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.
IMO...The renter is still owing the LL money, since the LL claims he didn't have the amount in his account which is easily to check.
The bank can track in which account the check went...(I think and hope so)...the tenant still is owing his monthly rent to the LL, since the LL isn't a party in this issue, or the LL must commit fraud which makes no sense to me, too easy to get caught...
If the bank sent the check to the Landlord, and the check was cashed, that would be evidence that the tenant paid the rent. The tenant does not owe the Landlord double rent simply because the check was cashed with a forgery after the Landlord received it.
If the Landlord proves that the check was a forgery (complete with police report, mind, so we have the bank proving that the rent was paid via their records that they sent the check to the Landlord and it was cashed, and the police record indicating that the Landlord suffered a loss due to theft of the check and forgery), then the tenant should not have to pay the rent yet again. The bank may have to make good on the loss, and if they put the original amount back in the tenant's account the tenant does, indeed, need to send that to the Landlord, but they're not responsible for the Landlord's loss after the rent was paid.
At least, that's how I read it (having been a victim of identity theft involving my bank account) and how I think a judge would read it.
Plus, if someone was dumb enough to forge the landlord's signature and then cash the check (or deposit it in their account) using their own name, it's going to be pretty easy to prove what happened.
If the bank sent the check to the Landlord, and the check was cashed, that would be evidence that the tenant paid the rent. The tenant does not owe the Landlord double rent simply because the check was cashed with a forgery after the Landlord received it.
If the Landlord proves that the check was a forgery (complete with police report, mind, so we have the bank proving that the rent was paid via their records that they sent the check to the Landlord and it was cashed, and the police record indicating that the Landlord suffered a loss due to theft of the check and forgery), then the tenant should not have to pay the rent yet again. The bank may have to make good on the loss, and if they put the original amount back in the tenant's account the tenant does, indeed, need to send that to the Landlord, but they're not responsible for the Landlord's loss after the rent was paid.
At least, that's how I read it (having been a victim of identity theft involving my bank account) and how I think a judge would read it.
Plus, if someone was dumb enough to forge the landlord's signature and then cash the check (or deposit it in their account) using their own name, it's going to be pretty easy to prove what happened.
No, the bank that cashed or accepted the stolen/forged check is responsible, if the landlord never received the check, the tennent still owes the rent. Yes its going to be easy to find out who did it, but time consuming, and your right they are dumb. I have been down this road before.
The only way to prove the LL recieved the check is by registered/certified mail.
There are two crimes here. Cheft form the mail and forgery. Both banlks can file a report and the investigations merged.This fotewn happens when mail is stolen and qwuite common. The landlord is still owed his money as he actually has to recive the maney which apparently he didn't. The tranfer type is upto the renter and that didn't happen.This is like sending in a payment in the mail that gets stolen or losss;it not paid.
IMO...The renter is still owing the LL money, since the LL claims he didn't have the amount in his account which is easily to check.
The bank can track in which account the check went...(I think and hope so)...the tenant still is owing his monthly rent to the LL, since the LL isn't a party in this issue, or the LL must commit fraud which makes no sense to me, too easy to get caught...
Well I would think "person X" would cash the check with a fake id. There's no way he would deposit it. That would be idiotic.
No, the bank that cashed or accepted the stolen/forged check is responsible, if the landlord never received the check, the tennent still owes the rent. Yes its going to be easy to find out who did it, but time consuming, and your right they are dumb. I have been down this road before.
The only way to prove the LL recieved the check is by registered/certified mail.
It seems to me that if the check was cashed and the tenant's money has been taken via that check, it would be up to the LL to prove that they did not cash it and to go after whoever did for their money, not the tenant's. Especially since it's not the tenant saying that the check was sent to the LL, but a third party, an institution, the bank that wrote and mailed the check. The check was written by the tenant via their bank, it was sent to the LL, and it was cashed. That should be the extent of the tenant's liability. It's not like it's a "he said she said" situation between tenant and LL.
I'm a LL, by the way, so it's not like I don't sympathize with the one in this scenario, but the tenant should NOT have to pay the rent twice in this situation. They are not responsible for the security or lack thereof of the LL's mailbox or office, nor should they be.
There are several factors that are taken into consideration: bank policies (for the renter's and landlord's banks, as well as the bank where the other person cashed the check), state laws and how the whole thing went down from start to finish.
For example, if someone writes a check out to "cash" and sends it and then someone else gets their hands on it and cashes it, that's negligence on the check writer's part and they will be liable. If the receiver (in this case, the landlord) continually has problems with their mail being stolen and doesn't do anything to prevent that from happening, they could potentially be liable. If the bank where the crook brought the check cashed it without questioning it (and didn't follow their own policies), the could potentially be liable. There are also instances where one party or the other is only partially liable.
It's almost impossible to say right off the bat who is or is not responsible or in this case, if the tenant would have to pay again. There are so many factors that have to be looked at and so many different parties involved.
It seems to me that if the check was cashed and the tenant's money has been taken via that check, it would be up to the LL to prove that they did not cash it and to go after whoever did for their money, not the tenant's. Especially since it's not the tenant saying that the check was sent to the LL, but a third party, an institution, the bank that wrote and mailed the check. The check was written by the tenant via their bank, it was sent to the LL, and it was cashed. That should be the extent of the tenant's liability. It's not like it's a "he said she said" situation between tenant and LL.
I'm a LL, by the way, so it's not like I don't sympathize with the one in this scenario, but the tenant should NOT have to pay the rent twice in this situation. They are not responsible for the security or lack thereof of the LL's mailbox or office, nor should they be.
No, I am a LL and business owner with lots a A/r accounts. I had checks mailed to me that I never recieved. The customer is still resonsible for payment. Most were lost in the mail. A few were stolen.
I have had to have signed noterized statements that I never recieved payment. With a check, there is always a paper trail. The tenant still owes the rent.
If it was not this way tenants would always say " I mailed the check (no proof) and it cleared the bank, I not paying again" ya it was mailed to their buddy!!
No, I am a LL and business owner with lots a A/r accounts. I had checks mailed to me that I never recieved. The customer is still resonsible for payment. Most were lost in the mail. A few were stolen.
I have had to have signed noterized statements that I never recieved payment. With a check, there is always a paper trail. The tenant still owes the rent
Yes but it the onus is on you to prove you didn't receive the check and cash it. If you didn't have to prove that, you could simply claim you didn't receive anyone's check and keep demanding new checks over and over.
Yes but it the onus is on you to prove you didn't receive the check and cash it. If you didn't have to prove that, you could simply claim you didn't receive anyone's check and keep demanding new checks over and over.
Sorry, I have read your posts and your very smart, but your wrong on this one. The onus is on the person that issued the check. They LL does not have to prove anything. The renter will be in default with last fees etc.
Try this, tell your Credit Card company you mailed the check and it was cashed or lost in the mail!! Are they going to charge you the late fees? Are they going to prove they didn't recieve it from you? Who responsible to prove you paid that bill? I'll double dare you to try it. Don't forget tp post your results of this test
Last edited by dick1973; 11-21-2009 at 08:35 PM..
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.
