1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Battle is on! My landlord now demands I remove my dish

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Installation/MDU Discussion' started by Lord Vader, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. Dec 15, 2011 #801 of 1128
    ndole

    ndole Problem Solver

    1,915
    5
    Aug 26, 2009
    Exactly. You can lie and say that you're the homeowner, but you'll be signing a release saying that your installation doesn't require landlord permission.

    You're only screwing yourself.
     
  2. Dec 15, 2011 #802 of 1128
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    As noted, not a good idea. But a temporary mount such as a non-penetrating mount or tripod should not be a problem.
     
  3. Dec 15, 2011 #803 of 1128
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,992
    180
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    You really should read the thread from beginning before the question.
     
  4. Dec 15, 2011 #804 of 1128
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,729
    41
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Yes
     
  5. Dec 15, 2011 #805 of 1128
    trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,632
    275
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    +1
    Portions from the FCC's OTARD:
     
  6. Dec 15, 2011 #806 of 1128
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,992
    180
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Oh, please !
    It's quoted many times in the thread. How many more need to repost ?
     
  7. Dec 19, 2011 #807 of 1128
    mnassour

    mnassour Icon

    859
    9
    Apr 23, 2002
    Welcome to DBSTalk, John! I'm a landlord AND a DirecTV customer who's been on BOTH sides in that battle.

    It's always a good thing NOT to do anything that will annoy your landlord. After all, he/she DOES have your deposit. Technically...yes. It's very, very difficult for a landlord to prohibit you from installing a dish unless you agreed to such a prohibition when you signed the lease.

    Otherwise, remember that in most states, drilling holes into the side of a house, even to install a dish, constitutes damage...damage that the landlord WILL ding you for when you move out. In some states, you can even be charged for this BEFORE you move.

    My own suggestion...go to your landlord and get permission first. If the landlord doesn't want the dish ON the house, then offer to mount it on a pole in the yard and give him a signed statement saying you will remove it when you leave and (use this language) guarantee that you will restore the property to its previous condition.

    That will usually convince most landlords that you're 1) responsible and 2) trying to be cooperative.

    If the landlord still says no, then I'd bet you're in for issues down the road with that person....over more than just a satellite dish.
     
  8. Dec 19, 2011 #808 of 1128
    mnassour

    mnassour Icon

    859
    9
    Apr 23, 2002
    And...if you lie you risk 1) being in violation of the lease 2) being responsible for the ETF if the landlord calls DirecTV and gets the equipment removed, since you did not have authority to install it.
     
  9. Dec 19, 2011 #809 of 1128
    MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,457
    515
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    +1......as a owner of income properties that's good advice mnassour.
     
  10. Dec 19, 2011 #810 of 1128
    jadebox

    jadebox Godfather

    404
    0
    Dec 13, 2004
    Lease agreements don't trump federal law. You can't restrict someone from installing a satellite dish if the law says you can't restrict it - even if your contract says that they can't install one. Ask Lord Vader about that. :)

    But, your advice to talk to the landlord first is good. Adding support for satellite can add value to a property so the landlord should allow it if it is done correctly. But, your landlord is going to want to be assured that doing so isn't going to damage the property.

    Both times I've rented homes to others, I've been fortunate that the renters have actually left the properties in better shape than they were in when they moved in. :)

    -- Roger
     
  11. Dec 19, 2011 #811 of 1128
    Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    4,567
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    A contract can trump federal law.

    Say I'm a news reporter for a TV station. As a citizen, I have the right to free speech, and the right to comment on any political issue I want to. But in my employment contract, I might give up my right to speak out on politics as a matter of station policy. If I did take a political stance, my employer could fire me for violating my contract and they'd be home clear.
     
  12. Dec 19, 2011 #812 of 1128
    dualsub2006

    dualsub2006 Icon

    883
    21
    Aug 28, 2007
    You've just confused the Bill of Rights for Federal Law.

    In your example, your employer would limit your ability to speak out on political matters (or other issues) to maintain the appearance (be it real or fake) that you are impartially delivering the news. Fair game.

    Just like morals clauses written in to contracts that demand that certain actions that are otherwise legal be refrained from are perfectly legal. Look at the kid that got kicked off of the BYU basketball team for have relations with his girlfriend. His actions with his girlfriend broke no laws, arguably were protected by the Bill of Rights, but the university still kicked him off of the team and yanked his scholly.

    A Federal Law is a different matter entirely.
     
  13. Dec 20, 2011 #813 of 1128
    drumist

    drumist New Member

    1
    0
    Dec 20, 2011
    The news reporter is agreeing to not exercise certain rights as a condition of employment. He is not actually giving up any rights, per se. The first amendment does not guarantee that you won't be fired from your job for what you say. It guarantees that you won't be punished by the government for what you say. The Bill of Rights are restrictions on the government's power, not on the power of employers or other private entities. So nothing is trumping anything because there isn't any law that makes it illegal for the TV station to put such a condition in a contract.

    The reason the lease agreement issue is different is because there actually IS a law (OTARD) that makes it illegal for a lessor to restrict a lessee's ability to install a satellite dish. Because it's illegal to place such a restriction, it doesn't matter whether the lessee signed the lease agreement or not -- he still isn't required to abide by it.

    You're right that the Bill of Rights isn't federal law, but you seem to be implying that it's somehow inferior to federal law which is completely backward. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and therefore is superior to federal law. It's the supreme law.

    However, the Bill of Rights do not really apply here because the university is a private entity. There are other laws that limit what universities can do, but none of them prevent the actions of BYU.
     
  14. Dec 20, 2011 #814 of 1128
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Terms of contracts are voided all the time by courts and or laws (think racial and gender discrimination). This case is no different in that the FCC prohibits the enforcement of a prohibition of satellite dishes that meet their standards. So you can write a prohibition on dishes into the contract all you want, but it can't be enforced. But the landlord can choose to not renew your lease at its conclusion.
     
  15. Dec 20, 2011 #815 of 1128
    nickg2

    nickg2 AllStar

    59
    0
    Nov 27, 2005
    i'm sure you could state your opinion if it was noted as a "commentary" in and of itself and NOT part of the news story. and you could also do the proverbial "the opinion expressed is not necessarily those of XXXX station, it's sponsors, etc."
     
  16. Dec 20, 2011 #816 of 1128
    mnassour

    mnassour Icon

    859
    9
    Apr 23, 2002
    I've been a reporter and where I worked broadcast opinion (in the opinion of the news director and broadcast without station approval) was grounds for immediate termination. I've seen it done.

    But this is far from where we were. What a surprise for one of these threads, eh?: ;)

    Anyway, if I wanted to prohibit dishes at any of my properties, I would simply insert a clause in the lease saying that installation of such a device without my written permission voided the lease and was grounds for forfeiture of the deposit. In a local court, I'd win that case if sued. Yes, it might be reversed on appeal, but the point is, what tenant would take it that far (besides Lord Vader :lol:)?

    One thing I don't remember about his story....was the prohibition included in his original lease, or did they try to impose it after the fact? If it's the latter, there's no way that would stand around here.

    (Oh, and for the record...I always approve dishes, with the understanding that I supervise the installation. No that doesn't mean looking over the tech's shoulder, usually just approval of where the dish is to be mounted and ensuring that grounding is adequate.)
     
  17. Dec 20, 2011 #817 of 1128
    trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,632
    275
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    you might want to read the FCC OTARD. Requiring prior written permission is prohibited. And if you go to the case references at the bottom of their page, you'll see a number of cases where this was upheld by the courts. You can prohibit installations that cause damage, but if the tenant has an exclusive use area where they can install the dish, they are good to go. And I'm pretty sure if I walked into that court with a declaratory ruling from the FCC saying your written permission violated federal rules, You wouldn't win your case. Although you are in TX, so your judges have a history of doing things their own way. :D
     
  18. Dec 20, 2011 #818 of 1128
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    But a savvy tenant would not sue you in a local court. They would file a complaint with the FCC and get a favorable ruling first. Then they would put up the dish and make you sue them or begin eviction proceedings. It would not look good for you in court when they pull out a ruling from the FCC prohibiting the enforcement of what you are in court trying to enforce.

    EDIT: trh beat me to it.
     
  19. Dec 21, 2011 #819 of 1128
    RobertE

    RobertE New Member

    8,024
    0
    Jun 9, 2006
    Easier for the landlord would simply not renew your lease at the end of the term, then nail you for "damages".
     
  20. Dec 21, 2011 #820 of 1128
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    This is very true. And my guess would be that those "damages" would not even be related to the dish.
     

Share This Page