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.
Sure they can. Good luck with the text argument but at the end of the day you wrote bad checks; basically the definition of check fraud so stop doing that. They have fees from their bank for attempting to cash those bad check and they also have background check costs and their time for doing so. The question is will they go after it which no one can answer. Btw you wrote two bad checks I would turn you over to the federal authorities for that alone.
Putting a stop on a check is not the same as writing a bad check.
ETA Correcting myself.....I looked the stopped check/bad check issue up on a legal board and Electrician4you is correct....Stopping a check is considered more trouble legally, because it is deliberate and the receiver can legally proceed right away. A bounced check is considered accidental, and the receiver of a bad check has to at least allow the person to try to make it right before any criminal charges can be filed. So, OP keep us posted as to what happens.
Last edited by JanND; 06-25-2017 at 04:28 AM..
Reason: revised comment
A Prospective Tenants may be asked to put down a deposit to secure a property, especially in a competitive rental market.
Most landlords believe that a holding deposit is similar to an application fee and Under the Act, the only deposit that can be taken from tenants is a holding deposit. Once a holding deposit is made it is then negotiated between the prospective tenants and the lessor/agent. When a period is agreed, it should be written on the receipt for the deposit. If you do not put a date of the holding period on the receipt, the Act states that the period is 48 hours.
The Landlord or agent can only take one holding deposit at any one time for the property.
If the prospective tenant does not proceed with the tenancy and advises the lessor/agent within the holding period time frame, the entire holding deposit must be refunded within three days.
The Landlord can not keep the holding deposit . Now if the prospective tenant or tenants fail to notify the Landlord or notify the Landlord of their decision of tenancy within the agreed holding period , this will then forfeit the prospective tenant holding deposit.
When a tenant signs a tenancy agreement after paying a holding deposit, the holding deposit becomes part of the rental bond. Any amounts then become rent in advance.
And here is a snippet regarding whether texts and/or emails are allowed as evidence/proof in PA:
Quote:
With Koch, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has made clear that an individual’s mere association with an e-mail account or cell phone number is an insufficient evidentiary basis for admission of a text message, e-mail, or instant message. A party seeking to introduce electronic communications at trial should be prepared to produce circumstantial evidence that corroborates the identity of the supposed sender. Koch provides some guidance as to what that circumstantial evidence might be: testimony from the sender or recipients, or contextual clues within the message itself. Merely identifying the phone or account from which the message came, however, is not enough.
Take it for what it is worth and wait and see what the 2 attorneys tell you that you stated you have consults with. No one here can give you actual "legal" advice anyway, only their opinions.
Thanks. I was unaware of the 48hr default period. If that's what they're going after me on, not much I can do there despite me doing everything else by the book.
In regards to the electronic communications, it's pretty clear who I am talking to and includes their name, property address, and a response acknowledging who they are.
Some people are still caught up on the stop payments on the checks and I can't edit my inital post. For anyone that jumps to this post, the stop payments were reversed and the bank had no indication that they had tried to cash either - the background/credit check checks or the deposit. If they wanted to, they could go cash them now without issue and would have never known otherwise.
Thanks. I was unaware of the 48hr default period. If that's what they're going after me on, not much I can do there despite me doing everything else by the book.
In regards to the electronic communications, it's pretty clear who I am talking to and includes their name, property address, and a response acknowledging who they are.
Some people are still caught up on the stop payments on the checks and I can't edit my inital post. For anyone that jumps to this post, the stop payments were reversed and the bank had no indication that they had tried to cash either - the background/credit check checks or the deposit. If they wanted to, they could go cash them now without issue and would have never known otherwise.
The problem with electronic communications is no one really knows who is behind it. I can go get a phone number for free off Google voice, and an email address from a billion places, and start messaging myself back and forth with the same information you got from the LL. Even easier is to Photoshop the messages date/time/text/anything else to say what you need it to. They typically don't hold up in court unless the other party admits they sent or received them which then becomes a he said she said thing which goes nowhere. We have all had issues with text messages not being delivered on time or emails we we're waiting on go into the spam folder so you are up against that even if he admits that phone number was his and he sent that information. All takes is one lying jerk to say that wasn't him or he never got the message and your case falls apart.
The problem with electronic communications is no one really knows who is behind it. I can go get a phone number for free off Google voice, and an email address from a billion places, and start messaging myself back and forth with the same information you got from the LL. Even easier is to Photoshop the messages date/time/text/anything else to say what you need it to. They typically don't hold up in court unless the other party admits they sent or received them which then becomes a he said she said thing which goes nowhere. We have all had issues with text messages not being delivered on time or emails we we're waiting on go into the spam folder so you are up against that even if he admits that phone number was his and he sent that information. All takes is one lying jerk to say that wasn't him or he never got the message and your case falls apart.
Yeah, but that's the thing - they (property mgmt company) acknowledged that the landlord/owner had received my message that we withdrew our application. There's really nothing left to question in that regard.
Understood. Would it matter that I sent my withdrawal to the owner of the property instead of the property broker for which the application was sent to? Also, they don't actually have the money for either the background checks nor the deposit since we put stops on them after pur withdrawal. Just wondering if they're able to come at us legally now for lost profits or damages.
No. You just had to give "notice" and as the broker is an agent of the owner, they are basically interchangeable. When you give notice to an agent, you are giving notice to the owner - as they become basically one and the same. Bypassing the agent, just gives notice straight to the owner, instead of to the owner through his agent.
In my opinion they would not win any lawsuit because you did not have contract. If either party could still back out (as in they could still say they rejected your application), there is no contract. If you want to just be sure they don't sue you, send them a letter saying so, is my advice.
Thanks. I was unaware of the 48hr default period. If that's what they're going after me on, not much I can do there despite me doing everything else by the book.
In regards to the electronic communications, it's pretty clear who I am talking to and includes their name, property address, and a response acknowledging who they are.
Some people are still caught up on the stop payments on the checks and I can't edit my inital post. For anyone that jumps to this post, the stop payments were reversed and the bank had no indication that they had tried to cash either - the background/credit check checks or the deposit. If they wanted to, they could go cash them now without issue and would have never known otherwise.
Heck, if you were to have ended up in court, you could tell the judge you were trying to keep the issue out of court by stopping payment rather than having to sue to get the money back lol.
This really is a simple case. But, we love to debate.
No. You just had to give "notice" and as the broker is an agent of the owner, they are basically interchangeable. When you give notice to an agent, you are giving notice to the owner - as they become basically one and the same. Bypassing the agent, just gives notice straight to the owner, instead of to the owner through his agent.
In my opinion they would not win any lawsuit because you did not have contract. If either party could still back out (as in they could still say they rejected your application), there is no contract. If you want to just be sure they don't sue you, send them a letter saying so, is my advice.
See post #22 for info regarding holding deposits. There is a time frame to back out. Sure, they can back out themselves but would lose their money if not done within specified time frame, hence the reason some of us suggested OP just try contacting the LL and explain situation and see if he will let him get his money back. Only other hope to get his money back is that the LL rejects his application.
See post #22 for info regarding holding deposits. There is a time frame to back out. Sure, they can back out themselves but would lose their money if not done within specified time frame, hence the reason some of us suggested OP just try contacting the LL and explain situation and see if he will let him get his money back. Only other hope to get his money back is that the LL rejects his application.
The law you quoted says the tenant can back out before being accepted, which is basic contract law, and he did. The law says the landlord can't then keep the deposit. It's a done deal. The horse is dead.
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.
