Las Vegas landlord forced tenant to sign "Direct Consent for Sexual Intercourse and or (oral sex)" contract

boing
1

Originally published at: Las Vegas landlord forced tenant to sign "Direct Consent for Sexual Intercourse and or (oral sex)" contract | Boing Boing

…

1 Like
2

It’s not every sex criminal who goes through the trouble to get documentation of their crimes signed and notarized like that.

19 Likes
3

I want to know what happens if the contract is signed not by the original tenant, but by “another person” that is substituted at the last minute? Is that “contractual consent” a two-way street?

Even if no sexual activity is consummated, this would be prima facie evidence of housing discrimination.

Edit: Tempered to not vilify a protected class.

3 Likes
4

Here’s a tip, yo: any part of a contract that is illegal to begin with might as well not be there to begin with, doesn’t matter how many signatures appear on the damn thing. Any part of a contract that is both illegal and put there by a PoS slime ball asshole might as well not be there to begin with and he should get hit in the jaw for trying (among other punitive measures).

6 Likes
5

IANAL, but wouldn’t that part invalidate and void the entire contract?

2 Likes
6

I am also not a lawyer, but my understanding is “not necessarily, as long as the contract can still function without the illegal clauses.”

5 Likes
7

It seems that the sex “contract” was not part of the rental contract. Rothstein was not himself the owner of the property, although the news reports call him a “landlord”.

In November 2018, Allan Rothstein was a property manager and real estate broker hired by the out-of-state homeowner to lease out the house on Wedgebrook St. in southeast Las Vegas.

When a single mother on Section 8–a federal housing help program–inquired about the property, Rothstein let her move in and pay out of pocket to fix it up to meet HUD standards.

But in order to stay there and get a signed lease, he required her signature on a contract agreeing to have sex with him.

4 Likes
8

Yeesh. Well, there is no way that contract is going to stand up.

7 Likes
9

It really depends, but…probably not. Almost all contracts have a clause called something along the lines of “Severability”. Such a clause basically means that if a court finds this or that part of the contract invalid, the parties agree that the rest of the document is not impacted and lives on. In this case, his motives seem super scammy, gross…and any number of other adjectives you can think of, while her motives are pretty straight forward and in good faith: she was willing to pay rent for a place to live. Standard stuff. Presuming the rest of the lease agreement is typical language, and there is a Severability clause, it should probably stand (presuming she wants to keep living there). SIDE NOTE: I have not read all the details of this story, so take it for what it’s worth.

EDIT: the info posted by @GagHalfrunt above, presuming true, would seem to invalidate the whole arrangement from the get go.

3 Likes
10

Makes me think of the look in the landlady’s eyes when she decides there is a way Roy Munson can pay his rent.

11

I hope that woman and her kids have a real place to live now.

5 Likes
12

I’m glad that sexual assault amuses you so… /s

2 Likes
13

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.