Why do you assume such an action is indicative of a slumlord? Why is it shady? How long should a landlord wait before starting the eviction process (and it is a process, to varying degrees in various places).
What if the mail got lost or delayed? Why would any sane landlord immediately spend the effort to begin eviction process before contacting their tenant, when there are countless reasons that they didn't receive a check for the current month?
MA enforces what I think is a reasonable policy: the landlord must send a written notice to quit to end the tenancy, and may not file an eviction case until a 14-day notice period ends. The tenant cannot be evicted if they pay the owed rent with interest by the end of the notice period.
Usually jurisdictions have some grace period of a few days to account for mail delays around the first, but you can just start the process a couple days after the first. When I first moved to my own apartment, it had a no-nonsense manager. My roommate and I would usually deposit two checks together, but once he couldn't pay his rent on time so it was just my check for half. A couple days later I came home to a "notice of eviction, vacate before date x" on the front door, which is what is meant by "begin the eviction process". That is them contacting the tenant, now it's my turn to contact them and maybe the excuse is "I mailed it already days ago, maybe it got lost, let me mail another and let's set up an autopay system so this doesn't happen again." In my case it was just me hoping my friend would deposit his check soon. I took the notice and another check down to the property manager and explained, and learned a lesson myself on what joint liability really means. I had no ill will for the property manager enforcing the contract.
I'll grant you that "eviction process" was not defined above. I didn't mean going to the sheriff on the 2nd of the month to get them removed (not that that would be legally allowed in most places). Giving written notice that, "I have not received this month's rent, so this is the legally required notice that starts the clock" (with better language, and perhaps with a call beforehand as a heads up) would be starting the eviction process, in the way I was using it. As opposed to waiting a week or two, and then sending the notice, and then having to wait for the legally defined notice period to run.
So I agree with what you're saying; certainly you should contact the tenant beforehand with a friendly, "Hey, I haven't gotten the rent this month yet." But I wouldn't wait long to begin the pre-process, let's call it, of giving written notice. Also, I don't think you would have to start the formal legal process as soon as the notice period ends, so you can be flexible at that end if appropriate; but giving notice early gives you the immediate option to start the process if you deem it appropriate, but with lower latency once the notice period is over.
It’s a not-uncommon position that landlords are morally obligated to give lifetime free rent to any sympathetic case, as lost investment income and a lost home are not really comparable. The “housing should be a human right” camp doesn’t have any specific proposal on how to pay for it; existing landlords are as good as any funding source.
Why is it morally acceptable for a landlord to be able to evict a tenant from their home if their payment was not received for a reason out of the tenant's control, like being lost by the post office or stolen from the landlord's mailbox?
The grandparent comment was responding to starting eviction process one day after rent was due. I don't see how contacting the tenant and waiting a week equates to giving lifetime free rent.
I am having a hard time following your logic. The lease is a contract, and the tenant gets the use of the space in exchange for paying a certain amount on a certain schedule. What possible difference does it make why the payment was not received? If it was really lost in the mail or stolen from the landlord's mailbox (really, now...), then the tenant can prove that to the judge in eviction court. Have you ever been to eviction court? It is a learning experience. The judge is listening very carefully for the answer to the following question: "Did you pay the rent?" If he hears anything other than "I paid the rent.", he signs an eviction order. It is amazing how many words a defendant will say, on and on, and if the judge doesn't hear the magic words, he must evict the tenant. The defense is "I paid the rent". Anything else is pretty much irrelevant. Just like telling the IRS "The check was lost in the mail!" or "It must have been stolen out of your mailbox!"
Why is it morally acceptable for someone to hang out in the landlord's house without paying, even if something really bad happened to the tenant (lost job, medical bills, auto repair bills, whatever)?
Just b/c the eviction process is started doesn't mean the tenant can't resolve the problem before they are forced out. Assuming the tenant pays then waiting a week wouldn't matter. But if the tenant has decided that they won't pay then waiting the week delays the entire eviction process by an extra week - leading to the landlord getting 1 week less of income for every eviction. I have family that had to evict a tenant in California and it was an extremely long and drawn out process.
