|
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:
[Landlord makes numerous allegations, refuses to return deposit, and wants
more money].
First, the two posters above do not appear to be lawyers nor familiar with
TX LL/T law, nor do their comments appear to be much more than knee-jerk
reactions, thus I'd take their comments with a heavy dose of salt.
You say the lease was month to month. If a mo-mo tenancy was actually set
out in the lease, I don't think their assertion that you waived your right
of refund by moving out within 12 months has any merit under TX law. (You'll
find much of the applicable law at this link, starting at section 92.101:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pr.toc.htm; also note secs.
92.001-.006.) TX law requires the LL to either refund your deposit within 30
days of surrender of premises or to send you an accounting detailing their
reasons for failing to do so. If they didn't, TX law creates a rebuttable
presumption that they acted in bad faith, which, if the presumption holds in
a trial, would entitle you to triple your deposit, plus $100, in damages,
among other things. Additionally, they are wrong about their obligation re
when to provide an accounting because the 30-day obligation after surrender
is not waivable under TX law (IOW, the lease doesn't control in this
connection, the statute does).
As to other matters you mention, part of the problem is that the facts are
disputed, so the case would shake out largely on who the factfinder ended up
believing at trial. For instance, if the factfinder believes that you left
the place a mess, you will probably be obligated to pay the LL's
*reasonable* cleaning expenses. If you don't have some way of showing that
you left the place in clean condition, it may become a swearing match. As
such, you will need to garner as much evidence (aside from your own word --
eg, pics, other persons' observations) to make your case. Also, were you
required to maintain things like the landscaping, such that they can charge
you for tree trimming and mowing the grass? What does your lease say about
that? Were you required to wax the floors? Seems that unless the lease says
otherwise, your obligation extends only to cleaning the floors, not waxing
them.
Even if their allegation re the second dog is true, I have doubts whether
they can recover an additional pet deposit/fee *and* cleaning fees, etc. It
may depend in part on how your lease is worded, but they seem to be piling
on the expenses allegedly due to the additional dog over and over, and the
law generally prohibits more than a single recovery. Also, as you allude, if
they claim they were aware of a second dog and did nothing about it, they
may have waived any right to charge you an additional deposit (note that
normally a deposit is only there to secure payment for damages that occur
later, and is not for them to keep will nilly).
Some of the legal claims the LL made (eg, about their obligation to account
to you for the security deposit) seem to be pulled from their nether regions
rather than based on the law. If so, the TX Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(DTPA) creates an affirmative cause of action for "representing that an
agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does
not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law," as well as other
potential claims. (Look here, taking note of sec 17.46(12):
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/bc.toc.htm )
If you want to sue them, you probably have to sue in the county of the
rental property. Also keep in mind that even if you are in the right and the
law favors you, judges and juries are not always friendly to tenants,
especially those from out of town (though sometimes they get pissed off when
a LL screws over a T). Further, if you sue, they may hire a lawyer and you
will be at a great disadvantage. As such, understand that if you do sue,
you could end up humiliated and owing them money.
|
| |
| |
Mark Yanis wrote:
First, the two posters above do not appear to be lawyers nor familiar with
TX LL/T law, nor do their comments appear to be much more than knee-jerk
reactions, thus I'd take their comments with a heavy dose of salt.
[Mark then gives much good advice. read it]
If you want to sue them, you probably have to sue in the county of the
rental property. Also keep in mind that even if you are in the right and the
law favors you, judges and juries are not always friendly to tenants,
especially those from out of town (though sometimes they get pissed off when
a LL screws over a T). Further, if you sue, they may hire a lawyer and you
will be at a great disadvantage. As such, understand that if you do sue,
you could end up humiliated and owing them money.
True, but anywhere that has as statute like the one Mark described
(Sounds like Oregon's), has lawyers who limit their practice to "tenant
rights". This is particularly true if the statute provides for
attorney's fees. I don't do that here (I mostly represent landlords).
But there are about four names that my clients don't want to ever see as
"plaintiff's attorney" on a complaint. The OP should see if he can find
such a lawyer before making any final decisions.
JH
|
| |
| |
|
