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.
Okay, let's say the OP charges tenant #1 (downstairs tenant) only. Let's say I'm tenant #1 and I find out tenant #2 isn't charged a dime and they also left their heat off.
What to do? Sue.
So, now I go to court and ask the landlord to prove I am the only one at fault.
The landlord brings the plumber into court, who tells the judge, in his opinion, that even though the upstairs tenant also turned off their heat, this had no bearing on the pipes freezing.
What is a judge to think?
Maybe the OP will get lucky and tenant #1 won't figure out he's the only one being charged, and won't sue. I think the odds this will happen are slim.
So, now the OP is in court anyway.
Would the OP be less likely to end up in court by charging both tenants? In this scenario, tenant #2 would have to find out that the plumber says they are not to blame. What are the odds?
Let's say it somehow happens. So, now tenant #2 sues to be relieved of 1/2 the bill, even though they did the exact same thing as tenant #1.
And tenant #2 brings in the plumber who tells the judge that only tenant #1 caused the damage by their negligence.
And the judge asks the plumber, how can you prove that tenant #2's negligence had absolutely no bearing on the frozen pipes with 100% assurance? Or, the OP says to the judge that she found it hard to believe that tenant #2's negligence had no bearing on the situation, regardless of the plumber's opinion...that his opinion did not seem reasonable.
And the judge says, I'll get back to you with my ruling...
I think the OP's chance of staying out of court is better by charging them both. They both know they were negligent. I bet they wouldn't argue with the charges - unless only one of them gets charged.
And I still say this "professional" plumber, is not the god of frozen water physics.
But, this is why there are two lawyers in the courtroom. All of us are using terms like the judge will "most likely" do such and such. In other words, it's not a given either way. It's a matter of hedging bets IMO. And I think the OP is less likely to end up in court by charging both tenants.
Obviously we disagree. Sawdustmaker, I hope you let us know what happens. There are several of us here dying to say to each other, "I told you so" LOL!
Is it my obligation to tell 1st floor that 2nd floor ALSO shut their heat off, but the plumber is telling me that even though 1st floor shut off, the damage that happened was solely due to the fact 1st floor shut their heat off?
Don't worry, I will give an update. I'm wondering how this is going to pan out myself!
Is it my obligation to tell 1st floor that 2nd floor ALSO shut their heat off, but the plumber is telling me that even though 1st floor shut off, the damage that happened was solely due to the fact 1st floor shut their heat off?
Don't worry, I will give an update. I'm wondering how this is going to pan out myself!
I don't think you have any obligation to tell them. I just am thinking that tenants talk to each other, and then the tenant who was charged is going to be up in arms, and you'll have to deal with it.
The fact that the other side of the building had no issues, and they didn't turn off their heat, I think, gives you every right to charge the "offending" tenants.
Sure, they could try and mount a defense based on whether or not you had faulty insulation, etc., etc. (we do love to debate the law here :-)...but I think you should just take the gamble that they will both pay up, knowing they screwed up.
I'm so sorry for your hassles...but I must admit, I love this thread lol!
Interesting. So let's say my tenants go that route:
We did have abnormally cold weather for a few days.
We don't know how long the pipe had been broken, the 2nd floor tenants told us their unit had no water Sunday evening when they returned to the property. The low temps on the Friday and Saturday leading up to Sunday were 0F and -7F (highs of 18F and 26F, respectively). Sunday's high was 34F, the low was 0F.
The pipe in the basement was fixed that Sunday evening and the heat in the 1st floor unit was set to 62F. The following day the rest of the leaks/damage were repaired inside the 1st floor unit. With the heat being on, we had no issues even when two days later in the week (this past Tuesday and Wednesday) when the temps were at 1F and 6F (highs of 12F and 21F).
Now here's the thing....this is a duplex (each side has a 1st & 2nd floor unit), everything is set up exactly the same way in each separate basement. But the other half of the duplex left their heat on, and there were no issues.
If this ends up in court, you have to convince the Judge that it was the fault of the party(s) you want the court to hold liable for the damages. Your role is to show the tenants had a duty to maintain the heat. Your lease has that clause so you have done your part. Pretty much everything else is in the hands of your expert to present to the court a professional opinion that based on A, B & C; it was the lack of heat and only that lack of heat that caused the damages.
Once you established the damages was due to only the lack of heat and the tenants had a duty to maintain the heat, you have to prove to the court that a specific tenant(s) are responsible. Once again, that’s your expert’s job. If the plumber is only willing to testify that in his professional opinion the first floor tenant was the sole cause, that’s the only person you should be suing because that's the only person the court will hold liable.
One more thing as devil's advocate, regardless of what anyone says, your tenants can move to bar your plumber's statement and opinion if that plumber is not in court to be cross examined. The worst thing for a landlord is to show up in court without their expert and the tenants show up with their expert; guess who usually wins....
I believe you know where you stand and what is just, so just do the right thingand you will come out on top.
If this ends up in court, you have to convince the Judge that it was the fault of the party(s) you want the court to hold liable for the damages. Your role is to show the tenants had a duty to maintain the heat. Your lease has that clause so you have done your part. Pretty much everything else is in the hands of your expert to present to the court a professional opinion that based on A, B & C; it was the lack of heat and only that lack of heat that caused the damages.
Once you established the damages was due to only the lack of heat and the tenants had a duty to maintain the heat, you have to prove to the court that a specific tenant(s) are responsible. Once again, that’s your expert’s job. If the plumber is only willing to testify that in his professional opinion the first floor tenant was the sole cause, that’s the only person you should be suing because that's the only person the court will hold liable.
One more thing as devil's advocate, regardless of what anyone says, your tenants can move to bar your plumber's statement and opinion if that plumber is not in court to be cross examined. The worst thing for a landlord is to show up in court without their expert and the tenants show up with their expert; guess who usually wins....
I believe you know where you stand and what is just, so just do the right thingand you will come out on top.
Checks the thermostat and these genius' also turned their heat off - and this is what I don't understand: they ASKED before they left for break if they should and I told them in no uncertain terms that they should NOT and that the lease specifically states that the heat remains set to 62F at all times. I thanked them for ASKING first, and I remember thinking "that could have been an issue".
Folks keep saying send txt messages 2 weeks prior, 1 week prior too, and also send out an email to remind folks.
I'd like to go further and say 1) if you have a bulletin board, post this stuff up there.
2) When communicating to them, also mention why you need to do this... "Heat must be set to minimum [whatever], otherwise, pipes will freeze, and you'll pay for the damages that will far exceed the cost of heat".
I remember a landlord telling me that you need to use a cutting board, otherwise, if cut marks get onto the kitchen countertop, it can't be directly repaired... they'd need to replace the entire block of countertop which is pricy, and YOU will get charged for that.
AFAIK, they don't seem to have done this on purpose... any good tenant and homeowner should NOT be wasting resources. However, sometimes, a bit of wastage is better than the alternative. (like leaving lights on to deter burglars)
Quote:
Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012
What's all this talk about suing? Isn't the bill $600, split among three tenants? They would sue over a $200 charge that they know is their own fault?
I thought it was split 2-ways for $300 each? Either way, if it gets to lawyers, then hiring one of them will likely be more money than that.
What's all this talk about suing? Isn't the bill $600, split among three tenants? They would sue over a $200 charge that they know is their own fault?
Exactly! Send them their portion of the bill, with a due date and be done with it. It would cost them more to sue than it would to actually pay the bill.
And I don't care what anyone says..(plumber and/or resident lawyer-wanna-be) both parties turned off the heat (lease violation) and therefore both parties are responsible.
Folks keep saying send txt messages 2 weeks prior, 1 week prior too, and also send out an email to remind folks.
I'd like to go further and say 1) if you have a bulletin board, post this stuff up there.
2) When communicating to them, also mention why you need to do this... "Heat must be set to minimum [whatever], otherwise, pipes will freeze, and you'll pay for the damages that will far exceed the cost of heat".
I remember a landlord telling me that you need to use a cutting board, otherwise, if cut marks get onto the kitchen countertop, it can't be directly repaired... they'd need to replace the entire block of countertop which is pricy, and YOU will get charged for that.
AFAIK, they don't seem to have done this on purpose... any good tenant and homeowner should NOT be wasting resources. However, sometimes, a bit of wastage is better than the alternative. (like leaving lights on to deter burglars)
I thought it was split 2-ways for $300 each? Either way, if it gets to lawyers, then hiring one of them will likely be more money than that.
If these 'tenants' are old enough to live on their own and old enough to sign a lease, then they are old enough to read and understand the lease.
There are is no need for weekly, daily or hourly reminders....tell them ONCE. Maybe have a print out fixed to the back of their front door and a copy at move in (ok, that makes it twice, lol) The point is, the lease says 'do not turn off the heat'....both turned off the heat.
If these 'tenants' are old enough to live on their own and old enough to sign a lease, then they are old enough to read and understand the lease.
There are is no need for weekly, daily or hourly reminders....tell them ONCE. Maybe have a print out fixed to the back of their front door and a copy at move in (ok, that makes it twice, lol) The point is, the lease says 'do not turn off the heat'....both turned off the heat.
The front door? Hell......I would post it right next to the thermostat!
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.
