Complaint Review: Jim Eischens - Minneapolis Minnesota

I am the foolish and shameful author of a rebuttal in Jim Eischen's favor. I was lucky enough to walk before Jim could use me up and toss me like a tissue as he is now doing to his employees (all are not bad, stupid & misled - yes, but not in on it). He is fazing out everyone who has been cleaning up his messes prior to the fire so that his lackey Jim Price (d/b/a JP3 Enterprises) will be more widely accepted as the front man for "Twin City Rental & Realty, LLC". Hopefully, this bit of info will save some would be sucker from renting from JE, posing as JP and I can redeem myself. Your 100% right Jamis - I stand coorrected

I was in Minneapolis the weekend of Sept 19-21, visiting my younger sister, who attends college up there. It was also the same weekend the house fire incident took place. She is one of the many students who has the displeasure of renting from Eischens. In her bedroom alone, I counted five fire code violations. She has at least two electrical outlets without covers in the bedroom, both of which are are close to the floor (which is carpeted). There were exposed wires in her closet and in the hallway leading up to their apartment. The whole house is in disrepair from the outside as well as the inside. She is paying well over $400 a month to live there. In a previous post, someone asked how this can happen. Simply put, it happens all the time, and Eischens is not the only landlord who is guilty of it. Slum landlords are notorious on college campuses, for two main reasons: 1). Students are temporary tenants and therefore not as concerned over their living spaces (in most cases), 2). Students are uninformed over their rights as tenants. As a result of these two reasons, the landlords get away with just about anything they want. I myself attended a small university in my state. The landlord I rented from pretty much owned half the town's properties. Most of the places weren't even fit to be crack houses. Despite numerous complaints and reports of violations, 15 years later he is still the town's main landlord. Getting a copy of your rights as a tenant and reporting violations will help. Unfortunately, most college students don't have the time and energy it takes to follow through on violation complaints.

This is the exact reason why there should be some restrictions against non-owner occupied properties, and there needs to be legislation limiting the number of properties an individual or a corp. can own. Funds need to be given to inspecting rental properties from time to time. HOA's need to be enforced for a minimal cost and to approve any non owner occupied housing. Not only to the tenants suffer, but so do the owner occupied units that surround these properties. Seeing tenant after tenant move in, and watch the houses get run down is no fun.

I have been reading all the reports and rebuttals and this is horrible. Who would want to live in one of these houses and how is he still operating? My 2cents on the issue is the following news report off the WCCO web page and I cannot believe it after reading everything on this site. No Evidence Of Negligence In Fire That Killed U of M Students Sep 24, 2003 6:10 pm US/Central Minneapolis (AP) There is no evidence of negligence by the owner of a duplex that caught on fire, killing three University of Minnesota students, fire officials said Wednesday. The cause of Saturday's fire remains undetermined, Asst. Fire Chief Ulie Seal said. Investigators have ruled out a hot water heater or any other electrical malfunction as the cause of the blaze that killed Elizabeth Wencl, 20, of Owatonna; Brian R. Heiden, 19, of Racine, Wis.; and Amanda Speckien, 19, of Vadnais Heights. All three died of smoke inhalation. The fire began on the front porch of the three-level apartment, the sole entryway. Seal said there were smoke detectors on all three levels, however, he could not confirm they were working at the time of the fire. Witnesses have said the smoke detectors were operating fine a month ago, Seal said. The university will hold a public memorial Friday for the three victims, who were all students in the university's College of Liberal Arts. The memorial is planned for 4 p.m. at the Ted Mann Concert Hall on the university's West Bank campus. Seal said the investigation into the fire's cause remains open.

This landlord is being investigated, because 3 college students living in his rentals died over the weekend from a fire. During the corse of the investigation, it has come out that he has had over 200 code violations. out of 57 properties this man has, this is all the public records we could locate, only 7 that have passed the rental housing inspection, and the others have only provisional licenses, and this landlord has supposedly at least 100 rental properties, all around the university of minnesota campus. Given the tragic end that these 3 tenets suffered from while living in a duplex located @ 825 15th ave se, you should all be grateful that you have escaped with your lives. Hopefully this will be a wakeup call to all landlords that target young college students and decieve them with regard to their rights as renters. i can only hope that now the city of minneapolis will do someting about this guy, he should not be allowed to own rental property and there should be criminal consequences for his actions

I rented from Jim Eischens for 2 years and had a great experience. It was definately a "college" house but kept up very well. Lets hear the good things!!!

Most of what has been stated here describes an ignorant landlord. Landlords who want to make long-term profits do not let things such as leaks in the wall go unattended because it ruins their property. Same goes for bad wiring. The tenants with the "fecal water" should have called the health department and let them deal with it. It is much more than the cleaning supplies and that cost--it is a health hazard to have contaminated water leaking anywhere. When I was in college, I had a landlord rent out individual rooms and have individual agreements with each tenant. He also collected rent by the term (4 months in advance), which, upon signing a "real" lease for the first time I realized wasn't industry standard. Landlords in college towns who cater to college students most likely do so because students tend to not be aware of their rights, and the landlord probably also intends to let the property sit in disrepair and then sell it when the depreciation maxes out and it is no longer a lucrative investment for him. However, to be fair to landlords, college students are notoriously hard on properties, so not a lot of landlords will rent to students. They break their leases, skip out without paying, break stuff, etc. It's a two-way street. Renting out the drive-way to non-tenants is a pretty bold move, but it might not be illegal--check with your local rent board. He sounds very foolish and greedy. When one of his properties burns down due to poor wiring, let's hope nobody is hurt and the insurance company doesn't pay because the landlord knew about the problem and did nothing to fix it. Maybe then he will be more attentive to his properties and tenants.

First of all, Jim SHOULD get into a lot of trouble for employing unlicensed immigrants. It has been proven that he does employ them, and he or his brother have been fined for employing them. It is not our fault that Jim has a diminished standing in the community, it is his fault alone. As for experiencing pain and suffering; it is Jim's tenants who are the victims. Jim files frivolous lawsuits against current and former tenants constantly, oftentimes without even serving them, so he wins by default fraudulently. It is his tenants who have to live in the horrendous conditions of his buildings, and his tenants who have to put up with his belligerence, dishonesty, and maliciousness. It is his tenants who are forced to pay him exorbitant sums of money that he and his employees extort from them through perjury and fraud. Many of these "kids" you speak of are experienced renters, such as myself. The notoriety he has is not only deserved, but underrepresented in the campus community. He IS a slumlord out to rip off college students who do not know their rights. He IS a deceitful crook, and the damage to the properties is the result of years of neglect and disrepair, not because of parties. At the house I lived in specifically, water leaked into the living room from the upstairs shower and toilet for several months before Jim Eischens came by to "fix" it. He stapled a board onto the ceiling which rerouted the water into the walls. After six months, the wall was so rotten it began falling down. Just one example amongst hundreds I have heard of from other renters of his. Parties do not create below-code fire-hazard wiring, or leaky plumbing, or doors that dont fit their frames, or windows that wont open or shut, or light fixtures that dont work, or sell students on free laundry then add pay-boxes after they move in. Parties are the cause of 0% of the problems with Jims properties, and you even suggesting that detracts from the already waning credibility offered to his arguments.

My rebuttal is directed at Stephanie's report. While I was not working with Jim at the time, and cannot discount her record of events I think it only fair that the following is noted: Jim & Co. purchased the apartments she shared with her boyfriend in the fall of 2001, less than 2 years ago. With that knowledge, I believe it is a safe assumption to make that the plumbing problems which took place were pre-existing and not, as it seems Steph believes, the sole idea and fault of Jim Eischens. If she were to tell the whole story, you would already know that the bldg. was a maintenance nightmare when he purchased it but that he and his crew have since fixed the plumbing, the showers it services have been torn out and re-tiled since that time. Additionally, the halls have been repainted and re- tiled or re- carpeted. New a/c units are being installed, ceiling fans in the kitchens, hardwood floors are being re-sanded and re-finished. Jim has paid alot to the people who do this work. Which brings me to my second point: the people doing this work. Jim could get into a lot of trouble if it were said that he employs illegal immigrants when he does not. A worse case scenario would involve legalities, plus the monetary cost of defending ones self, a diminished standing in the community will likely lead to lost rental income due to the smearing of his name, not to mention the threat to the men who sub-contract the work. Unemployed white workers don't appreciate losing work to those who take their jobs and don't even belong here, that threat coupled with a threat of deportation, not to mention the stress of an INS investigation and especially the income lost to them and their families. I should hope that the person who spouted off such slanderous allegations would have something rock solid to back themselves up because if not, that person could easily be held accountable for damages due to pain & suffering, a diminished standing in the community.......etc. I believe these kids did indeed have a bad experience by renting from Jim Eischens. I don't necessarily believe Jim is at fault. I think maybe he was simply the unlucky 1st landlord for these kids, who are just learning that this is not the same world in which Mom & Dad came running and fixed all the things that made them uncomfortable, or made them work a little. So now they are throwing a tantrum. To be fair, there is some truth to their stories. But it is a case of someone overextending themself and not admitting it. it is not a case of a slumlord out to rip off college kids who are absolute perfect tenants who never throw parties and always keep the place clean and have never ever ever caused any of the damages to these homes.

This is a whole twisted story, so I'll start from the begining. Around April of 2002 a couple of my friends and I wanted to find a place for the six of us. We found an ad in the paper that said 6+ bedroom house, with 2+ bath. We decided to check it out. The property happened to be owned by Jim, and at the time we did not know who Jim Eischens was. We signed a lease for the "house" owned by Mr. Eischens. The house wasn't in terribly good condition, however, he did say that when the other tennents moved out he would fix the place up and clean it for us. Fast forward to Sept. 1, 2002. We all arrived to the "house" to find that 1) The house was never repaired, 2) The house was never cleaned, 3) The cleaning people threw all the things left behind in a big pile in the backyard, and then brought sleeping bags and lived in the house for at least 24 hours. Here's the real kicker... For over a month, the back door would not close, so we had to use a keg to prop it shut. Some time in mid October, a lock was put in the door, however, we did not receive a key for that lock until around October 31. Our washer and dryer broke down, and it took a month of phone calls, and a threat getting the city on him to have him fix the appliances. Our water heater never fully worked. From mid October until after we left (December 1, 2002) it leaked water, leaked gas, and the pilot had to be relit almost 3 times a day. Also, we had bought two dogs in October (around the 11th), and contacted Jim's office, and left several messages on his personal cell phone about the dogs. We finally got a return call back from his office saying that the dogs were okayed, around the 15th. Around the 23rd, we received a letter stating that we had unauthorized animals in the unit and would need to pay $10 a day for each day that they were in the unit, until they were authorized. The letter was dated October 14th, and the envelope was post marked on the 22nd. At this point we found ourselves a lawyer and took further action. We wrote Jim a letter stating that he had broken the lease and that we were entitled to leave the premises. Denis Craig responded with a letter stating that they upheld the lease and that we broke the lease and cannot leave the premises, and that any work that needs to be done should be promptly reported to them. I think that's funny, because we'd call several times within 2 days, and it would take between a week to a month for them to come and fix it. Who wasn't being prompt? (as it states in his leases that he will provide prompt service) We called the inspector and had him come to the "house." He found over 20 (over 5 pages worth) violations! We also found out that this 6+ house, was not actually a house. It was a duplex. Jim rented to us saying that 3 could live on the 2nd floor, 3 on the first floor, and a possible 7th in the basement. The inspector said, only 3 on the top floor, 2 on the first floor, and no one in the basement. Jim received the list of things that needed to be brought up to code, and quickly became angry with us. He "repaired" about 1/3 of the things that were demanded to be replaced by the city. At this point we decided to start looking for a new house. Around mid November we found a place, and we moved out of the Eischens residency until December 3rd. At this point Jim Eischens tried to sue us. About four weeks before the court date he dropped his "claim" against us. Around the begining of February Eischens tried to reclaim a new claim against us. However, he did not know where we were, so he tried to serve our lawyer, who is not authorized to accept that on our behalf. Yet, the service papers were left at the lawyer's office (illegal to do so). In this new claim Eischens was claiming that we owed rent, future lost rent (even though the place was already rented out-and not up to code, this was a claim for over $8000), unpaid utilities (which were actually transfered to our new account at the new house), cleaning charges and repairs (even though we left it in better condition than how we received it), $300 in lock changes, and a re-rental fee (this claim dismissed the dog issue which was on the first claim). The total claim was over $11,000. In actuallity, we owe him nothing, yet he's claiming we owe that much. It seems as if he's given up on the case, but if he pursues again, we are ready with a whole case against him. Here's some more interesting facts from this whole ordeal. 1) Carlos, his painter, uses primer most of the time, not paint. Also, one day he was working in the upstairs when no one was on that floor. Later, one of my housemates came home, and found porn on his computer. None of us were even up there. The only person up there was Carlos. 2) Eischens claimed he received a check for $2000 from one of my housemates. However, the housemate never wrote a check to Eischens, nor wrote a check that large. 3) When the inspector came the second time, Jim came to the house (unannounced) before him, and let him see some of the things he "repaired" and when asked about the things that were not replaced, Jim would say, "We're working on it." 4) One of the smallest violations was that on the breaker box one of the slots was open, and needed to be covered. When the inspector came around the second time, Jim did not let the inspector look at the box, but finally did. Upon opening, it was clear that Jim had used duct tape to cover it. He was told that he had to use a perminant cover on the slot, not duct tape. There are many things that I could type, but I would probably be stating what many others are dealing with, so I will let those voices speak for themselves. If you are a victim of this, respond, spread the word, do whatever you can. Don't sit in silence and let Jim continue to get away with this nonsense.

This is a whole twisted story, so I'll start from the begining. Around April of 2002 a couple of my friends and I wanted to find a place for the six of us. We found an ad in the paper that said 6+ bedroom house, with 2+ bath. We decided to check it out. The property happened to be owned by Jim, and at the time we did not know who Jim Eischens was. We signed a lease for the "house" owned by Mr. Eischens. The house wasn't in terribly good condition, however, he did say that when the other tennents moved out he would fix the place up and clean it for us. Fast forward to Sept. 1, 2002. We all arrived to the "house" to find that 1) The house was never repaired, 2) The house was never cleaned, 3) The cleaning people threw all the things left behind in a big pile in the backyard, and then brought sleeping bags and lived in the house for at least 24 hours. Here's the real kicker... For over a month, the back door would not close, so we had to use a keg to prop it shut. Some time in mid October, a lock was put in the door, however, we did not receive a key for that lock until around October 31. Our washer and dryer broke down, and it took a month of phone calls, and a threat getting the city on him to have him fix the appliances. Our water heater never fully worked. From mid October until after we left (December 1, 2002) it leaked water, leaked gas, and the pilot had to be relit almost 3 times a day. Also, we had bought two dogs in October (around the 11th), and contacted Jim's office, and left several messages on his personal cell phone about the dogs. We finally got a return call back from his office saying that the dogs were okayed, around the 15th. Around the 23rd, we received a letter stating that we had unauthorized animals in the unit and would need to pay $10 a day for each day that they were in the unit, until they were authorized. The letter was dated October 14th, and the envelope was post marked on the 22nd. At this point we found ourselves a lawyer and took further action. We wrote Jim a letter stating that he had broken the lease and that we were entitled to leave the premises. Denis Craig responded with a letter stating that they upheld the lease and that we broke the lease and cannot leave the premises, and that any work that needs to be done should be promptly reported to them. I think that's funny, because we'd call several times within 2 days, and it would take between a week to a month for them to come and fix it. Who wasn't being prompt? (as it states in his leases that he will provide prompt service) We called the inspector and had him come to the "house." He found over 20 (over 5 pages worth) violations! We also found out that this 6+ house, was not actually a house. It was a duplex. Jim rented to us saying that 3 could live on the 2nd floor, 3 on the first floor, and a possible 7th in the basement. The inspector said, only 3 on the top floor, 2 on the first floor, and no one in the basement. Jim received the list of things that needed to be brought up to code, and quickly became angry with us. He "repaired" about 1/3 of the things that were demanded to be replaced by the city. At this point we decided to start looking for a new house. Around mid November we found a place, and we moved out of the Eischens residency until December 3rd. At this point Jim Eischens tried to sue us. About four weeks before the court date he dropped his "claim" against us. Around the begining of February Eischens tried to reclaim a new claim against us. However, he did not know where we were, so he tried to serve our lawyer, who is not authorized to accept that on our behalf. Yet, the service papers were left at the lawyer's office (illegal to do so). In this new claim Eischens was claiming that we owed rent, future lost rent (even though the place was already rented out-and not up to code, this was a claim for over $8000), unpaid utilities (which were actually transfered to our new account at the new house), cleaning charges and repairs (even though we left it in better condition than how we received it), $300 in lock changes, and a re-rental fee (this claim dismissed the dog issue which was on the first claim). The total claim was over $11,000. In actuallity, we owe him nothing, yet he's claiming we owe that much. It seems as if he's given up on the case, but if he pursues again, we are ready with a whole case against him. Here's some more interesting facts from this whole ordeal. 1) Carlos, his painter, uses primer most of the time, not paint. Also, one day he was working in the upstairs when no one was on that floor. Later, one of my housemates came home, and found porn on his computer. None of us were even up there. The only person up there was Carlos. 2) Eischens claimed he received a check for $2000 from one of my housemates. However, the housemate never wrote a check to Eischens, nor wrote a check that large. 3) When the inspector came the second time, Jim came to the house (unannounced) before him, and let him see some of the things he "repaired" and when asked about the things that were not replaced, Jim would say, "We're working on it." 4) One of the smallest violations was that on the breaker box one of the slots was open, and needed to be covered. When the inspector came around the second time, Jim did not let the inspector look at the box, but finally did. Upon opening, it was clear that Jim had used duct tape to cover it. He was told that he had to use a perminant cover on the slot, not duct tape. There are many things that I could type, but I would probably be stating what many others are dealing with, so I will let those voices speak for themselves. If you are a victim of this, respond, spread the word, do whatever you can. Don't sit in silence and let Jim continue to get away with this nonsense.

This is a whole twisted story, so I'll start from the begining. Around April of 2002 a couple of my friends and I wanted to find a place for the six of us. We found an ad in the paper that said 6+ bedroom house, with 2+ bath. We decided to check it out. The property happened to be owned by Jim, and at the time we did not know who Jim Eischens was. We signed a lease for the "house" owned by Mr. Eischens. The house wasn't in terribly good condition, however, he did say that when the other tennents moved out he would fix the place up and clean it for us. Fast forward to Sept. 1, 2002. We all arrived to the "house" to find that 1) The house was never repaired, 2) The house was never cleaned, 3) The cleaning people threw all the things left behind in a big pile in the backyard, and then brought sleeping bags and lived in the house for at least 24 hours. Here's the real kicker... For over a month, the back door would not close, so we had to use a keg to prop it shut. Some time in mid October, a lock was put in the door, however, we did not receive a key for that lock until around October 31. Our washer and dryer broke down, and it took a month of phone calls, and a threat getting the city on him to have him fix the appliances. Our water heater never fully worked. From mid October until after we left (December 1, 2002) it leaked water, leaked gas, and the pilot had to be relit almost 3 times a day. Also, we had bought two dogs in October (around the 11th), and contacted Jim's office, and left several messages on his personal cell phone about the dogs. We finally got a return call back from his office saying that the dogs were okayed, around the 15th. Around the 23rd, we received a letter stating that we had unauthorized animals in the unit and would need to pay $10 a day for each day that they were in the unit, until they were authorized. The letter was dated October 14th, and the envelope was post marked on the 22nd. At this point we found ourselves a lawyer and took further action. We wrote Jim a letter stating that he had broken the lease and that we were entitled to leave the premises. Denis Craig responded with a letter stating that they upheld the lease and that we broke the lease and cannot leave the premises, and that any work that needs to be done should be promptly reported to them. I think that's funny, because we'd call several times within 2 days, and it would take between a week to a month for them to come and fix it. Who wasn't being prompt? (as it states in his leases that he will provide prompt service) We called the inspector and had him come to the "house." He found over 20 (over 5 pages worth) violations! We also found out that this 6+ house, was not actually a house. It was a duplex. Jim rented to us saying that 3 could live on the 2nd floor, 3 on the first floor, and a possible 7th in the basement. The inspector said, only 3 on the top floor, 2 on the first floor, and no one in the basement. Jim received the list of things that needed to be brought up to code, and quickly became angry with us. He "repaired" about 1/3 of the things that were demanded to be replaced by the city. At this point we decided to start looking for a new house. Around mid November we found a place, and we moved out of the Eischens residency until December 3rd. At this point Jim Eischens tried to sue us. About four weeks before the court date he dropped his "claim" against us. Around the begining of February Eischens tried to reclaim a new claim against us. However, he did not know where we were, so he tried to serve our lawyer, who is not authorized to accept that on our behalf. Yet, the service papers were left at the lawyer's office (illegal to do so). In this new claim Eischens was claiming that we owed rent, future lost rent (even though the place was already rented out-and not up to code, this was a claim for over $8000), unpaid utilities (which were actually transfered to our new account at the new house), cleaning charges and repairs (even though we left it in better condition than how we received it), $300 in lock changes, and a re-rental fee (this claim dismissed the dog issue which was on the first claim). The total claim was over $11,000. In actuallity, we owe him nothing, yet he's claiming we owe that much. It seems as if he's given up on the case, but if he pursues again, we are ready with a whole case against him. Here's some more interesting facts from this whole ordeal. 1) Carlos, his painter, uses primer most of the time, not paint. Also, one day he was working in the upstairs when no one was on that floor. Later, one of my housemates came home, and found porn on his computer. None of us were even up there. The only person up there was Carlos. 2) Eischens claimed he received a check for $2000 from one of my housemates. However, the housemate never wrote a check to Eischens, nor wrote a check that large. 3) When the inspector came the second time, Jim came to the house (unannounced) before him, and let him see some of the things he "repaired" and when asked about the things that were not replaced, Jim would say, "We're working on it." 4) One of the smallest violations was that on the breaker box one of the slots was open, and needed to be covered. When the inspector came around the second time, Jim did not let the inspector look at the box, but finally did. Upon opening, it was clear that Jim had used duct tape to cover it. He was told that he had to use a perminant cover on the slot, not duct tape. There are many things that I could type, but I would probably be stating what many others are dealing with, so I will let those voices speak for themselves. If you are a victim of this, respond, spread the word, do whatever you can. Don't sit in silence and let Jim continue to get away with this nonsense.

This is a whole twisted story, so I'll start from the begining. Around April of 2002 a couple of my friends and I wanted to find a place for the six of us. We found an ad in the paper that said 6+ bedroom house, with 2+ bath. We decided to check it out. The property happened to be owned by Jim, and at the time we did not know who Jim Eischens was. We signed a lease for the "house" owned by Mr. Eischens. The house wasn't in terribly good condition, however, he did say that when the other tennents moved out he would fix the place up and clean it for us. Fast forward to Sept. 1, 2002. We all arrived to the "house" to find that 1) The house was never repaired, 2) The house was never cleaned, 3) The cleaning people threw all the things left behind in a big pile in the backyard, and then brought sleeping bags and lived in the house for at least 24 hours. Here's the real kicker... For over a month, the back door would not close, so we had to use a keg to prop it shut. Some time in mid October, a lock was put in the door, however, we did not receive a key for that lock until around October 31. Our washer and dryer broke down, and it took a month of phone calls, and a threat getting the city on him to have him fix the appliances. Our water heater never fully worked. From mid October until after we left (December 1, 2002) it leaked water, leaked gas, and the pilot had to be relit almost 3 times a day. Also, we had bought two dogs in October (around the 11th), and contacted Jim's office, and left several messages on his personal cell phone about the dogs. We finally got a return call back from his office saying that the dogs were okayed, around the 15th. Around the 23rd, we received a letter stating that we had unauthorized animals in the unit and would need to pay $10 a day for each day that they were in the unit, until they were authorized. The letter was dated October 14th, and the envelope was post marked on the 22nd. At this point we found ourselves a lawyer and took further action. We wrote Jim a letter stating that he had broken the lease and that we were entitled to leave the premises. Denis Craig responded with a letter stating that they upheld the lease and that we broke the lease and cannot leave the premises, and that any work that needs to be done should be promptly reported to them. I think that's funny, because we'd call several times within 2 days, and it would take between a week to a month for them to come and fix it. Who wasn't being prompt? (as it states in his leases that he will provide prompt service) We called the inspector and had him come to the "house." He found over 20 (over 5 pages worth) violations! We also found out that this 6+ house, was not actually a house. It was a duplex. Jim rented to us saying that 3 could live on the 2nd floor, 3 on the first floor, and a possible 7th in the basement. The inspector said, only 3 on the top floor, 2 on the first floor, and no one in the basement. Jim received the list of things that needed to be brought up to code, and quickly became angry with us. He "repaired" about 1/3 of the things that were demanded to be replaced by the city. At this point we decided to start looking for a new house. Around mid November we found a place, and we moved out of the Eischens residency until December 3rd. At this point Jim Eischens tried to sue us. About four weeks before the court date he dropped his "claim" against us. Around the begining of February Eischens tried to reclaim a new claim against us. However, he did not know where we were, so he tried to serve our lawyer, who is not authorized to accept that on our behalf. Yet, the service papers were left at the lawyer's office (illegal to do so). In this new claim Eischens was claiming that we owed rent, future lost rent (even though the place was already rented out-and not up to code, this was a claim for over $8000), unpaid utilities (which were actually transfered to our new account at the new house), cleaning charges and repairs (even though we left it in better condition than how we received it), $300 in lock changes, and a re-rental fee (this claim dismissed the dog issue which was on the first claim). The total claim was over $11,000. In actuallity, we owe him nothing, yet he's claiming we owe that much. It seems as if he's given up on the case, but if he pursues again, we are ready with a whole case against him. Here's some more interesting facts from this whole ordeal. 1) Carlos, his painter, uses primer most of the time, not paint. Also, one day he was working in the upstairs when no one was on that floor. Later, one of my housemates came home, and found porn on his computer. None of us were even up there. The only person up there was Carlos. 2) Eischens claimed he received a check for $2000 from one of my housemates. However, the housemate never wrote a check to Eischens, nor wrote a check that large. 3) When the inspector came the second time, Jim came to the house (unannounced) before him, and let him see some of the things he "repaired" and when asked about the things that were not replaced, Jim would say, "We're working on it." 4) One of the smallest violations was that on the breaker box one of the slots was open, and needed to be covered. When the inspector came around the second time, Jim did not let the inspector look at the box, but finally did. Upon opening, it was clear that Jim had used duct tape to cover it. He was told that he had to use a perminant cover on the slot, not duct tape. There are many things that I could type, but I would probably be stating what many others are dealing with, so I will let those voices speak for themselves. If you are a victim of this, respond, spread the word, do whatever you can. Don't sit in silence and let Jim continue to get away with this nonsense.

I also rented from Jim Eischens from May until December of 2002. I have the unique experience of having lived in TWO of Eischens' properties during that time. First, an apartment building at 801 University Ave SE. Among many other things that went wrong, the most horrible incident: In August 2002, our bathtub began filling up with a green, foul-smelling water. This same substance began leaking out along the bottom of the toilet, where it had not been properly caulked and sealed. As all of the ground-level bathrooms began to flood into the apartments and hallway, a plumber was called. We were informed this was "fecal water" caused by blockage in the pipes. We were informed that, because of the condition of the piping in the building, this problem would reoccur again within the next few months. Although this "fecal water" flooded our apartments and even seeped into the hallways, we were left to clean up ourselves. All cleaning supplies were purchased with our own money. We were forced to borrow a wet-vac from family. The hallway areas were never cleaned. Less than a month later, our bathroom ceiling began falling in chunks to the floor. This was due to poor plumbing and water had been leaking from the apartment above us for years. Instead of fixing the problem, Jim had his workers (who are for the most part illegal immigrants) simply screw a large board into the ceiling where the ceiling had fallen apart. Soon after this I moved into a different Eischens property--this time a duplex. Here, the entire first floor' electricity was set up on one faulty circuit breaker. When attempting to blow dry ones hair or use the microwave, it was necessary to turn off the bathroom and/or kitchen lights or else the circuit would short. There were many other problems--one of the most prevalent being Eischens' workers would come to the house, unannounced, frequently. Once I was in the shower and the worker simply let himself into the house. It is Minnesota state law that workers or landlords must give 24 hours notice prior to entering a premises. We were never given this courtesy. I have since left the duplex but a friend is still living there. They are currently dealing with a gas leak. The gas was shut off and Eischens office would not come repair the problem until the following morning, although it is February in Minnesota and the average nighttime temperature is well below freezing. When Eischens' workers came to fix the problem, they smoked cigarettes in the basement while working with the gas lines. I have many other things I could add to this but my advice is this: Do NOT rent from Jim Eischens. We are working to shut him down. Until that time, many other uninformed college students will be swindled by this slumlord.