Can I add a deadlock to the front door of my unit? I have recently bought a unit in a rough area. The front door to the apartment complex does not click shut properly so anyone from the general public can walk in. The door to my unit has one of those cheap push button door handle locks. I have spoken to the body corporate and the building manager and there are currently no plans to fix the apartment complex door. I asked about adding some more security to the door of my unit, namely a good quality (fire rated) deadlock. But they replied back that deadlocks are not permitted for fire and aesthetic reasons, even locks that are fire rated. What is the legality of prohibiting deadlocks? Are fire rated deadlocks permitted legally on fire exits? They mentioned something about fire safety laws changing in 2019 but I didn't get a full understanding. Is this documented anywhere?
National Construction Code For Class 2 Buildings (apartments) the relevant volume is No 2. Door hardware on fire doors must comply with AS 1905.1 (Specification C3.4 Clause 2), that is, it has to be &quot;fire-rated&quot;. There are plenty of fire-rated deadlocks available. Normally, a door in a path of travel to an exit cannot be key operated in the direction of travel, however, there are a number of exceptions. One is if it &quot;serves only, or is within— (A) a sole-occupancy unit in a Class 2 building&quot; - like yours. So there is no regulatory obstacle to this. Strata Law The door (and its hardware) is part of the common property - it belongs to the body corporate, not you. Technically, you own the paint on the inside, they own everything else. So, even if you paid for the lock, it would belong to the body-corporate and they would bear all the risk of loss and damage including if it wasn't installed properly. They may be unwilling to take this risk. They can legally prevent you from doing anything to their property. However, you can insist that the body-corporate repair the front door. Having &quot;no plans&quot; is not an excuse for failing in their legal duty to repair and maintain the common property. If they refuse, you can use the dispute resolution process.
Residents agree that the receipt of mail by any individual not listed as a Resident or Occupant in this Agreement at the Leased Premises shall be proof of occupancy of that individual and a violation of this Agreement. I assume that the lease states that only the listed individuals can reside in the unit. Maybe they think that this says that receipt of mail by an unlisted person is a further violation of the lease, I don't think that is clearly enough stated that the courts would agree that receiving mail is itself a violation of the lease. Instead, it seems to be intended to say something about an existing clause – you can't have other people living there. The courts would look at the requirements of the lease, and ask "did you comply"? The question of whether you did a certain thing is a question of fact that has to be resolved in court. However, the revised lease language does not state that all mail must be addressed to Johnny Johnson – it only addresses receipt by a person not on the lease. You are (apparently) on the lease, so you may receive mail there. Nothing in the lease controls how such mail can be addressed. If you receive mail addressed to Tommy Thompson, your defense is that you received the mail, and you are on the lease, so you will not have violated the new clause.
Oregon allows it, see ORS 30.813. One who enters a motor vehicle, by force or otherwise, to remove a child or domestic animal left unattended in the motor vehicle is not subject to criminal or civil liability You have to verify that the car is locked, you have to have a good faith and reasonable belief that breaking in is necessary because of imminent danger of suffering harm, you must notify the police and you must remain with the child / animal until police arrive.
There is case law recognizing an implied-in-fact license to enter though an unlocked gate to knock on the front door (although I haven't seen West Virginia law in particular). Some case law can be found here: In Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013), the [United States] Supreme Court indicated that a police officer’s right to walk up to a front door of a person’s home is subject to an implied license based on existing social norms. . . . In United States v. Denim, 2013 WL 4591469 (E.D.Tenn. August 28, 2013), the district court (adopting the magistrate judge’s R&amp;R) held that “no trespassing signs” do not revoke the implied license and that officers can approach the front door and knock on the door despite the signs[.] In the absence of a sign such as &quot;no solicitors&quot; (which would bar a door-to-door seller or political agent) or a more explicit sign right at the gate (&quot;No neighbors or law enforcement officers, or anyone else I have not told in advance may have access, may cross this front gate even if it is unlocked&quot;), the likelihood of a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in those circumstances is bleak. One of the cases above doubts that even the specific no trespassing sign would be effective (suggesting that the implied license is to some extent conclusively implied in law, rather than implied in fact). Also, certain officials, public and private (surveyors, deputy sheriffs serving process or carrying out official duties, utility company workers, county assessor's employees), may have a statutory or common law privilege to enter onto private property that would otherwise be trespassing for a limited purpose. In other cases, the right may arise from recorded or statutory easement rights or from customer agreements. Such provisions are usually piecemeal. See, e.g., Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-4-515 (privilege for surveyors to trespass under certain circumstances).
There are limits to what you are allowed to modify on your car. Federal safety regulations require certain features to be installed by the manufacturer, and to be maintained by the owner in a state that they remain functional. Besides obvious things like brakes, you need working headlights, turn signals, bumpers, wipers, etc. Heated seats is an option. A luxury convenience feature. Most cars don't have heated seats. If you had heated seats, but left them off or the switch broke and they weren't working, there would be no reason for the State Patrol to care one bit that your rump was a bit chilly. So, the state doesn't care enough make it illegal to have heated seats or not. It is entirely your choice. The question then becomes, does the state have any reason to care whether you have a manual switch to turn them on or off, or use a special software code to enable the feature? Logic dictates that if they don't care whether or not you have the feature, and don't care if you are using it or not, they would have not reason to care about the particular method you use to turn it on or off... Therefore the only real question is does BMW care? They might, if you came up with a method of enabling heat without a subscription and it became known to them. Especially if you made money publishing a how-to guide that cost them potential revenue. But that would be a civil, rather than a criminal matter. To me this action would be equivalent to buying a burger at a place that charges $.25 for a packet of ketchup, and instead using your own ketchup. It's your burger, and your ketchup, do what you want! ADDENDUM: Based on discussion on the other answer, as well as a suggestion in comments, I would like to briefly address (my opinion) on the applicability of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DCMA) of 1998. I actually just looked up this act, and have only a layman's understanding of copyright law, but there is a basic element that needs to be met for a violation to occur: The copyrighted material must be reproduced, altered, repurposed, and distributed in some manner. Private avoidance or selective non-use of a digital feature would not seem to rise to that level. I touched on this above when I alluded to publishing a written hack. It would probably also apply if you offered code that would bypass a feature, or to a car tuner offering to enable the feature for a fee. If there is a commercial benefit, there is a potential &quot;victim&quot;, and a copyright issue. However, even code is questionable... There are many examples of companies offering aftermarket Engine Control Module code to enhance performance or improve gas mileage. Of course a manufacturer could always challenge a commercial competitor, but lawsuits cause money and create publicity - positive and negative. About the only &quot;free&quot; enforcement tool a manufacturer has is to not honor the warranty on any owner altered parts. Of note is the fact that seat heating elements are not digital, copyrighted, or otherwise protected work. The digital intellectual property that MIGHT potentially be at the center of a copyright controversy is the function of the pay system and the processing of an access code that unlocks a relay. What that relay sends electrical current to is really immaterial. It could be your stereo, it could be the airbag... One person snipping and splicing wire to avoid the IP &quot;brain&quot; and install a simple on/off switch or rheostat for personal use of seat heat should not be violation of any digital copyright law.
One path would be to get compliance, by demonstrating that it is legally required. The best evidence that he is legally required to wear a mask is this recent mandate from the Department of Public Health. However, I cannot find a corresponding executive order, which may be in a generic form empowering CDPH to issue orders. Any imposition of penalties for violation must be publicly announced and rest on legislative authority. The mandate is not generally enforced, except in a few cases regarding bars and restaurants. There are various persuasive avenues that you could pursue, such as asking CDPH to come talk to him (unlikely, but you could try), complaining to the property owner, appealing to local social media to apply pressure (possibly putting yourself at legal risk for defamation, if you make a false statement). There are two more involved legal actions to contemplate. One is to terminate the lease and move elsewhere. This would likely result in an action to collect the remainder of the rent, but the strategy would be to argue that the manager has interfered with your private enjoyment of the premise. A second, highly improbable, is to sue the manager and get an enforceable court order requiring him to wear a mask. Courts have a prejudice against ordering people to take actions when other options exist (terminating the lease, monetary compensation). It could be an interesting but expensive test case to see if you could get a judge to order the manager to wear a mask. So yes they are obligated to wear masks, but legal enforcement is going to be difficult at best.
You cannot evict them immediately. You can, however, decline to renew their lease when it expires if you give proper notice. From this information sheet: In NYC, an owner may refuse to renew a rent stabilized tenant’s lease because the owner has an immediate and compelling need to possess the apartment for use as his or her primary residence or as a primary residence for his or her immediate family. Under the Rent Stabilization Law, an owner may begin an eviction proceeding when the current lease expires, but only after the tenant is given written notice that the lease will not be renewed. This notice must be served at least 90 and not more than 150 days before the current lease term expires. In addition, if the tenant is elderly, is disabled, or has lived in the apartment for more than 15 years, you must provide an equivalent (or superior) apartment to them at the same (or lower) rent in a nearby area. This may be difficult if you only own one unit in a larger building, rather than an entire building. Finally, due to the ongoing COVID situation, the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act (CEEFPA) allows tenants to submit a hardship declaration to avoid eviction. Such a hardship declaration can be filed if the tenant has experienced financial hardship due to COVID-19 or if moving would present a health risk to the tenant or a member of their family. Note that the above link is out of date; the moratorium was recently extended to January 15, 2022.
Probably not, although it is impossible to say without reading the lease. Usually leases are monthly. That means you pay for the entire month or lease term regardless of how much or how little you use the property. It seems weird that the lease ends on the 21st, but if that is the case, then you are legally obligated to pay for that time interval. That said, if you want to drive a hard bargain, you could threaten to reoccupy the apartment and stay in it until the 21st which are legally entitled to do, unless he refunds you some money. You would have to be a pretty serious hard-ass to pull this off, or be prepared to go to court. One possible course of action is that you demand return of the key and say you changed your mind and will be staying in the apartment until the 21st. Make sure the conversation is recorded and that he knows the conversation is recorded, or have a witness. He will refuse. You can then sue him for denying you the use of your property.