Can State Landlord's Discriminate ?

[+Jennifer8]

Why are legal card holders, be it a patient or caregiver, allowed to be discriminated against if found out to be growing MM? I am not talking about 40, 50, 60 or more plants either, but if those are legally grown, so what. I am also not talking about in any federal housing.

 

If a person is in a lease, and does not violate that year long lease, why can a lease be broken and a tenant thrown out for legally participating as a card holding patient or caregiver? I have read about that happening more then once. Why would that NOT be discriminating and why would a tenant who has not violated anything in the lease or laws be allowed to become victimized because they did not violate any of the MMMAct, but instead, chose to take part in the law abiding program and participate in something the law recognizes as legal then become victimized as a result of such?

 

Why is that acceptable? Why would the tenant or tenants not have a civil law suit against the landlord...if there is a lease? If, at the end of the lease the landlord chooses not to renew it, that's a different story.

 

Has anyone ran into that problem and are there any protections for that?

[+RevThad]

I guess it would depend on the wording of the lease. Some (most?) contain a provision about breaking various laws including federal. To answer your question, yes there are protections written into the law, and they are still being tested.

 

Also this would be a weird situation to put a landlord into because of forfeiture laws... the jeopardy the man would be in IF the feds decided to raid and go for seizure of the property, would probably be enough of an argument for the courts to side with a landlord when it came to evicting a tenant.

 

I am just a layman, and if you are seeking advice from a legal pov, I suggest contacting one of the fine mmj friendly lawyers that are part of our community.

[lawyercaregiver]

Because this is still illegal under federal law.

 

Also because the MMMA was specifically drafted to avoid infringing on employer rights. All contractual rights were preserved by the writers to avoid opposition to the campaign that passed the law.

 

So landlord/Tenant relationships are not listed as protected because then all the real estate people and property owners would have opposed the law. Your State granted rights are protected. Your contractual rights and employment rights are not. IMO

[lukev]

your lease says something about "illegal drug" or "Felony" or something to that effect. we have to remember that marijuana although legal in michigan can still be classified as illegal, and growing/production of said substance can easily get you evicted

 

also, your lease should say something about subletting (you not being able to lease to another person/company) if your landlord had a good lawyer, they could evict you for operating a business out of your house (becuase you would have to sublet the grow room to your business, even if that business was only supplying you).

 

Real estate law is fun stuff. get a good lawyer if you want to fight it. but they are going to have to be GOOD!

 

 

 

Luke V.

[Murph]

Jennifer,

 

Look to the MMA itself, no privileges, immunities are lost and are fully protected under the Initative #1 of 2009...gotta sue to enforce them though, so as others said, GET A GOOD LAWYER AND IF SERVED WITH PAPERS, ACT FAST....

 

M

 

Why are legal card holders, be it a patient or caregiver, allowed to be discriminated against if found out to be growing MM? I am not talking about 40, 50, 60 or more plants either, but if those are legally grown, so what. I am also not talking about in any federal housing.

 

If a person is in a lease, and does not violate that year long lease, why can a lease be broken and a tenant thrown out for legally participating as a card holding patient or caregiver? I have read about that happening more then once. Why would that NOT be discriminating and why would a tenant who has not violated anything in the lease or laws be allowed to become victimized because they did not violate any of the MMMAct, but instead, chose to take part in the law abiding program and participate in something the law recognizes as legal then become victimized as a result of such?

 

Why is that acceptable? Why would the tenant or tenants not have a civil law suit against the landlord...if there is a lease? If, at the end of the lease the landlord chooses not to renew it, that's a different story.

 

Has anyone ran into that problem and are there any protections for that?