|
I moved out of a mobile home that was a dump. I sent a demand letter
to my Landlord asking for my depost back and I recieved this letter:
Re:Explanation Concerning your Security and Key Deposits, Violations
and Damage Charges, for
"Rented home"
Our lease on page one, section #4, that you entered into with our
company on October 8, 2004, section #4a states: "You waive Your right
to refund of all Deposit( s) if you move out of residence within 12
months of
the beginning of this rental agreement." Because you moved out prior to
September 2005, you have waived your right of refund. Despite your
waiver, if you would have been in compliance of our lease, then we
would have been willing to refund your deposit if you rented our
property for 11 months.
However, because you had two dogs that you kept on our property with
you during our lease agreement you were in violation of our agreement.
You only paid a pet deposit for one dog and you said that you weren't
going to have any more pets on our property. You owe us $500.00 for an
unauthorized pet fee plus $200 pet deposit because of this pet
violation as stated on page #2, pp/ #10 of our lease. Since you let the
dogs live inside our mobile home with you, the carpet is saturated with
urine and the smell is untenable. Please read these documents that you
agreed to prior to making claims against us. We, hereby inform you not
to telephone us again, but rather to send all future correspondence in
writing.
When we signed the lease with you and tenant, in October 2004, you paid
the last month's rent at that time. The last month's rent was applied
to April 2005. You and Jennifer said that you were going to reside at
home until April 30, 2005. Therefore, we have until May 31, 2005 to
send you an explanation letter concerning your deposits and the fees
that we are charging you for violations and damages to our property.
Following is an accounting of the funds that we retained and a bill for
the amount that you owe us:
Deposit Retained due to early move out $625
other deposits(my key deposit that says I get all my money back when I
return the keys in the Lease) $59.33
Pet charge Owed Pet deposit owed $500
Carpet Shampooing, defleaing, deodorizing $200
trash removal $150
tree trimming & hedge trimming $45
grass cutting $45
cleaning bathrooms & kitchen $35
cleaning & waxing floors $75
Total Amount Owed To Landlord by Tenant
Please pay $1,150.00 by June 18, 2005 to avoid further penalties and
further legal action.
Where do I go from here? Can I sue these people from out of town. I
live in a Texas town that is far away from San Antonio where I used to
live. All this stuff they sent me is bogus so they can retain my
security deposits. My Lease did state that I don't recieve my deposits
back until the 11th month. I don't believe it is legal though because
the Lease was a month to month Lease. I didn't see this until later
unfortunately.
I didn't realize they were going to make all this stuff up about me
having an extra unauthorized dog, but there is language in my lease
that states that they can come in and remove unauthorized pets. Why
didn't they just come remove the dog that supposedly was there that
really wasn't there. I had one dog in the house that was authorized
and I thoroughly cleaned the place before I left. The house needed all
new carpet anyways and the kitchen floor was shot.
Anyone have any suggestions about how I should proceed from here.
So Far I have returned the keys to the place and the Landlord is
stating that I lived there another 30 days but I really didn't.
Wouldn't my lease from an apartment out of town prove that I really
didn't live there? After the 30 days is when I sent a demand letter
and now its been since the 9th when she recieved it.
|
| |
| |
In article <dm1t81lc8h763d1mnv2hhnv5sbrc3nats4@4ax.com>,
kieran2230@yahoo.com wrote:
Where do I go from here? Can I sue these people from out of town. I
live in a Texas town that is far away from San Antonio where I used to
live. All this stuff they sent me is bogus so they can retain my
security deposits.
Where does one start? You broke a lease, so you are the one
in the wrong. You don't go sue anyone...you are the person
who is going to get sued. Moving out early because the place
is a dump is not a legal reason. Had you documented code
violations and escrowed the rent, then you might have a case.
But since you just skipped out, you are the party at fault.
It looks like your options are to (1) pay up, (2) try to
negotiate, (3) get sued, lose, get a lot more fees added
on for court costs, and have your credit ruined for 10
years, or (4) skip out and make sure that you never get
found.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
Andy writes:
It looks to me like they have dotted all their "i's" and crossed all
their "t's" .
I suspect that, without any evidence to the contrary, you owe them the
amount
they have specified.
You would be well advised not to show up in court since they seem to be
familiar with the law, and you do not.
Andy (ex-landlord, who had tenants much like
yourself)
|
| |
| |
In article <50gv81lhnqqetjedjphvtluen5hlsfavbb@4ax.com>,
John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
In article <dm1t81lc8h763d1mnv2hhnv5sbrc3nats4@4ax.com>,
kieran2230@yahoo.com wrote:
Where does one start? You broke a lease, so you are the one
in the wrong.
He didn't break the lease, it was month-to-month and he gave proper
notice.
You don't go sue anyone...you are the person
who is going to get sued. Moving out early because the place
is a dump is not a legal reason. Had you documented code
violations and escrowed the rent, then you might have a case.
But since you just skipped out, you are the party at fault.
See above.
It looks like your options are to (1) pay up, (2) try to
negotiate, (3) get sued, lose, get a lot more fees added
on for court costs, and have your credit ruined for 10
years, or (4) skip out and make sure that you never get
found.
If his story is correct, the landlord lied about a second dog (and I
know of landlords who do things like that; I have an ex-landlord who
tried to seriously overcharge me until I demanded he show me the
clause in the lease, which it turned out wasn't in the copy I signed.)
He doesn't owe anything for the landlord lying. Of course, if it
comes to a lawsuit, the question is who will be believed. Does he
have neighbors who can testify about the number of dogs? Did he get a
dog tag for one or two dogs?
Seth
|
| |
| |
Andy wrote:
Andy writes:
It looks to me like they have dotted all their "i's" and crossed all
their "t's" .
I suspect that, without any evidence to the contrary, you owe them the
amount
they have specified.
You would be well advised not to show up in court since they seem to be
familiar with the law, and you do not.
Andy (ex-landlord, who had tenants much like
yourself)
Oh great, now we're telling people not to show up in court? You must be
kidding! Don't show up without a lawyer, now that's probably good
advice. But not at all? Even if you can't get a lawyer, you should pyt
the plaintiff to their proof. Never allow a default.
JH
|
| |
| |
John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net> wrote:
Andy wrote:
Oh great, now we're telling people not to show up in court? You
must be kidding! Don't show up without a lawyer, now that's
probably good advice. But not at all? Even if you can't get a
lawyer, you should pyt the plaintiff to their proof. Never
allow a default.
There are (though rare) times when that is as good as anything
else. In California if a complaint or accompanying statement of
damages does not state damages, or if you are pretty sure you are
going to lose and the amount of damages claimed is less than you
think you may owe, defaulting could be better than showing up.
Because in those cases a plaintiff cannot get more than he asked
for in his complaint. But if you show up and the plaintiff later
proves greater damages, he'll be able to get more.
Stu
|
| |
| |
John Hyde wrote:
Andy wrote:
Oh great, now we're telling people not to show up in court? You must be
kidding! Don't show up without a lawyer, now that's probably good
advice. But not at all? Even if you can't get a lawyer, you should pyt
the plaintiff to their proof. Never allow a default.
JH
I actually had a month to month lease. I'm just wondering where to go
from here. Do I let them sue. Do I respond to their demand for money?
I'm lost where i should go from here
|
| |
| |
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net> wrote:
There are (though rare) times when that is as good as anything
else. In California if a complaint or accompanying statement of
damages does not state damages, or if you are pretty sure you are
going to lose and the amount of damages claimed is less than you
think you may owe, defaulting could be better than showing up.
Because in those cases a plaintiff cannot get more than he asked
for in his complaint. But if you show up and the plaintiff later
proves greater damages, he'll be able to get more.
Stu
Well, that's true in Oregon as well. My main point is that advising
someone to allow themselves to be defaulted, via usenet post, is truly
terrible advice.
Better: find a lawyer who will give a low cost consultation, (but who is
competent in this sort of matter) show them the lease and take their
advice once they have looked it over.
For example, IIRC, the OP said that the lease is month to month, but the
security deposit is forfeited if he did not stay for a year. Without
actually looking it up, I'm pretty sure that suc a provision would be
liiegal in Oregon. The effect would be that the tenant is bound for a
year and the landlord can "no cause" evict on 30 days notice. If the OP
was in Oregon, I'd be interested in looking at it just for the
opportunity to make a few bucks off of the landlord.
Regards,
JH
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:35:22 -0400, John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net>
wrote:
. . . .
For example, IIRC, the OP said that the lease is month to month, but the
security deposit is forfeited if he did not stay for a year. Without
actually looking it up, I'm pretty sure that suc a provision would be
liiegal in Oregon. The effect would be that the tenant is bound for a
year and the landlord can "no cause" evict on 30 days notice. If the OP
was in Oregon, I'd be interested in looking at it just for the
opportunity to make a few bucks off of the landlord.
I'd concur. ORS 90.300(5) limits the use of security deposits in
Oregon to covering damages for breach of the rental agreement and
damage to the property other than reasonable wear and tear.
Daniel Reitman
|
| |
| |
In article <49vj915hisi4odqcaq6b6e1lv29rjd5b6v@4ax.com>,
John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net> wrote:
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
Well, that's true in Oregon as well. My main point is that advising
someone to allow themselves to be defaulted, via usenet post, is truly
terrible advice.
Better: find a lawyer who will give a low cost consultation, (but who is
competent in this sort of matter) show them the lease and take their
advice once they have looked it over.
For example, IIRC, the OP said that the lease is month to month, but the
security deposit is forfeited if he did not stay for a year.
"As quoted" by the original poster, the document _could_ have been
month-to-month, with a security deposit required. Said deposit being
*automatically* returned to the renter after the 11th month, _even_though_
they were still renting there. i.e., they've shown themselves to be
a good/reliable tenant, the landlord doesn't feel the need to keep
holding onto (and paying interest on!) that money.
I have seen documents written that way.
Without
actually looking it up, I'm pretty sure that suc a provision would be
liiegal in Oregon. The effect would be that the tenant is bound for a
year and the landlord can "no cause" evict on 30 days notice. If the OP
was in Oregon, I'd be interested in looking at it just for the
opportunity to make a few bucks off of the landlord.
Regards,
JH
|
| |
| |
In article <49vj915hisi4odqcaq6b6e1lv29rjd5b6v@4ax.com>,
John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net> wrote:
Well, that's true in Oregon as well. My main point is that advising
someone to allow themselves to be defaulted, via usenet post, is truly
terrible advice.
I think there is a big difference between listing options and
giving advice. In this case, if the OP was planning to move
to Belize and never return to the US, perhaps leaving now and
ignoring the legal action would be perfectly acceptable option.
It might not be the best move or an optimal decision, but it
remains as an option. Everyone gets to make their own decisions
in life, even if it is a decision that you would never make.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article <49vj915hisi4odqcaq6b6e1lv29rjd5b6v@4ax.com>,
John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net> wrote:
I think there is a big difference between listing options and
giving advice. In this case, if the OP was planning to move
to Belize and never return to the US, perhaps leaving now and
ignoring the legal action would be perfectly acceptable option.
It might not be the best move or an optimal decision, but it
remains as an option. Everyone gets to make their own decisions
in life, even if it is a decision that you would never make.
-john-
A very good point. I agree there is nothing wrong with listing options.
but that's not what "Andy" said. Here is his post:
=================Begin Quote====================
Andy writes:
It looks to me like they have dotted all their "i's" and crossed all
their "t's" .
I suspect that, without any evidence to the contrary, you owe them the
amount they have specified.
You would be well advised not to show up in court since they seem to be
familiar with the law, and you do not.
Andy (ex-landlord, who had tenants much like yourself)
================End Quote========================
That sure looks like "Advice" to me, even if it is based on "Andy's"
assumption that the tenant is a deadbeat. I think the assumption is
totally unjustified based on the original post. I also maintain that
any such advice needs to be heavily qualified, and only with a full
understanding of the defendant's circumstances.
Cheers,
JH
|
| |
| |
I actually had a month to month lease. I'm just wondering where to go
from here. Do I let them sue. Do I respond to their demand for money?
I'm lost where i should go from here
I hope that this may help a small amount since you are now worrying about
the landlord suing you. This was in Colorado.
My daughter at college rented a house with some roommates. Then they took on
a new roommate who turned out to be an unbelievable disaster. (I don't
remember what if any approval the landlord may have given for the new
roommate but I believe there might have been some approval.)
They couldn't get rid of the roommate so the original tenants including my
daughter moved out to get away from her. I don't remember which came first
but our daughter (really me) wrote a letter to the landlord demanding her
deposit back. The landlord wrote her a letter with all kinds of claims,
including rent for the remainder of the lease, for money vastly exceeding
her deposit and, of course, refused to return her deposit. In the absence of
such a letter by the landlord within the prescribed amount of time (30
days?), he would have been liable for triple damages - (triple the deposit)
and his claims would have been forfeited.
We didn't pursue the deposit and the landlord didn't pursue additional
damages. That was the end of the matter.
So, the LL may sue you or the LL may simply let the matter drop and you may
sue the LL or you may let the matter drop.
Ivan
|
| |
| |
|
