Sunday, September 16, 2012

Octomom Still Doesn't Have A Place To Live


Would you rent to Nadya Suleman and her 14 kids and all the media that comes with her? I don't see why it would matter to the owner of a house that Octomom is trying to rent. I could see why the neighbors would be upset, but why would an owner care? TMZ is reporting that Octomom has been consistently rejected when she tries to rent a house even though she has been willing to pay the entire lease and a substantial security deposit in advance. Apparently she is rejected because the owners don't want the publicity or the attention focused on the house where Nadya lives. Again, who cares? I think they are afraid of what will happen if they rent a house to a person with 14 kids and the resulting damage rather than the attention she will bring them. Considering what her last house looked like when she was finished, I don't blame them for being sacred of damage.

50 comments:

Del Riser said...

*sacred of damage*?

auntliddy said...

No one s will rent to her because of the damage, but.... If she pays in advance and cleaning deposit, why not? She moves out, you clean and paint. And if u dont live there., why wld u care if cameras there? If u think it thru, its not such a bad deal.

hollywood dime said...

large deposit or not, its not worth the trouble.

Amy said...

She needs to just buy, and it sounds like she has enough money to put down a downpayment and get a mortgage.

Jennifer H. said...

I feel like this woman has been overly-villified. Yeah it was some serious non-thinking on her part to have so many children, but I think it's obvious she has, or at least had, a mental health issue of some sort. She was totally enabled by doctors. Whatever. She's got all these kids and she can't even get a reality show out of the deal, or a special because she's so hated? But she's written about plenty.

I keep hoping that she'll catch a break somewhere, somehow.

Amy said...

I didn't realize so many of the octuplets were boys. (I just Googled. Only two are girls.)

not on my dollar said...

The homeowners are probably thinking that the damage she and her children create will be more expensive than any security deposit that she's paid.

Sean said...

Maybe she could sell some of those kids for medical research.

Meg said...

Imagine what the homeowner's liability would be, and what their insurance premiums would be. Imagine how pissed off the neighbors would be at the homeowner. If there were problems with rent in the future (given her much-publicized problems with money), how hard and time-consuming it would be to evict her, or to ever recover the money for repairs. I would never rent to her.

SusanB said...

She may have a decent down payment but what mortgage company is going to take her on? Seriously - depending on whatever money she makes stripping? She doesn't have a hope of getting a mortgage.

SusanB said...

She may have a decent down payment but what mortgage company is going to take her on? Seriously - depending on whatever money she makes stripping? She doesn't have a hope of getting a mortgage.

Sherry said...

It's kind of illegal to deny someone due to children but of course it still happens. Can't say as I blame them. I'm curious as the why Kate and the Duggars and an unholy host of others get a show but not her?

g.strathmore said...

14 kids is a LOT of little kids running around with only one adult watching them. I live 2 doors down from a woman with 6 kids and even though they are sweet they are CONSTANTLY getting in trouble or littering in front of other people's houses. With 14 kids, it would be chaos.

katsm0711 said...

I think the owner is worried about the damage AND losing other renters.

PugsterMom said...

I thought the issue was that the agent took her $ but refused to let her see inside the home until after all the paperwork was processed. When I read that, I thought that was absurd. And illegal.

barnowl said...

She would be the tenant from hell. Just ask the former owner of the house she just ruined. She doesn't have a track record to qualify for a mortgage either.

barnowl said...

I think the recent CLAIM the agent wouldn't let her see the inside is bogus.It's just an excuse to save face and the real reason is more likely the OWNER discovered who his new tenant would be and he bailed out.

FS said...

If anything about the transaction in this article is true, yes, it was illegal.

http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981637501

In California, you cannot rent a property unseen unless the tenant agrees to it. You cannot accept non-refundable money until paperwork is signed. Deposits and hold deposits are refundable. Most rentals are not handled through escrow. Sounds to me like someone scammed her, there may not have been a house to rent at all.

Brenda L said...

At this point, a church or some other charitable organization needs to step in. Habitat for Humanity? Come on....it wasn't right for her to have all these kids, but they are here and they need some kind of life.

jaariel said...

I would not rent to her. Too big of a liability. There's no limit to the damage she & her brood could cause, & who wants the headache of all the repairs when she leaves or as she stays, since the landlord is still responsible for maintenance and upkeep. Plus, in this litigious society, let one of her kids hurt themselves & they can go after the homeowner. Between that many kids & a negligent parent, there's just too much risk.

Dee Lurker said...

That pic is f'd up and too familar.

Obvi its a joke that she has one bunch of grapes for all the kids. But they all really do look hungry, yet not one is reaching out for them, like they no its just for show and they're not getting shit.

It sounds like I'm reading into this but I've seen way to many groups of African babies well-trained in hunger and patience stare at a feast of food and not make a move until their told. And even then with mistrustful reluctance.
:(

FlirtyChick74 said...

I agree with Jennifer H and Sherry. I think she deserves a reality show too. The public is obviously interested and has been for quite some time.

BTW: Where are Huckabee, Romney, Rick Perry, and Santorum? Where's Pat Robertson? Why aren't the "values voters" and "right to life" folks supporting her? She's the culmination of everything they've ever fought for. Sure, she's a single mom and she's not the Duggars but she did her part and lived up to what they proposed.

Deborah said...

I agree.

Liz said...

She "deserves" a show???? Why?? Because she's a famewhore who endangered (and is in endangering) the lives of her kids for the purpose of attention and becoming famous. It sounds like there are a lot of people willing to enable her selfish and irresponsible behavior.

Any money that she would would go towards financing more cosmetic procedures. She has proven this over and over again.

She has no one to blame but herself.

__-__=__ said...

Just clean and paint? Clean and paint?? You would be lucky if you could repair walls and not do new Sheetrock. 14 kids using the backyard as a toilet? You know the plumbing in the house they left was trashed. Best thing is for her to be homeless so CPS takes all those kids and places them in loving and half way normal homes.

Alli G. said...

Me too. And the kids are the most innocent in all this. They shouldn't be getting punished for their moms bad mistakes.

Aria Clements said...

By California law a landlord can charge a maximum deposit of two months of rent for a deposit. Even if one charges "first, last, and deposit," on a unit that is, say, $2k, all that can be required up front is $6k. The last month counts toward the deposit. The house she pulled out of was $2150 per month, so a deposit of $4300 is all that is allowable. She caused far more damage to the last house than that.

No, the kids themselves shouldn't suffer. But neither should any landlord be expected to essentially donate their property to her. The last one lost the house to foreclosure over her, and the bank auction got no bids.

The children need to be removed from her custody. Her actions are hurting them and she has shown time and again that donations (millions of dollars in the first year alone) will not be spent on the kids unless she is forced to. She dropped over $500 on her hair instead of paying $120 to fix the plumbing and make the kids go outside like dogs!!

Aria Clements said...

"It's kind of illegal to deny someone due to children but of course it still happens. Can't say as I blame them."

It's not illegal to limit the number of people in a home. There are maximum limits for rental properties that are legally enforced.

Even aside from the kids, she is responsible for damage, and regardless of who caused the extreme damage in the last house, she, the responsible party, never fixed things. The owner lost the house altogether because of her.

YourNameHere said...

I think she should send her kids to live with the Duggars until she gets her shit together. They will at least learn self sufficiency instead of watching their mother make an ass of her selfish self every day.

Lola said...

The only legal limits to the number of people in a house has to do with how many people can share a bedroom based on square footage (I think it's 50 feet/person?). I do believe a landlord can limit the number of people in a house, but not after the fact of rental and not based on the fact that there are children.

Many municipal codes limit the number of unrelated people living together but have no restrictions on number of related people living together.

In any case, I'm kind of chagrined to say that I feel kind of sorry for her. Yes, she made her own bed but she's trying to do better. I hope someone gives her break (and maybe imposes mandatory monthly inspections of the house with the ability to revoke the lease under certain conditions).

And whomever upthread basically said those kids look like starving kids in Africa...are you really serious? She may have many problems but those kids all appear healthy and well fed. Half of the kids aren't even looking at her or the food. One looks like he's hoping the photo shoot will be over soon so he can go play on the swing set.

Alma said...

Wasn't she telling Oprah and Suzie Orman she wouldn't do a show? My first thought was that she waswas thinking the kids would get taken away for sure. Even in the clips Oprah was showing they were all "if you feed them so healthy what was that can you were opening?". Then octo was like "no, that was just a quick dinner."


Then later when she would kill or at least celebrity box for a show the offers stopped because there is always a nut out there with more kids.

cricket said...

I don't blame people for not renting to her. I wouldn't. And I sure as hell would not want her and her litter moving in next door to me. Kids make a mess,even well behaved kids with parents who watch them still get into things. From what I've seen these kids are anything but well behaved. And I doubt she pays any attention to them unless there is a camera around. They could destroy a house faster than a termite infestation.

Iwinjen said...

I don't care if it's California, Florida, or Idaho. Federal laws prohibits a property management company from discriminating against familiar status. Her family is a protected class. As long as she has a single family, she can not be denied a single family home. Even though 9000 people might have to share a bathroom..doesn't matter. I hope she is using a property management company or real estate agent. We are all bound by the Fair Housing Law.

Iwinjen said...

Hey, Nadya:

Fair Housing Act
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).

Liz said...

Oh please. The reason they will not rent to her is due to her previous financial history. If she'd paid her rent on time and not destroyed a home, there would be no problem. A landlord, property management company CAN and should deny her rental based on her past history.

She needs to be held accountable for her actions. You don't pay, you destroy property, then you don't get another one. People need to stop enabling her. Her parents did it for far too long.

FS said...

I've worked at property management companies before and she would not qualify based on her income. She does not have a verifiable, continuous source of income right now. She has money left over from (fill in the blank) and she can pay her deposit and a few months in advance, but then what? Evictions can be very time consuming and expensive in California, on top of all the damage she and her kids could do to the house. Never mind how many kids she has, I'm sure the lack of income and her previous rental history were enough to disqualify her. There is no discrimination here.

Redd said...

I'm sure Octotwat would qualify for some type of government housing loan, if she could get off the stripper pole long enough to do some research.

alliwholovessomuch said...

good to see others feel the same instead of just the hate.

Jamie 2 said...

Please don't refer to these children as a "litter." They are eight 3-y-o individual kids with six elder siblings, the oldest of whom is around ten.

They all have the potential to grow up and contribute to society some day. They didn't choose to be created, but they are here. As a society, we have to help these kids.

Imagine your household (if you have young children, are sane, and have a supportive, engaged spouse helping out.)

Now (a drink might help) imagine you are a single mother with no child support from the sperm donor, no visible source of income and are possibly a bit nutty, raising 14 children under ten years old.

These are 14 US children who can't possibly get enough attention with a single, questionably sane mom.

This shouldn't be about politics. It should be about the children and how their interests are best served.

I think public tax dollars should go to support the kids and ensure they are doing all the little-kids things they should be doing and learning how to do.

The simple stuff that any parent will tell you about, such as toilet training, brushing your teeth, tying your shoelaces, etc.

I cannot imagine what sort of life her oldest daughter lives.

Liz said...

This is a single mother who made a decision to defraud the state of CA and it's taxpayers. She ought to be in jail. She was offered lots of help but she blew it. Now she blows men for money. She chose to get a $500 haircut instead of fixing a toilet. This women is incredibly selfish. Deeming her mentally ill is an insult to all those who are truly mentally ill.

Anyone who feels up to it, should rent their property to her and take their chances. I feel sorry for the man whose home was foreclosed on due to her lack of financial responsibility.

She arranges a photo op of her kids dangling grapes in front of them like they're animals. Fuck you bitch. She's called her own children animals and she treats them as such. She doesn't give a damn about them. It's all for the cameras. A big, giant fuck you to this
bitch. She's unconscionable.

Iwinjen said...

I just don't see how she can be denied for financial reasons if she is paying upfront.

Jamie 2 said...

@Liz - congratulations on a most hateful and ungrammatical post. Learn how to use it's vs. its.

She blows men for money. OOH, You know this how?

I really don't think this woman decided to defraud the CA taxpayers. I think she needed medical help with mental health issues and instead landed the worst fertility doctor in the world.

With six kids already and no father in sight, he should have sent her packing. Instead he implanted 12 fertilized embryos.

If she'd decided to abort them, would you have supported her decision or called it mass murder? I'm curious.

She's now a mother of 14 kids under ten. Are you willing to throw those children under the proverbial train because of bad decisions by the mother and the doctor?

That's a lot of kids. Are you one of those people who argue loudly for the right to life of a fetus, but then say, eff the child when it is born?

Liz said...

Jamie there is nothing wrong with my grammar, but I'm not one of those annoying people who go on blogs and try to correct grammar and spelling. Hateful? That label belongs to you.

She's the one who went to the physician to get implanted by 3 embryos.

It's people like you who enable her. CA taxpayers should not have to support this irresponsible woman who made numerous false medical claims. Her history is well documented, but people like you choose to make excuses.

Instead of asking the taxpayers of CA to support her, why not start a fund/collection for her?


Lola said...

I would just point out that as long as the children are in her custody, you can't support the children without supporting her. I think that it takes someone pretty hard hearted to deny these children (who exist through no fault of their own) a decent life and existence because of their mother's choices. I'm curious as to how toddlers are supposed to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Liz said...

I didn't choose to get implanted by 8 embryos with the hopes of getting a reality tv show. This was confirmed by her former publicist. I didn't endanger their lives, she did. Pretty, cold hearted.

I didn't selfishly defraud CA out of thousands of dollars of false medical claims. That fraud even underwent a tummy tuck after her last pregnancy. That's major surgery. Who was taking care of the kids? Did she care?

She was pregnant a total of 4 times. Who enabled her? Her parents.

Offering to have CA pay for her lack of financial responsibility is not fair to the taxpayers. I'm sure she would not object to a fund started in her honor.

Lola said...

Those children did not do any of those things either, they are innocent in all of this.

They don't deserve to suffer for their mother's choices.

MISCH said...

She's already defaulted on the last house...

Megan said...

Lola - those children shouldn't have to suffer, and that's why they should be removed from her custody and supported by CA through the foster care system. Regardless of the faults of the system, at least the children would be supported and cared for, and the money wouldn't be going directly to her. It's not a black and white issue.

figgy said...

I just wish some of the children at least...or maybe all of them...would go to stable homes. She simply cannot raise them all.

ga_mom said...

Per Lola, the children don't deserve to suffer because of their birthing unit's choices.

No child should. Yet millions of kids suffer every day because their parents choose to do drugs, drink, smoke, become gang members, dealers or commit other crimes. These children suffer financially, emotionally and physically. So please tell me why Octoho's children should be spared from her bad choices just because they were born by the litter-ful. Her kids deserve no more than any other kid out there. And it's HER job to provide it for them, not society's.