Mathieu Verbeeck and Catherine Crevels, tech couple and evictors of Mission mother and daughter

Screen Shot 2016-06-23 at 10.17.14 AM

SF Magazine reports:

Though S.F. has proven to be an inhospitable place for renters the last several years, the circumstances surrounding this eviction are particularly startling. It seems that Malliett’s new landlords—Mathieu Verbeeck, a VP of product development at Mubi, and Catherine Crevels, a marketing manager at Intuit—are testing out a novel strategy for ejecting tenants. They contend that Malliett and her daughter are causing a “nuisance” by living in a unit that lacks the proper permits. The Board of Supervisors has already blocked landlords from evicting tenants of illegal units simply because they are illegal, but here the owners are taking a different approach—one that tenants’ rights advocates are concerned will create a worrying precedent.

“This is the first time we’ve seen a tenant accused of nuisance for living in an illegal unit,” says tenant rights attorney Joseph Tobener, whose firm is representing Malliett. And what, pray tell, is the nuisance cited in the legal notice? “Defendant’s usage of gas or electrical appliances is dangerous.” That’s right: Only in San Francisco do you stand to lose your rent-controlled apartment for boiling water.

Read on for the whole story.

6 Responses to “Mathieu Verbeeck and Catherine Crevels, tech couple and evictors of Mission mother and daughter”

  1. Sarah Schoellkopf says:

    Catherine Crevels and Mathieu Verbeeck are really playing below the belt by going this route. And the fact that the city may be allowing this is unsettling. Claiming a “nuisance for living” issue for Michelle Malliett using her stove is just ridiculous. This is very unfair.

  2. pastido says:

    Slimy. If they didn’t want an illegal unit, they could just ask her to leave, pay her off and not put the blame on her. When you buy a property, you know it has an illegal unit. The sellers have to declare it. So it shows what sort of people these losers are.

  3. Florida Calling says:

    Whoa, missionmission, doxxing much?

    I get why you’re reporting on the story, and it sounds like an important story to tell, but this sounds an awful lot like you’re putting out a Google bomb on these people. I mean, why are their names specifically important in the headline? And why is it important that they are a “tech couple”? Would this evection tactic be acceptable if, say, they were schoolteachers instead?

    I have a long appreciated your levelheaded reporting of the many difficult social and economic issues facing this neighborhood, but I do not see how this kind of behavior is helpful at all. Creating more personal animosity here is not going to solve anything.


    • Pacific Standard Simon says:

      Untwist your knickers. The story is from SF Magazine, and was also reported by the Chronicle website. And you’re reading far too much motive into a cut-and-paste blog entry.

    • Dennis Conkin says:

      Oh, spare me, sweetheart. I think their faces should be posted on every telephone pole within a mile radius of that dwelling, so the neighborhood knows exactly who they ar

    • troll says:

      Yeah, but schoolteachers haven’t been doing that to people around here. I’m sure this couple has lawyers to defend them, so step off your high horse.