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.
Don't even bring up the car. Let him look ridiculous when he's trying to
explain that to the judge. Don't worry. You're going to win this!
Unless, of course, she did hit his car. Or perhaps he was lied to by the prior owner and never receive her security deposit. Sure, she's going to win this for sure.
Or perhaps he was lied to by the prior owner and never receive her security deposit.
Meaningless. You need to read Chapter 704 of Wisconsin statutes. That will explain that the sucessor in interest is liable for the security deposit regardless if they received it or not from the previous landlord.
Unless, of course, she did hit his car. Or perhaps he was lied to by the prior owner and never receive her security deposit. Sure, she's going to win this for sure.
In Wisconsin, the scope of what they can withhold the deposit for is limited to damages to the rental unit or unpaid rent, fines, or utilities. Any claims have to be itemized and provided to the renter within 21 days. Normal wear and tear can't be claimed. Read the law... https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tatutes/704/28 . Do you see any provisions for a landlord's personal property outside of the rental unit? If he thought the OP hit his car, he should have filed a police report or a small claims case of his own, assuming he has proof.
The bottom line is that the OP didn't receive the deposit or an accounting of what was being withheld within 21 days, as required by law. That's all that matters. The rest of it is irrelevant. Do some research on Wisconsin landlord tenant law and you'll see. He'll probably file a counterclaim for his car and a whole bunch of other crap, but he's not going to get it unless the OP agrees to it. The small claims case is about the security deposit on the rental unit - that's it. I went through this process in Wisconsin three years ago. My former LL also tried to bring a whole bunch of other made up and irrelevant things into the case to try and make me look bad. The only thing the judge cared about was whether or not the deposit was returned or itemized within 21 days. I have no doubt the OP will win assuming they don't owe any rent, fines, or utilities. Even if they do it'll be deducted from what they're claiming.
Did you even read what you linked to? There's a pretty obvious part about nonstandard rental provisions. We have no idea if any such provisions were in her lease. So yes, there could have been language in her lease to cover these sorts of damages. If his vehicle is owned by his business then damaging his vehicle could easily fall under any sort of property damage provision that was inserted as part of a nonstandard rental provision.
Furthermore, we don't know the description of the premises as included in her lease. If her lease included a portion of the parking lot then any sort of damage incurred in the parking lot would be covered under this statute.
With respect to security deposits, have you ever heard of fraud? A prior owner could easily provide fraudulent records to the new owner, and the new owner could think that he doesn't owe anything to the tenant. This happens when a purchaser of a multi-unit building doesn't do their due diligence by contacting the owners directly prior to closing. So the landlord could think that he has no obligation if he's been fooled into thinking that he doesn't have any security deposit on account for this tenant. Furthermore, he could have mailed it and it got lost in the mail.
The OP also said she negotiated to stay for an extra month. That would define a new tenancy and one could argue as to which of the two tenancies governs this agreement. It becomes more confusing if the new tenancy was verbal.
I have no idea what the evidence will reveal in this case. But I have 25 years worth of landlord/tenant experience and can tell you that a case like this might appear simple can easily go against the tenant just as well. You two obviously have little experience with this sort of thing and seem to think that it's a slam dunk when the security deposit isn't returned.
1) there are no non standard rental provisions in the lease except about carpet cleaning. he told me he was not going to charge for carpet cleaning during the walk through.
2). lease didnt include anything about the parking lot.
3). there was no fraud regarding the deposit. new landlord referred to returning the deposit in an email to me before apt was vacated. deposits were included at the time of the property sale. old owner gave new owner copy of lease showing deposit. old owner is an 89 year old man, local resident. new owner is realtor in same small town. different realty company presided over the sale. all on the up and up.
4). i didnt negotiate to stay an extra month. i negotiated to stay an extra 5 days. at the end of the 5 days at the walk through, landlord was not satisfied with the cleaning of the garage, so charged me for an extra 5 days so i could get the garage completely cleaned out (part of the stuff in the garage belonged to the prior owner, but I didnt want to create more havoc, and it did need more cleaning (we were sick with the flu when moved out) so I paid the 5 days I negotiated for, plus an extra 5 days, and it was all in writing by email. NO new lease was signed with the new landlord for the 2 months and 10 days under his ownership.
5) i do think i have a very good case, but i realize its not always cut and dried. he blatantly ignored the law, however, and made up his own rules about returning my deposit. he even commented that the apt and garage looked satisfactory by phone. he just had some kind of accident and accused me of hitting him 3 days later because it was convenient and because he thought he could get out of returning my deposit by accusing me. Its definitely going to be one of my more stressful but interesting experiences.
Well, its over. It was totally different than expected. They sent us to mediation right away. We spent 3 hours mediating. Got my deposit back, 1/2 the filing fee, and got an agreement that he would not countersue or hassle me any further about his car. It was exhausting. So glad that's over!! Hope I never have to go to court again!! Thanks for all of your input and support.
Well, its over. It was totally different than expected. They sent us to mediation right away. We spent 3 hours mediating. Got my deposit back, 1/2 the filing fee, and got an agreement that he would not countersue or hassle me any further about his car. It was exhausting. So glad that's over!! Hope I never have to go to court again!! Thanks for all of your input and support.
Congratulations, I'd call that a major win for you!
You mean that you didn't get double your deposit back or force him to disclose his finances to everyone, or get a chance to place a lien on his property? Gosh, who would have expected that outcome?
Yousah wrote:
"You mean that you didn't get double your deposit back or force him to disclose his finances to everyone, or get a chance to place a lien on his property? Gosh, who would have expected that outcome?"
I SETTLED the case. If it had not been settled, this is how it works in WI:
If a landlord does not return the deposit within the 21 day time limit, withholds all or part of the deposit without providing a detailed and itemized statement within the 21 days, or withholds all or part of the deposit for unauthorized items, a tenant may then sue the landlord in Small Claims Court for double damages and actual attorney fees (if an attorney is used).
The Small Claims Court will order the party owing money under the decision to fill out a financial disclosure form and send it to you within 15 days after the judgment was filed. If the defendant fails to give you the required financial disclosure form, you may file contempt paperwork with the court.
The above was even mentioned by the court before we went into mediation. So I guess I wasnt so far off after all, huh? By the way, what is with your attitude?
Bull. Why did you 'settle' if you could have gotten double your money back? It's because it doesn't work the way that you say it does.
You came on this forum to ask a question and didn't like the answers you got. Many of us have a lot of experience in these areas and you continued to tell us how it is suppose to work. But what you are lacking is any real world experience of how things really happen with these sorts of claims. And you were wrong. And yet you still parrot out the same BS from the statutes that have very little basis on what actually happens in the courtroom.
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.
