Most of you remember that I was flooded out of my home last June.
This is video I shot on June 12th:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN9LG-8IcF0
I was forced to evacuate the building and was never able to return to live there.
Eventually, I was able to go back and get my things. But as of June 12th 2008, no tenants were allowed to live there.
In the beginning of the month of June, I hadn't paid rent. I was late.
I was going through tough financial times and had told the building manager that I would be a little late paying rent.
The flood happened on June 11th-12th. Just a day before, on the 11th, I obtained the money to pay rent but couldn't pay them because everyone (including the building managers) had evacuated. Only a small handful of us tenants, including me, remained.
Around noon on the 12th, I evacuated.
We were told by the building manager that the landlord was not going to collect rent because of the flood.
We were allowed to keep our things in our apartments at no charge but we were not allowed to live there.
Cut to present day...
I spoke with the landlord on the phone a few weeks ago and she told me that I needed to mail my keys to her in order to get my security deposit back.
I sent them to her this past Monday, January 5th.
Today, I received a letter that read:
"According to my records you did not pay June, 2008 rent and so I am applying your security deposit in the amount of $210.00 to those charges. The total monthly due was $260 less the $210 security deposit leaves a $50 balance."
Can you f***ing believe that!? The nerve of that b**ch!
We were told that they weren't going to charge us rent and here she is taking my security deposit to cover the rent she told us we didn't have to pay.
I suppose this question is mostly for Rev. Powell as he is a licensed attorney.
But I also would like to hear your opinions on this matter.
What do you think?
Should I sue her in small claims court? It's not the paltry amount of $210. It's the principle of the whole thing.
Do you think I've got a good chance of winning?
Is the rent pre-paid for the month?
It seems that even if they had a claim for rent, if you did not spend any time past the 12th in your apartment, that you should not be liable for the full month of rent.
I Could be wrong.
If you have nothing in writing about not paying rent then you do not stand much chance.
Sounds like a nasty land lord but I have seen worse.
Quote from: Ash on January 08, 2009, 10:26:47 PM
We were told by the building manager that the landlord was not going to collect rent because of the flood.
I'd suggest tracking down the building manager and getting him to sign a statement to that effect. That way it's not just your word against hers if you go to court.
First there is a filing fee for small claims, you pay it. Take that out of any gain.
Second, pick your battles really $200 give or take isn't worth fighting over. You lost $210, she lost a building.
Third, you got what $1200 or more in FEMA money?
If you still feel it's unjust, pick up the phone, call the landlord and ask her to explain the deposit refund. Be polite, you get more flies with honey than you do vinegar. Perhaps there was a error on her part, perhaps not ... communication is key.
I agree with Cheeze. Talk it over with her and see what happens. Give her a chance to explain and reach a resolution privately. Don't think about legal action until you see how that goes. People like to jump the gun and go straight to the courts, but legal action should be a last resort.
And for that matter, $210 is not worth the cost and inconvenience to yourself. Don't do it just to make a point. When I saw the amount, I was actually kind of relieved. I thought she was trying to bill you for the last seven months. That would have been worth suing over. She wants a month's rent, and you did get almost half a month in the apartment. So, really, she's screwing you out of $125. It's disappointing when you expected your deposit back, but in terms of being screwed over, it's a small amount.
First off, I am not licensed to practice law in Iowa. What I write below is personal, and not professional, advice. There is no lawyer/client relationship between us. There could be strange legal quirks existing only in Iowa that would make any legal advice I could give incorrect. (I have to get in the habit of making these disclaimers).
1. I definitely agree with Cheeze & Andy that it's best to talk to her directly before going to small claims court. Also, be polite, but firm that you are correct. Tell her exactly what the building manager, her agent, told you. She is legally bound by his decision; if he gave you a break he wasn't authorized to, then her beef is with him, not you. Don't threaten to take her to court. If it's obvious that she's not going to listen to reason, then just tell her you still believe you're right and you'll have to look into other options.
2. The fact that there is nothing in writing doesn't doom you. Writing is just the best evidence, it's not the only evidence.
3. If you do go to court, it would be best to have the building manager go with you and testify that he stated the rent would be waived for that month because of the flood. If he won't, then try to get a sworn/notarized statement from him. Otherwise it's your word against hers and you may well lose.
4. Your other option, if you can't get any kind of testimony from the manager, is to get other tenants to testify your version of the story. If the manager told them the same thing, you should be OK.
5. If you do go to court, be as calm, factual and unemotional as possible when you testify.
As for whether you should just forget it because it's a small amount of money, that's up to you. From what you've said, you have a non-frivolous case. Small claims courts exist for exactly this kind of dispute. I personally would forget it, but everyone's different.
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.
Not knowing the terms of your lease, your rent should have been prorated from the 1st to the 12th, divide your monthly rent by the days in the month, times the days you were there and that should be a fair 'guestamation' of what you owed, some places charge late fees (I do) and if the rent isn't paid by a given date then there is a additional fee, (unless prior arrangements are made - I'm not all bad) when you move out with a balance if any it will come out of the deposit, which normally is a full months rent. So only $210 is pretty sweet.
Now you have extenuating circumstances with the flood, so that works in your favor. Small claims court tend to lean in the landlords direction as for every great tenant (like yourself) out there is there is about 1000 crappy ones that move off, owing money, leaving more damage than the deposit will cover and then they have the nerve to want there deposit back. So while your situation is very unique keep that in mind if you decide to pursue legal action, which I do not recommend you might not find the courts all that tenant friendly.
Quote from: CheezeFlixz on January 09, 2009, 08:12:39 PM
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.
Not knowing the terms of your lease, your rent should have been prorated from the 1st to the 12th, divide your monthly rent by the days in the month, times the days you were there and that should be a fair 'guestamation' of what you owed, some places charge late fees (I do) and if the rent isn't paid by a given date then there is a additional fee, (unless prior arrangements are made - I'm not all bad) when you move out with a balance if any it will come out of the deposit, which normally is a full months rent. So only $210 is pretty sweet.
Now you have extenuating circumstances with the flood, so that works in your favor. Small claims court tend to lean in the landlords direction as for every great tenant (like yourself) out there is there is about 1000 crappy ones that move off, owing money, leaving more damage than the deposit will cover and then they have the nerve to want there deposit back. So while your situation is very unique keep that in mind if you decide to pursue legal action, which I do not recommend you might not find the courts all that tenant friendly.
The small claims courts are tenant unfriendly because, as you said, lots of people come to them with BS claims. If the situation is as Ash describes, there are no facts we're not aware of, and most importantly he can
prove what the building manager said, a judge will look at him differently.
I suspect that the landlord will probably offer to prorate your rent for June. After she makes that concession it's probably not worth pursuing any further.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on January 09, 2009, 08:27:26 PM
The small claims courts are tenant unfriendly because, as you said, lots of people come to them with BS claims. If the situation is as Ash describes, there are no facts we're not aware of, and most importantly he can prove what the building manager said, a judge will look at him differently.
I could write a book ... and that's just this year and it's what January 9th.
What I find amazing is how a 10 year old 20" TV is valued at $1200.00 ... I got that old last Nov, I laughed, the Judge laughed and they looked confused. As usual I won, so far I'm about 829-0 not a bad record. Then again if I'm wrong I admit it, I don't need a judge to tell me.
Ash, did the landlord do this to other tenants, if so how many? Say there are 20 other tenants in this situation, 20 x $210.00 = $4200.00, that's a fair amount of money. If this has been done to other tenants you could all approach her with a reasonable demand for your money back, be polite but firm. If you get no response you could sue the landlord as a group, I imagine that a group of former tenants would have a better chance of winning than just one tenant, might be worth looking into.
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?
She has the money, and she's throwing the ball back in your court hoping you'll just forget about it and go away. I'd be sorely tempted to take her to small claims court just for being a b***h. Is it just me, or do those couple of sentences somehow manage to come across as smug?
Actually, if all tenants paid for the full month of June, perhaps they are all entitled to a refund of half a month's rent. That might be worth looking into. Or you might just hint to her that, in the interest of fairness to all, you might be pursuing such action. Then see if she thinks holding back half your deposit is worth calling that bluff.
I'd have to point out that I wasn't given proper notice regarding the flood, I'd advise her to take up this failure of flood notice with the almighty. Otherwise I'll expect to see a prompt refund of my pro-rated deposit or we call settle this in court, your choice.
Quote from: AndyC on January 15, 2009, 08:03:18 PM
I'd be sorely tempted to take her to small claims court just for being a b***h. Is it just me, or do those couple of sentences somehow manage to come across as smug?
Not at all.
Trust me, this woman is one of the most cold-hearted and ruthless bi***es I've ever come across.
She simply
does not care.
She's an uppity, 50-something rich b***h who drives a Lexus, looks down her nose at people and is almost impossible to talk to. Like I said before, she's a bully.
One thing that totally blew me away was the ring on her finger.
The fact that a man actually married her is unbelievable.
Quote from: Ash on January 15, 2009, 06:15:34 PM
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.
Quote from: CheezeFlixz on January 09, 2009, 08:12:39 PM
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...)
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"
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.
"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.
Quote from: Ash on January 20, 2009, 12:13:19 PM
"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.
Quote from: BTM on January 15, 2009, 11:18:49 PM
Quote from: CheezeFlixz on January 09, 2009, 08:12:39 PM
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
But yeah, good luck Ash. People like that make the world a worse place.
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?
Is it an idle threat or are you really gonna sue ?
You'll probaly win, but how much are the legal fees ?
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.
Quote from: Ash on February 05, 2009, 06:34:51 PM
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.
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!
Quote from: Ash on February 05, 2009, 06:28:46 PM
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. :smile: It just depends on whether the hassle is worth it, to you; there's no right or wrong answer.
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. .
Quote from: ghouck on February 06, 2009, 01:21:13 AM
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.