|
Hope this is the right place to ask. If not, my apologies.
I paid $550 deposit when I moved into an apartment in the French
Quarter about 2 years ago, for which I have receipt. The landlord was
leasing the building and subleasing the apartments on a month-by-month
lease. He sold his lease to another party. I asked via mail for my
deposit back at that time, 4 months ago, and received no reply. The
new landlord raised the rent while I was at sea, and so I moved out at
the beginning of last month, giving 30 days notice as per the terms of
the old lease. I once again contacted the old landlord, this time by
phone, and he said that the deposits were passed along to the new
landlord. His office manager says there is no record of this, and the
old landlord is responsible. So, both parties deny being responsible
for returning my deposit.
My take on the situation is that the deposit belongs to me, and is
only kept in trust by the landlord, and not his to do as he please
with. Transferring the funds to another party should be with my
knowledge and consent, true? Second, I gave the funds to the old
landlord. While he claims to have passed them on to the new one, I
have no knowledge that he did, and certainly no way to prove to the
new landlord that he did. But a paralegal working for my GF's lawyer,
who only does bankruptcies, divorces, name changes, etc and will not
handle this, says that the old landlord is right and acted correctly.
So who do I take to court? I assume this will have to go through small
claims court, and that I will file this and serve the papers to the
defendant myself because of the amount. I still think it makes more
sense to go after the old landlord, who after all has been very
evasive with me. He did not reply to my letter. He promised to call
the new landlords and did not. I feel like he knows that he is in the
wrong, or at least has doubts. His reaction when I told him I would
take him to court was extremely defensive. He lives way out in
Slidell. The new landlord's office is right in town, and they are an
incorporated business with large holdings in the CBD and French
Quarter and are quite vulnerable to a legitimate lawsuit, and so I
feel the old landlord is more likely to be dishonest than the new one.
I want to take one or the other to court, but I can't afford a
countersuit for suing the wrong one. HELP!
Robinson
Please reply to the group, but if you insist on email, the email
address is a spam dump and you should use:
rmcrusoe at gte dot net
|
| |
| |
<Gave security deposit to landlord; building sold to new owner; moving out;
neither old landlord nor new owner will refund deposit. Each claims the
other is responsible.>
I am not a lawyer, but have owned several rental properties in the past. In
my experience when a building is sold, all the assets and obligations of the
old owner are passed to the new owner. This includes existing leases and
security deposits. Your state may be different, especially since it is
Louisiana where laws are not based on the old English common law.
--
Don in Upstate NY
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:54:57 GMT, "Don Priebe" <priebe@iname.com>
wrote:
<Gave security deposit to landlord; building sold to new owner; moving out;
neither old landlord nor new owner will refund deposit. Each claims the
other is responsible.>
I am not a lawyer, but have owned several rental properties in the past. In
my experience when a building is sold, all the assets and obligations of the
old owner are passed to the new owner. This includes existing leases and
security deposits. Your state may be different, especially since it is
Louisiana where laws are not based on the old English common law.
Indeed. That Louisiana has fundamental differences in law from the
other states can be problematic sometimes, in figuring stuff out.
Another thing is that the building was not sold... only the lease was.
I don't know if that makes a difference or not. It certainly would if
the terms of the transfer stipulated one way or the other. But since
neither party will show me the papers, I guess I have to assume that
nothing was stipulated either way.
I guess I will try to find another lawyer today who will advise or
just handle the case. I think, though, I will end up having to do it
all myself. I just don't know for certain yet which party to sue. I
don't want to include both at this point, though I am not ruling that
out yet. If I include both, then I am knowingly dragging one innocent
party into court. I want to stay on the high moral and legal road on
this.
Robinson
|
| |
| |
|
