Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
C, find a new apartment, and sign a lease in which the OWNER of the property (LANDLORD) acknowledges your right to be there so long as you pay rent and behave yourself.
Legally, no one owes you anything so more of a nightmare for you.
Um, that's not so. B owes C what he promised -- the use of the apartment for the term of the lease. If he can't provide that for whatever reason, he owes at the very least a return of the security deposit and all rent money paid for the time the apartment was not available for C's use. The fact that B's sublet contradicted the terms of A's lease doesn't change that.
Um, that's not so. B owes C what he promised -- the use of the apartment for the term of the lease. If he can't provide that for whatever reason, he owes at the very least a return of the security deposit and all rent money paid for the time the apartment was not available for C's use. The fact that B's sublet contradicted the terms of A's lease doesn't change that.
The lease itself is illegal, though, since B wasn't even the one whose name was on the lease. I think he could be arrested for fraud, but I wouldn't count on any money back. Also it sounds like OP knew the whole thing was illegal, so not sure how much that changes anything (based on the crazy security deposit amount, knowing that B, who she sublet from was the illegal subletter to A and that the master lease prohibits sublets)
Also it sounds like OP knew the whole thing was illegal, so not sure how much that changes anything (based on the crazy security deposit amount, knowing that B, who she sublet from was the illegal subletter to A and that the master lease prohibits sublets)
That is what really complicates the matter for the OP.
Any chance of having a court resolve this in his/her favor is likely to be short-circuited by the Clean Hands principle. "Clean Hands", means that the plaintiff himself has to have not engaged in any violations of the law in connection with the case. If the OP was to take this matter to court, if either A or B could prove to the court's satisfaction that C was aware of the illegality of this arrangement, the chances of obtaining relief are...not good.
When you are asking a court for relief, your case is undermined to a great extent--and is likely negated--by coming into court without, "clean hands".
That is what really complicates the matter for the OP.
Any chance of having a court resolve this in his/her favor is likely to be short-circuited by the Clean Hands principle.
The doctrine of unclean hands doesn't apply to monetary damages. Further, C has not done anything unclean with respect to B, so it wouldn't come into play in a case between C and B.
I wonder if the OP has something in writing about the security deposit.
I bet they paid cash and got no receipt. Doesn't anyone watch Judge Judy anymore? Pay everything by check, if it's a loan get it in writing and never cosign anything for anybody!
C should become the landlord's butler to make for a wild new sitcom!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
