Udr Ceo Buys 60K in Nyse:Udr Stock to...

Udr Ceo Buys 60K in Nyse:Udr Stock to Hide Operations Defects a...

There are 34 comments on the PR-inside.com story from Jun 13, 2009, titled Udr Ceo Buys 60K in Nyse:Udr Stock to Hide Operations Defects a.... In it, PR-inside.com reports that:

This high-profile advocacy action has served to underscore UDR's serious regulatory deficiencies and tenant oppression coupled with its competition's ferocious bite in the same region.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at PR-inside.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Tony

Calabasas, CA

#21 Sep 3, 2010
UDR Apartments in San Dimas California are "Dirty" I am talking to a lawyer right now!!! They are Crooks!!! Never rent from them!! Never!!!
Erin Baldwin

Banning, CA

#22 Oct 5, 2010
NYSE:UDR – UDR, Inc. Breaks California Landlord-Tenant Law - PART I
In our attempt to right the wrongs UDR has done to its California tenants over the past five years, we seek to file a class action lawsuit based on the following 7 illegal activities:

THE PRELIMINARY CAUSES OF ACTION

(1) UDR Charges “Early Lease Termination Liquidated Damages” Penalties in Violation of California Law
California Civil Code section 1671 states that liquidated damages clauses in California residential lease agreements are illegal. However, UDR requires that its tenants not only waive their legal right under this law but also requires them to agree to pay a liquidated damages penalty fee equal to 2-1/4 times their base rent for terminating their lease prior to the end of the lease period, regardless of the month in which they terminate. In essence, UDR’s objective is to convince its tenants that it will take at least 68 days (2-1/4 months) to re-rent the vacant apartment as well as all associated marketing charges to advertise the vacancy.

In 1978, liquidated damages clauses were deemed illegal in residential lease agreements because landlords were distorting the true legal purpose or these clauses:“To set a flat fee when it’s impossible to determine the monetary harm that could result from a breach of the contract.” This doesn’t apply to UDR. They know (within a slim margin) how long it’s going to take to fill a vacant apartment as they use these statistics everyday to project sales and calculate expenses. UDR, Inc. is a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE:UDR) and it could not sustain such a position if its financial projections were a mystery.

In order for UDR to maintain its average 95% occupancy rate, it must fill a vacancy within 18 days. Therefore, 50 of the 68 days they’re charging tenants for an early move-out penalty results in UDR collecting double rent on that unit – a violation of the law. If it actually took UDR 68 days to fill a vacant apartment, that time frame would be three times longer than the industry standard and they could not compete in the already crowded and historically highly-competitive California marketplace – particularly in light of the overwhelming number of foreclosures in California forcing ex-homeowners into the rental market.

Also, California law states that liquidated damages may not be used as a penalty or fee provision as follows:“Where a liquidated damages clause is seen as a penalty rather than an effort to agree upon a reasonable amount of estimated damages, the clause will not be enforceable.

(2) UDR Charges Late Fees That Are Overstated Contrary To Recent California Case Law and Rulings Thereon
As a result of the precedent-setting case, Orozco v. Casimiro [(2004) 121 Cal.App.4th Supp. 7], California deemed “late fees” within rental agreements to also be within the definition of liquidated damages, therefore ruling them to be subject to strict guidelines. Of course, landlords can collect late fees. However, California law specifies the manner in which the fee is to be calculated.

California Civil Code section 3302 states that the late fee amount cannot exceed the standard interest rate of 10% of the base rent (noncompounded) or 1/3650th of the base rent. For example, if the base rent is $1,700, the daily interest would be $.47 per day (3650 divided by 1700) with a maximum late fee charge of $14.10 for any given 30-day period. UDR charges a flat fee of $50.00 which, according to California law, is grossly exorbitant and as such, UDR tenants are entitled to a refund of the difference.

See Part II for a continuation of this story....
Erin Baldwin

Banning, CA

#23 Oct 5, 2010
NYSE:UDR – UDR, Inc. Breaks California Landlord-Tenant Law - PART II

(3) UDR Intentionally Contracts with Tenants Using False Names to Obtain & Sustain a Legal Advantage Over Its Tenants Resulting In Significantly Diminished Tenant-Based Litigation

UDR fails to properly identify the legal name of “Landlord/Owner” in its California RLAs, rendering the RLA invalid. In contract law, there are three important elements: the offer, the acceptance and consideration. Therefore, UDR must use the legal name it has set up for doing business in California (as it is an out-of-state corporation) to contract with tenants in California.

For example, the legal name of one of its apartment complexes, Villa Venetia in Costa Mesa, is “UDR Villa Venetia Apartments, L.P However, UDR’s RLA for that property identifies the Landlord/Owner as “Villa Venetia This name is not only factually incorrect but it’s not even a valid legal entity. Rather, it’s an expired fictitious business name that belonged exclusively to Vista Del Lago, LLC, the former owner of Villa Venetia. According to the Orange County Recorder’s office, the name expired on August 20, 2006 and UDR has knowingly and fraudulently used it to contract with tenants since the date it purchased the property in 2004.

UDR may not make an offer to rent a prospective tenant an apartment under an invalid legal entity; the parties must be properly defined in order for an offer to be effective. A UDR tenant would not know whether the legal name is on the RLA or not.

Therein lies the fraud mentioned above as UDR has intentionally misrepresented, concealed and omitted a significant material fact required to form a proper contract. The law states that fraud renders a contract void, ab initio, or “from the beginning.”

The fact that a tenant has accepted the terms and conditions under the RLA does not relieve UDR of liability because UDR and its agents knew when they presented the offer that is was improper. A similar set of facts applies to all California UDR properties and we believe it is a conscious attempt by UDR to prevent tenants from exercising their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to file a grievance in a court of competent jurisdiction. If a tenant assumes the name represented as Landlord/Owner on the RLA is the proper legal name and goes to file a Complaint, the Court will reject the pleading for not properly stating the parties.

In addition, UDR fails to state the name, address and telephone number of the Agent for Service of Process on the face of its RLAs as required by California Civil Code section 1962. This further prevents tenants from locating the proper person or company to whom a tenant-based complaint would be served. As an out-of-state Landlord, California law requires that it states the name, address and telephone number of its in-state Agent for Service of Process on the face of its RLA. UDR fails to do so and as well, fails to maintain a complete corporate record on the California Secretary of State website also required by law.
Erin Baldwin

Banning, CA

#24 Oct 5, 2010
NYSE:UDR – UDR, Inc. Breaks California Landlord-Tenant Law - PART III

(4) UDR Illegally Profits From Its Ratio Utility Billing System (RUBS) in Violation of California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Regulation Prohibiting A Non-Utility From “Selling” Energy Or Water

UDR defers the cost of utilities for common areas, vacant units during repair and cleaning, property lighting, leasing offices, water for landscaping, swimming pools, and Jacuzzis, as well as its public laundry facilities to its tenants through its Ratio Utility Billing System (RUBS). UDR does not have a logistical need to do so as there are a sufficient number of residential energy and water meters at each of its 48 properties so as not to require tenants pay its utilities through a pro-rated billing system.

In its California RLA, UDR sets forth a “RUBS” calculation that its tenants must agree is fair and equitable and by which they must rely to calculate their “fair share” of the pro-rated utilities. Unfortunately, it is incredibly vague, uncertain and unintelligible due to the fact that all the formula’s variables are outside the control and/or knowledge of its tenants:

“Total monthly utility cost for the community (minus an allowance for common area use if applicable [which is not applicable in the present case]) divided by the number of persons residing at the community times the number of persons residing in the Premises using the applicable ratio multiplier [1 person = 1; 2 persons = 1.6; 3 persons = 2.2; 4 persons = 2.6; 5 persons = 3; each additional person, add..4 to the multiplier.”

In addition, UDR maintains another double revenue stream by not only charging its tenants to source the energy and water being supplied to the onsite public laundry rooms but by also charging them to use the coin-operated machines.

(5) UDR Illegally Defers Injury Liability Via Its “Hold Harmless” Clauses in Violation of California Law and Fails to Maintain Habitable Premises

UDR’s California RLA contains several “hold harmless” clauses creating a perception of justifiable negligence in its failure to maintain habitable premises including, but not limited to, vector control, water quality, construction defects, as well as tenant and guest safety standards for security, apartment, garage and vehicle intrusion, sexual offenders, theft, and violence.

According to California Civil Code section 1668:“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.
Erin Baldwin

Banning, CA

#25 Oct 5, 2010
NYSE:UDR – UDR, Inc. Breaks California Landlord-Tenant Law - PART IV

(6) UDR Withholds Security Deposit Sums Via Illegal Fees and Penalties Which Must Be Properly Defined as Landlord’s Operating Costs and Responsibility

UDR’s California RLA Paragraph 37,“Resident’s Other Liabilities contains the following language:“In addition to all other obligations of Resident and remedies of Landlord under this Lease and the law, and to the fullest extent lawful, Resident shall be liable to Landlord for charges including, but not limited to sixteen (16) items that constitute fees and penalties that may be deducted from a tenant’s security deposit.

These items include such things as the leasing agent’s time to let a repairman into an apartment unit, replacing dead or missing smoke detector batteries, reasonable administrative charges for Landlord’s time and inconvenience for eviction of Resident, special trips for trash removal and so on. UDR is attempting to defer its operating costs on to its tenants and said costs do not represent legally sufficient deductions from a tenant’s security deposit.(California Civil Code section 1950.5)

(7) UDR Illegally Evicts Its Tenants and Acts in Collusion with the Orange County Superior Court Judicial System

Tenants that have been or are presently in the process of being evicted under the terms and conditions of UDR’s California RLA have significant defenses against this eviction.

If the terms and conditions of the RLA are deemed illegal under California law, and UDR has not named itself as a proper plaintiff, then UDR will have difficulty evicting a tenant under those illegal terms and conditions.

See: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/a-c... for additional articles on UDR, Inc.

Also, see:

NYSE:UDR – Corruption Scandal Rocks Orange County Superior Court http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/200...

UDR CEO Buys 60,000 Shares of NYSE:UDR Shares to Manipulate Stock Price http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/200...

Ken Heebner, Found of Capital Growth Management Sells 2 Million NYSE:UDR Shares at a 36% Loss http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/200...

The Street Gives NYSE:UDR a “D” and Urges Shareholders to Sell & Tenants Reminisce About Good Times With Essex http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/200...

NYSE:UDR – 2009 Insider Stock Transactions Spell Zero Confidence http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/200...

Senator Tom Harman Turns His Back on Renters in His District http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/200...

UDR Executive, W. Mark Wallis Dumps 20,000 NYSE:UDR Shares – Smart Man http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/200...

UDR, Inc. Gets $200 Million From Portfolio Sales – Claims it Will Fund “General Corporate Obligations”– Definition Please?http://thebigbearianret urns.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/ udr-inc-gets-200m-from-portfol io-sale-says-it-will-fund-%e2% 80%9cgeneral-corporate-obligat ions-%e2%80%9d-definition-plea se/

UDR Spends Shareholder Money on GPS System When Its Apts Are Falling Apart http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/200...
Erin Baldwin

Banning, CA

#26 Oct 5, 2010
NYSE:UDR – UDR, Inc. Breaks California Landlord-Tenant Law - PART V

If you are a UDR tenant and have experienced any of the above illegal activities, and wish to join a class action lawsuit against UDR, please contact Erin Baldwin at erinbaldwin@rocketmail.com
Erin Baldwin

Banning, CA

#28 Feb 10, 2011
Just another example of how my February 25, 2010 arrest was premeditated. This is the warrant under which I was arrested and falsely imprisoned for 35 days. Wonder how "Guy_74" knew about it before-hand? Time will tell. Stay tuned.
Guy__74 wrote:
Personal Information
Baldwin, Erin Kelly
DOB: 08/21/1960 Sex: Female
Race: White Height: 5' 07"
Weight: 138 Hair: Blonde
Eye: Blue
Warrant File Number: 03262036
Type of Warrant: Civil Warrant
Court of Issue: Central Justice Center
Court Warrant Number: 00117752
Court Appearance Condition: Mandatory
Warrant Degree: Misdemeanor
Charge 1: CIVIL CONTEMPT
Bail Amount:$5,000.00
Massive judgements, pre-trial hearing on 25 Jan. 6, read em, 6 pending criminal charges. WOW!
Erin Baldwin

Banning, CA

#29 Feb 15, 2011
Erin Baldwin Files SEC Division of Enforcement Complaint About UDR (NYSE:UDR)

http://erinbaldwin.com/2011/02/15/erin-baldwi...

We'll let the Securities & Exchange Commission decide.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#31 Jun 16, 2011
When will this huge waste of tax payer money end? Baldwin continues this court farce to delay justice due her! The justice she deserves is a long jail stay for being a liar, cheat and thief. Now that she has got her way and had the cases against her moved from one judge to another she will begin the process of discrediting the new one. That's her MO: discredit whoever has the power to call her on her BS. Does she have the Supreme court in mind? She's on stage.
Scott Ramsden

Ojai, CA

#32 Jun 26, 2011
Ms. Baldwin,
I, myself and several other tenants currently residing at UDR's Villa Venetia Apartment Homes have been terribly bullied and harassed illegally for quite some time. We would like to get your observations and opinions on what they have illegally done. UDR and their staff have chosen the wrong people to bully. We are considering a PROTEST on the sidewalks located at the main (2775 Mesa Verde Drive, East) and rear (Golf Course Drive) gate entrances. Would love to see you there. I detect another CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT about to emerge...My email address is: Ncorigible@yahoo.com.
Please Respond ASAP!!
Scott
Joe Crandall

La Quinta, CA

#33 Jul 1, 2011
Did UDR (NYSE:UDR) buy a Federal Judge last weekend? http://bit.ly/lErVuD
Scott Ramsden

United States

#34 Jul 1, 2011
To All The Erin Baldwin Haters,

Have you ever lived at Villa Venetia and delt with the ever so mentally absent, deaf earred staff? Once UDR receives your move in money, talk to the hand is what they are famous for. According to one employee, the staff is motivated by commission to lease out apartments and will make false promises and lie in order to get you to sign and lock you into a 14 month lease. Should you want out of the lease early due to non performance on the side of UDR, they will report negatively about you to all 3 credit agencies, charge you triple months rent for damages of future lost rent when in fact they have the unit re-rented within 2 weeks from the date of move out and finally, if you have any personal property left in the unit, for what ever reason, UDR instead of following the law with your property, will recklessly pick out what they want and convert your property over into their own use and simply throw away the rest and then charge you a fee for disgarding the rest into the trash. However, UDR hides this fee in a repair charge, for example, paint and labor charges when your final walk thru indicates no painting needed. I've been through it myself soo I think I'm able to recognize UDR's game. There are several other tenants, past and current, that feel the same way. DON'T HATE on Erin Baldwin, when you haven't lived and experienced UDR's operating methods at Villa Venetia.
Joe

Rialto, CA

#36 Feb 14, 2012
Guy__74 wrote:
Personal Information
Baldwin, Erin Kelly
DOB: 08/21/1960 Sex: Female
Race: White Height: 5' 07"
Weight: 138 Hair: Blonde
Eye: Blue
Warrant File Number: 03262036
Type of Warrant: Civil Warrant
Court of Issue: Central Justice Center
Court Warrant Number: 00117752
Court Appearance Condition: Mandatory
Warrant Degree: Misdemeanor
Charge 1: CIVIL CONTEMPT
Bail Amount:$5,000.00
Massive judgements, pre-trial hearing on 25 Jan. 6, read em, 6 pending criminal charges. WOW!
Put the bitch back in jail
BoycottDaveHeste r

Paramount, CA

#37 Feb 27, 2012
Joe-

Where do you come up with this information on 6 pending criminal charges. What are these pending charges you speak of? And where do you get your information?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

REIT Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News RioCan legal action could thwart mall competitor (Mar '12) Oct '17 GTA 2
News The real problem at SEARS (Dec '14) Aug '17 johnnybgoode 3
News Mall construction set for spring (Feb '12) Jun '17 Zombie Town Hall ... 9
News Outlet mall to break ground this month (Apr '12) Jun '17 Zombies go there 5
News Mall a reason for Premium excitement (Apr '12) May '17 Ivanka Trump brands 3
A Credit Line for UPREIT Owners (Apr '17) Apr '17 OpLine 1
News Construction of outlet mall underway (Apr '12) Apr '17 Buzz 4
More from around the web