assessments, the window frame was not capped or weatherproof, allowing water to seep through the cracks and into the walls.
This ongoing issue was made worse during the downpour, as the aged frame simply couldn’t handle the excess water. This water damage had been occurring long before the tenant moved in, proving that Chuck’s theory about the air conditioner was completely false.
Despite these findings, Kindness Between Friends ignored all professional opinions and continued to push their narrative.
View one of the quotes to fix the structural damage below:
Updated: November 16, 2024
A previous tenant has now come forward with insurance documentation and screen captures of communications, proving that water damage was present prior to the current tenant’s residency.
As evidenced in the screen captures, Tara from Kindness Between Friends promised to send a roofing contractor to address the issue. However, no roofing contractor was ever dispatched. Instead, only superficial repairs were made to conceal the damage without addressing the underlying problem.
These communications reveal a pattern of neglect, shifting blame to tenants rather than taking accountability for pre-existing issues.
Inflated Costs and Deception
Things took an even more disturbing turn when it came to the cost of ceiling repairs.
Even though the tenant knew that he wasn’t responsible for the ceiling damage, he was willing to pay for it to avoid being evicted and forced out in just 15 days, knowing the inconvenience it would cause. He reluctantly accepted that he would have to cover the cost, despite it being the landlord’s responsibility.
The tenant asked the contractor who repaired the ceiling how much the repair would cost, and the contractor quoted $700. It was a reasonable price for the work done.
However, the landlord later claimed the repair had cost $2,300, which they took out of the tenant’s security deposit.
When the tenant asked for a receipt, the landlord refused, dodging the request repeatedy.
When the tenant caught the landlord in a lie regarding the cost of the repairs, he immediately and graciously asked for a receipt, fully aware that the landlord would refuse and come up with a fabricated excuse for withholding it.
Again: The tenant asked the contractor who repaired the ceiling how much the repair would cost, and the contractor quoted $700, not $2,300 the KBF was claiming.
Retrospective Late Fees and Deception
The landlord claimed, “When you finish paying the rest of your balance, we will release the receipt.” However, the tenant owed no balance whatsoever.
The landlord attempted to charge arbitrary and retrospective late fees that were never agreed upon in the lease, such as $50 per day. These fees were improperly calculated—on one occasion, the tenant paid on the exact day rent was due, yet the landlord falsely claimed he was 14 days late.
The tenant was put in an impossible position—no matter what they did, the landlord acted as though they could do whatever they wanted. They held the receipt for repairs hostage, refusing to release it until these bogus fees were paid. But even if the tenant paid everything, the landlord would still withhold the receipt, because they knew the numbers didn’t add up and were lying about the total amount from the start.
The tenant continued to do everything possible to obtain the receipt, even going so far as to suggest that having it would put him in a better position to pay some of the fraudulent fees the landlord was demanding.
He attempted to leverage their financial greed against them. Unfortunately, the landlord knew that once they handed over the receipt, they would be admitting to lying about the total cost, which is why they refused to provide it.
Ongoing Water Damage: The Final Blow
Weeks after the initial repair, the tenant noticed more water damage in the same area. Their friend “Chuck” had claimed he repositioned the air conditioner to prevent further issues, but this new damage made it clear that the window frame was still the problem. Once again, Kindness Between Friends ignored the facts and continued to blame the tenant for improper installation of the air conditioner.
Not only did Kindness Between Friends conceal the receipt from the renter’s insurance company, but they also refused to disclose the actual date of the incident. Without these key details, the tenant was unable to file an insurance claim, leaving them completely in the dark.
What did they have to hide?
This refusal to cooperate raises serious questions about their intent and whether there’s something far more concerning lurking beneath the surface.
Not only did they refuse the receipt, but they also told the contractor not to speak with the tenant—further concealing the true cost of the work.
Eager to support his case in court, the tenant reached out to local contractors to figure out who had repaired the ceiling.
When the landlord found out, she quickly lashed out, stating, “The contractor has been notified. They will not be contacting you at all.” Even though the tenant paid the contractor out of his own security deposit, the landlord was determined to keep the receipt hidden. To increase the pressure, she ended the message with, “You are to vacate the property in 11 days.”
This added urgency and reinforced the landlord’s efforts to avoid exposing the fraudulent repair charges by withholding critical evidence.
Summary:
Initial Water Damage and Collapse: Following a severe downpour, the ceiling on the first floor collapsed due to pre-existing water damage, which the tenant reported immediately. Instead of hiring a professional roofing contractor, the landlord sent an unlicensed friend, Chuck, who hastily blamed the tenant’s air conditioner without inspecting the exterior structure.
The Real Problem: A Failing Window Frame: Unsatisfied with Chuck’s quick judgment, the tenant engaged two independent, respected local contractors for thorough inspections of the exterior. Both roofing and siding experts identified the real issue: an improperly capped and unsealed window frame. According to their assessments, this allowed water to seep through the cracks and into the walls, an issue exacerbated by the recent storm and long predating the tenant’s move-in. These findings directly refuted Chuck’s theory about the air conditioner, yet Kindness Between Friends disregarded the professional opinions and continued to push their narrative.
Inflated Repair Costs: The tenant obtained a direct quote from the contractor for $700 to repair the ceiling. However, the landlord later claimed the repair cost was $2,300 and deducted this amount from the tenant’s security deposit. Despite repeated requests, the landlord refused to provide a receipt and even instructed the contractor not to communicate with the tenant.
Eviction Retaliation: When the tenant demanded transparency and proof of the repair costs, the landlord retaliated by initiating eviction proceedings in September, despite the tenant being fully paid up through November 1. The landlord falsely alleged the tenant owed over $5,000, including charges for structural damage unrelated to the tenant.
Withheld Information: The landlord not only concealed the receipt from the tenant but also withheld the date of the incident from the tenant’s insurance provider, preventing the tenant from filing an insurance claim. What are they trying to hide?