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.
The 2009 tenant has proof of residency elsewhere in 2009.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777
Who signed the renewal leases for 8 years?
The original lease signed in 2008 has language that states that the lease automatically renews on a month-to-month basis after the 1-year period was up. Therefore, after the 1-year period, the lease was renewed on a month-to-month-basis for 8 years and no new signatures or leases were required.
I wonder if this is just a case of a collection agency doing "skip tracing." They found a name associated with that address and also associated with the other tenant (the one evicted in 2017) and now they are just trying to scare someone into paying.
The 2009 tenant contacted the landlord requesting a copy of the lease upon which they are claiming unpaid rent, and they mailed it. Also, the court case in which the 2017 tenant evicted Tenant C proves that the 2017 tenant was either living in the same unit, or was no longer in possession of the unit but was renting the unit to Tenant C and was evicting Tenant C.
It is unknown whether the 2017 tenant ever signed a lease with Landlord A that replaced the 2008 original lease.
The 2009 tenant has requested audio court records of the eviction hearing of Tenant C in order to discover more details.
I wonder if this is just a case of a collection agency doing "skip tracing." They found a name associated with that address and also associated with the other tenant (the one evicted in 2017) and now they are just trying to scare someone into paying.
I think you may be right. There appears to be a rash of collection agents that have picked up old debts (2000-2010), many of which have been paid, and they are attempting to intimidate people by threatening to file a suit. It has happened to a few people I know. This is one specific company out of Texas that has been contacting people about 10 and 15-year-old debts. They checked with the Secretary of State, the TX State Atty and Houston DA--the company does not legally exist.
I think you may be right. There appears to be a rash of collection agents that have picked up old debts (2000-2010), many of which have been paid, and they are attempting to intimidate people by threatening to file a suit. It has happened to a few people I know. This is one specific company out of Texas that has been contacting people about 10 and 15-year-old debts. They checked with the Secretary of State, the TX State Atty and Houston DA--the company does not legally exist.
In 2018, the 2009 tenant contacted Landlord A disputing the debt, and asked for the lease, and Landlord A mailed the lease, along with a letter that states that the debt is valid and owed and that the 2009 tenant is responsible. Also, the collection agency that Landlord A sold the debt to in 2017 is a real and legal collections company.
However, if in fact a new lease was signed replacing the 2008 lease, or if the original 2008 lease was amended after the 2009 tenant moved out, then the 2009 tenant would no longer be liable. However, leases are not registered in a public database, but are private documents between the landlord and tenant, and therefore it would be difficult for the 2009 tenant to discover whether or not a new lease was signed or the original lease was amended. Landlord A could easily deny that a new lease was signed.
I wonder if this is just a case of a collection agency doing "skip tracing." They found a name associated with that address and also associated with the other tenant (the one evicted in 2017) and now they are just trying to scare someone into paying.
Yes. This is a common practice and not does mean that the OP owes the debt. Debt collectors call family members or anyone who could conceivably tricked into paying he debt. Unless they can show the OP is liable for the debt (which should pop up on his credit report as a default of some sort), then he does not owe anything.
The 2009 tenant has checked court records for a judgement (eviction) against the 2017 tenant, and there is not one. Therefore, the 2017 tenant was never actually evicted. What can be concluded from this?
We can conclude that is good news for the 2009 tenant. Had they been named in any eviction proceedings, their fight would have been significantly more difficult.
Quote:
The 2017 tenant's court case against Tenant C was dismissed without prejudice, and there was no judgement entered in that case. Does this mean the judge asked to see the original lease, and saw that it said subleasing was not allowed?
It's possible. It's also possible that a settlement was reached between the two tenants (though court records usually denote this).
Quote:
The 2009 tenant's original lease with the 2017 tenant did not allow subleases. Because the 2017 tenant subleased the unit in 2015, the 2009 tenant believes this situation will end up in his favor.
The 2009 tenant really has very little to be concerned about, IMO.
The 2009 tenant has proof of residency elsewhere in 2009.
Which will probably be more important when it comes to dealing with the debt collector and getting this removed from their credit.
Quote:
The original lease signed in 2008 has language that states that the lease automatically renews on a month-to-month basis after the 1-year period was up. Therefore, after the 1-year period, the lease was renewed on a month-to-month-basis for 8 years and no new signatures or leases were required.
The thing is though, that renewing the lease requires either a direct act (signing a renewal/new lease) or an indirect act (continuing to occupy the residence). If the 2009 tenant had moved out, then they could not have agreed to renewing the lease by their indirect action, and they can't be bound to lease terms by the direct or indirect actions of the 2009 tenant. A lot of the other posters in this thread seemed to be under the impression that the 2017 tenant having remained would have continued to bind the 2009 tenant to the renewals. That is simply not how contract law works, and those posters are wrong. Thankfully, a few mentioned that this point is largely contested on any proof the 2009 tenant might have had on their intention to leave.
In the hypothetical event that this went before a judge, the 2009 tenant would simply need to state that they would have had discussions with both the 2017 tenant and Landlord A about their move to another residence at the conclusion of the original lease. Even absent some objective proof (and most judges would probably not expect a tenant to keep that proof for almost a decade) of such notice, there are enough facts present to where most judges would almost certainly release the 2009 tenant from any obligation, especially in tenant friendly states like Oregon.
One more question though. You mention that the residence was sold and that there is "Landlord A". When was the property sold, and has the current landlord had any involvement in this fiasco?
Yes. This is a common practice and not does mean that the OP owes the debt. Debt collectors call family members or anyone who could conceivably tricked into paying he debt. Unless they can show the OP is liable for the debt (which should pop up on his credit report as a default of some sort), then he does not owe anything.
Yes, it's quite possible the debt collector got ahold of the original lease and is simply going after the 2009 tenant, because frankly, they don't care who pays.
I had a friend several years back who witnessed a rather serious car accident one night and stopped to assist. He wasn't actually involved in the accident other than as a witness and stopping to render assistance to those involved, and he gave a written statement to the police officers that arrived. About a year later, he came to me for help because a debt collector was threatening to sue him to recover money that was somehow owed to someone after this accident. Several calls to the debt collector--including their "managers"--were made. No amount of explaining that my friend was just a witness and had no liability in the matter seemed to resonate with them.
We finally got tired of playing nice and simply involved the Attorney Generals of our state, the debt collectors' state, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, at which point the debt collector apologized and dropped the issue.
The 2009 tenant recovered documents today showing the exact date that he moved to a different location. And it shows that the 2009 tenant actually broke the original 2008 lease; he did not stay the full year. This is obviously not something in favor of the 2009 tenant. However, the amount sent to collections was not for rents in year 2009, but for unpaid rents accrued in year 2017.
A summary of this case after collecting many documents is now revised as follows:
- The 2009 tenant and the 2017 tenant both signed a lease with Landlord A that has the following terms:
---The lease was signed in 2008
---The lease was for 1 year
---The lease automatically renews IF no one notifies Landlord A of any change in tenancy
---The tenants are jointly and severally liable
---Subletting is not allowed
- The 2009 tenant broke lease and moved out before the initial 1-year period was up
- The 2009 tenant failed to notify Landlord A
- The property is sold in 2014 to a new owner; the lease apparently survives
- The 2017 tenant violates the lease by subleasing it to Tenant C in 2015; the 2009 tenant has found a court case documenting this in which the 2017 tenant sued Tenant C for unpaid rents in 2017, but it was dismissed without prejudice.
- The 2017 tenant moved out at some point between 2015 and 2017; Tenant C moved in in 2015.
- The amount awarded in the eviction case to the 2017 tenant was far less than the unpaid rents incurred by Tenant C.
---The 2009 tenant suspects this means the judge reviewed the original lease and saw that subletting was not allowed.
---The 2009 tenant hopes he can get this judgement amended to release him from liability.
- No eviction judgement exists against the 2017 tenant. Only Tenant C was evicted, and he was evicted by the 2017 tenant.
- The property has already been re-rented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II
One more question though. You mention that the residence was sold and that there is "Landlord A". When was the property sold, and has the current landlord had any involvement in this fiasco?
It is unknown at this time. The 2009 tenant is awaiting audio records of the court case of the 2017 tenant vs Tenant C.
The 2009 tenant recovered documents today showing the exact date that he moved to a different location. And it shows that the 2009 tenant actually broke the original 2008 lease; he did not stay the full year. This is obviously not something in favor of the 2009 tenant.
Not so fast on that one.
Quote:
---The lease automatically renews IF no one notifies Landlord A of any change in tenancy
And there's your out. Now, I'm not saying you should outright lie, should this ever go to trial (extremely unlikely) but they can't really prove you didn't notify them...unless you admit it.
Quote:
- The property is sold in 2014 to a new owner; the lease apparently survives
That's highly unlikely in my opinion, but we can't be sure yet.
Quote:
---The 2009 tenant hopes he can get this judgement amended to release him from liability.
Was the 2009 tenant named in that suit and/or judgment?
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.
