Someone please explain to me how it is a lawmaker can rewrite landlord tenant and contract law. Seriously. Once judicial determination is made on the breech of contractual arrangement, the tenant, being found responsible for the breech must move out. Why must the landlord take on financial burdens of a storage unit, for an indefinite amount of time, when a court has determined there are no outstanding obligations to the tenant? This is when a tenant would reach out to family, friends or organizations to store any property or even sell it. Would this also apply to businesses? As for the outstanding storage bill, that looks like another court case. When you look at it, the tenant was evicted for nonpayment of rent, so what makes one even come up with the concept that there will be reimbursement on the storage bill?