I Need Legal Advice...And Your Opinion

[Rev. Powell]

Thanks for your advice.
I had planned all along to be civil and polite when contacting her.
After all, she's a bully, and being rude wouldn't get me anywhere.
But being polite doesn't seem to be working, either.

I e-mailed her and said this:

"I received your letter concerning my security deposit.

Immediately after the flood, I called the building manager and asked about rent.  She informed me that she was not collecting rent and didn't really have any more information for me other than that.  Nobody really knew what was going on as it was kind of crazy in those days following the flood.

I am requesting that you please pro-rate my rent for June and send me the remainder of the deposit.

I did stay there for the first 12 days of the month, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to charge me for those 12 days...which you can take from my deposit.
But I do not feel that I should be charged for the entire month when I didn't stay there the whole time.
Especially due to the extenuating circumstances of the flood.

Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Thank you"

She wrote me back and said:

"All tenants paid a full month's rent for the month of June.If there was not proper written notice given by the tenant in a timely fashion then we were entitled to the full month's rent."

Is she serious!?
How could I give notice in a timely fashion?  It was a damn flood!
What do you think I should do?

I may have misunderstood your first post.  You said the building manager told you "the landlord was not going to collect rent because of the flood."  I interpreted that as meaning he/she told you rent would not be collected for June because of the flood, and that now the landlord was trying to go back on that waiver of rent.

In your e-mail you say the building manager "informed me that she was not collecting rent and didn't really have any more information for me other than that."  That sounds like it could mean she just wasn't collecting rent at that particular time, not that rent was waived.

You still may have a case, but it may be weaker if there was no explicit waiver of rent due to the flood.  Whether you are entitled to an abatement of rent due to a natural disaster depends on Iowa law, which I am not competent to comment on.  I would guess the landlord's alluding to "IA 562A.25,  Fire or casualty damage":

"1.  If the dwelling unit or premises are damaged or destroyed by fire or casualty to an extent that enjoyment of the dwelling unit is substantially impaired, the tenant may:

a.  Immediately vacate the premises and notify the landlord in writing within fourteen days of the tenant's intention to terminate the rental agreement, in which case the rental agreement terminates as of the date of vacating...

2.  If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security recoverable..."

This is why I focused on the issue of a possible waiver of rent.  You likely wouldn't win under that statute, but if you reasonably believed from what the building manager told you that rent would not be collected, and you relied on that communication, an enforceable waiver of rent may have been created. 

The idea is that they can't assure you "you don't have to pay rent because the building was flooded", then change their minds months later and try to collect the rent anyway.  Or lie to you by assuring you you don't have to pay rent when they're secretly planning to take it out of the deposit anyway.   

My next step would be to ask her to explain: you're confused, it doesn't seem reasonable that you should have to pay to rent an uninhabitable apartment.  Ask her to cite the specific provision of the lease that entitles her to collect rent for you.  That will let you know her strategy to defend herself, and buy you some time while you consider your next step.  After that, you can explain that you still think you're in the right and want to take it to court, and see if she's suddenly willing to settle on half the rent then.     

Your story seems to have turned even pro-landlord Cheeze around to your side, so it's obvious you have a compelling tale to tell.  Judges are human, and if you appear as the victim and the landlord is truly unpleasant, a judge may just bend over backwards to try to find a way to make the landlord lose. 

But it's still up to you whether you want to go to court and risk losing your time and the filing fee mostly to prove a point and stick it to a bad person.

[BTM]

I'm speaking as a landlord/property manager that deals with this BS everyday. If someone is calm and polite with me they'll get a lot more consideration. If they are hateful, emotional, rude, demanding, indignant, etc ... you won't get squat.

Good thing you're not a property owner here in Illinois.  From what little I know, the laws here are totally screwed up when it comes to property owners.  This one women I know, she had a guy living in her apartment who had NOT paid the rent in months, and she literally could do anything to force him out because of the law.  I was like, "Why, did you just go in there, change the locks and, 'You're not getting in till I get my rent.'?"  And she said she legally couldn't.  Took them SIX MONTHS to finally kick the guy out, and he still hadn't paid rent since then.

I dunno all the detail, but man, that is messed up.

As for your situation, though, yeah, I recommend trying to talk to her first. 

(I gotta say though, what type of apartment is this were rent is only $210 a month?  Heck, I'm in public housing, and I'm not even getting THAT good of a deal...)

[Ash]

Thanks for the advice Rev.
I do understand that it's not "official" advice.

I wrote her back a few minutes ago and used some of the phrases you used, but re-wrote it so it's in my own words.  Don't worry, I won't ever mention your name or any advice you've given me. 
In my response, I mention Wilma.  Wilma was the building manager.

I wrote:

"I need you to please explain.  I'm confused.  It doesn't seem reasonable that I should have to pay to rent an uninhabitable apartment. (for the days I was not there)
I'm asking you to cite the specific provision of the lease that entitles you to collect rent from me.

I could not give written notice in a timely fashion (no one could) because it was a flood of great magnitude. 
No one expected it and none of us were prepared for it.
Most of us believed that we would be able to move back in soon after the flood waters receded, but that didn't happen.
In the days after the flood, I thought that I would soon be moving back in, at which point I would promptly pay June's rent.
That turned out not to be the case and I was unable to return.

I reasonably believed from what Wilma told me that rent would not be collected, and I relied on that communication.  Therefore, an enforceable waiver of rent may have been created.

You're probably hoping that I will just go away and drop this matter, but that's not going to happen.
I'm asking you nicely.
Please, pro-rate the rent for the 12 days I was there and return the rest of my deposit to me.

Thank you"

[Frogger]

Sounds good.

My partners experience at one flat was the land lord had got his mate to fix in the electric shower. (the handy man)

Not sure where this guy learnt how to wire up a shower in a bathroom from, as he left exposed wiring around the bath.

Lets just say its doubtful the Land Lord will renew the next 8 month tenency agreement.

[Ash]

"Electric shower"???  What's that?

So far, my old landlord hasn't written me back.  Hopefully she got the message and I'll get a check in the mail sometime soon.

[Doggett]

"Electric shower"???  What's that?

So far, my old landlord hasn't written me back.  Hopefully she got the message and I'll get a check in the mail sometime soon.

Good luck, Ash.

[Jim H]

I'm speaking as a landlord/property manager that deals with this BS everyday. If someone is calm and polite with me they'll get a lot more consideration. If they are hateful, emotional, rude, demanding, indignant, etc ... you won't get squat.

Good thing you're not a property owner here in Illinois.  From what little I know, the laws here are totally screwed up when it comes to property owners.  This one women I know, she had a guy living in her apartment who had NOT paid the rent in months, and she literally could do anything to force him out because of the law.  I was like, "Why, did you just go in there, change the locks and, 'You're not getting in till I get my rent.'?"  And she said she legally couldn't.  Took them SIX MONTHS to finally kick the guy out, and he still hadn't paid rent since then.

I dunno all the detail, but man, that is messed up.

As for your situation, though, yeah, I recommend trying to talk to her first. 

(I gotta say though, what type of apartment is this were rent is only $210 a month?  Heck, I'm in public housing, and I'm not even getting THAT good of a deal...)

It's not just your area that have difficult rules for evicting people.  I'm reminded of Pacific Heights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq4wnMLjVoM
	Small | Large

But yeah, good luck Ash.  People like that make the world a worse place.

[Ash]

After being ignored for over 2 weeks, I wrote her back and said this:

"I wrote to you over two weeks ago.  It is now Feb. 4th and I have yet to receive a response from you.
I take it from your silence that you've decided to ignore me.
That's too bad.  Especially since I compromised and asked you nicely to return my (pro-rated) security deposit.

I told you that I was not going to go away and I meant it.
So here I am again.  Asking you to please return this money to me.

I will ask you nicely once again...
Please return this money to me.

If you do not comply, I will sue you in small claims court.

Do you really want to go to court over this?
There are extenuating circumstances in this case.  The flood.
And seeing how the very courthouse we will argue this matter in was directly affected by the flood, it is highly likely that the judge might rule in my favor.
(and even if it wasn't, I still have a very good case)

I don't want to take you to court, but I will if I have to.

Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Thank you"

-------------------------

She wrote back and said this:

"Be sure to do your research before you proceed.  Sorry, but I cannot help you.  I have treated you like everyone else at the Roosevelt."

-------------------------

What do you think?
I'm betting that others have told her they were going to sue her.
What would you do if you were in my position?

[Doggett]

Is it an idle threat or are you really gonna sue ?

You'll probaly win, but how much are the legal fees ?

[Ash]

It costs $50 to sue someone in small claims court.
It wasn't an idle threat.  I meant it.
If and when I sue her, I'll also sue for court costs.

She's f***ed over about 100 other tenants at the Roosevelt.  The least I can do is drag her sorry ass to court and inconvenience her.

[Doggett]

It costs $50 to sue someone in small claims court.
It wasn't an idle threat.  I meant it.
If and when I sue her, I'll also sue for court costs.

She's f***ed over about 100 other tenants at the Roosevelt.  The least I can do is drag her sorry ass to court and inconvenience her.

Go for it !

Sue her.

All the other tennants will be rooting for you.

[ghouck]

Eat her up Ash, Then go contact every other tenant and give them the recipe for success. Also, make sure the others make it a point to mention that she KNOWS, due to the first suit, that she OWED them the money, and maybe they can try and get the $50.00 court fee back also. In some states, if you KNOW you are wrong, and are just betting on people not taking you to court or not wanting to pay the court fee, you can get the court fee back.

Then, when it's all over, KICK HER IN THE TACO!

[Rev. Powell]

She wrote back and said this:

"Be sure to do your research before you proceed.  Sorry, but I cannot help you.  I have treated you like everyone else at the Roosevelt."

-------------------------

What do you think?
I'm betting that others have told her they were going to sue her.
What would you do if you were in my position?

Based on her "be sure to do your research" quote I would guess she is going to rely on that statute I cited (IA 562A.25) that says you have to give 14 days notice that you are terminating.

If you are going to win, then I think you will have to convince the judge that the reason you did not give notice or take any action to see what your rights were was because the building manager told you she was not collecting rent. 

"Judge, the REASON I didn't send any letter or investigate my options was that building manager explicitly told me she wasn't collecting rent.  She worked for the landlord and she led me to believe I didn't have to pay for June, which seemed pretty reasonable considering that the place was flooded and I couldn't possibly live there anyway."

As for whether you should file a small claims suit or not... no one can answer that except for you.  I can't tell whether you'd win
or lose; it depends on the type of judge you draw.  A real hard-ass without much imagination will probably just look at the statute and say, "you lose."  A judge who is more lenient may think that you suffered an injustice, and look for a way to help you out. 

I do think that often people go to court not because of the money at stake, but just because they don't like being bullied and they want someone to officially tell them they were right (or at least, not crazy).  If you're one of those people you probably want to go to court no matter what we think.     It just depends on whether the hassle is worth it, to you; there's no right or wrong answer.         

[ghouck]

I don't see how a judge could possibly rule against Ash. An obvious part of a lease agreement is that you enter an agreement for the purpose of having a place to live. Once the landlord stopped being able to provide that, I see no reason once should continue to pay. If she could charge you for the remainder of the month that you could not live there, what is to stop her from charging you for the next month or two, or three? This isn't a situation where one side didn't know what the other was doing, you couldn't live there, that was obvious. The 14-day notice thing is BS, you didn't see the flood happening 14 days in advance, as the day you had to move out is the day the lease should be null, and the day you should have to stop paying. But, maybe I'm too logical for the legal system. .

[Rev. Powell]

I don't see how a judge could possibly rule against Ash. An obvious part of a lease agreement is that you enter an agreement for the purpose of having a place to live. Once the landlord stopped being able to provide that, I see no reason once should continue to pay. If she could charge you for the remainder of the month that you could not live there, what is to stop her from charging you for the next month or two, or three? This isn't a situation where one side didn't know what the other was doing, you couldn't live there, that was obvious. The 14-day notice thing is BS, you didn't see the flood happening 14 days in advance, as the day you had to move out is the day the lease should be null, and the day you should have to stop paying. But, maybe I'm too logical for the legal system. .

Oh, they could rule against him... he's got a very sympathetic case, but someone could rule against him.  There are some judges who are lazy, and if there is a statute that seems on point they'll just follow it.  Or, they believe they have to follow ever bad laws, and don't believe in being an "activist" judge.

The 14-day notice thing is BS, but its a law that the legislature specifically chose to put in place to protect landlords at the expense of tenants.  The 14 day notice rule is retroactive; after your apartment becomes unliveable, you're supposed to tell your landlord within two weeks you're exercising your right to terminate the lease.  Of course, tenants don't know that unless they talk to a lawyer at the time.