This law seems absurd.
We’re living in a Carl Hiaasen novel, with a crazy tenant who is destroying the property, and we want to evict her ASAP. Why is it incumbent on the landlord to prove a negative?
It seems like the first condition could be satisfied simply by pointing out that she’s been renting a home in Boca Raton, Florida, and there are no commutable military bases nearby.
You would expect the government to have a database on its own employees and be able to do this by itself without forcing you to do their job.
Are you implying that the government should display common sense!!? What are you, one o’ them guns-and-religion-clingin’ yokels from the Teabag Party???
They do have a data base.
http://www.defense.gov/faq/pis/PC09SLDR.html
The rule makes sense in that it prevents unscrupulous lawyers from taking advantage of the absence of serving military personnel. The rule was initially passed (I think) during WWII, when a much larger percentage of people were in the military and a much larger percentage of those were overseas.
Military service precluding appearance in court being a defense against a default judgment makes sense. The plaintiff being required to prove the defendant is not entitled to this defense does not make sense.
Yes, they have a data base, but we need the SS# and DOB of the tenant to use it, which is hard to do when she’s being uncooperative.
Next time you know to get that information when they sign the lease.
I did the long-distance landlord thing for about five years, and the only thing that kept me semi-sane was having a good property management company. It’s still a pain, but they knew all the ins and outs (we had to have somebody evicted at one point too) and it just came down to “what’s it gonna cost this time”, which didn’t happen too often.
Good luck!