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.
OP, figure out what it would cost to repair or replace the broken pieces and send a bill to the parents (who are the ones responsible) and to the buyer's agent who was showing the house and not supervising their clients. If they don't pay, take them to small claims court if the amount is high enough to be worth your time and effort.
If you go to court, you will need proof about what the cost would be to replace the broken pieces. You can't just go in and expect the judge to believe whatever you say.
Unless those are jewel encrusted chess pieces, two of them broken probably aren't a big enough claim for the insurance to exceed the deductible.
You have good grounds for not allowing the home to be shown except under special conditions you set.
The lease probably specifies that the house can be shown. My rental lease specifically states that the property will be listed and shown beginning 90 days prior to the lease end, during the hours of 9 am- 7 pm.
The lease probably specifies that the house can be shown. My rental lease specifically states that the property will be listed and shown beginning 90 days prior to the lease end, during the hours of 9 am- 7 pm.
Does it say that you must not be in the house during showings? If not, I suggest you make it a habit of greeting the realtor at the door and staying if there are children visiting. If it is just adults, you can go get coffee or take a walk.
Also, video the condition of the house before each visit as a record. If damage occurs, video the damage so you have before and after pictures.
Does it say that you must not be in the house during showings? If not, I suggest you make it a habit of greeting the realtor at the door and staying if there are children visiting. If it is just adults, you can go get coffee or take a walk.
Also, video the condition of the house before each visit as a record. If damage occurs, video the damage so you have before and after pictures.
I am the landlord and I specifically wrote the lease to specify that the tenant is to have the property in show condition and vacate during the showing. I also specify that she is to have renters insurance to cover her personal belongings.
I won't go to showings. I will most likely schedule one or two myself and pop in or have a friend do so to report on the condition of the house. But I do not forsee an issue because the tenant keeps a clean house. I have only seen one hole in the drywall that will need to be patched.
At some point, there has to be personal responsibility and respect for others' property. The parents and Realtor in this instance owed it to the occupant no harm come to the tenant's property. Attractive nuisance is not a defense for irresponsible behavior. I guess parents and children would have zero responsibilty outside of their homes by this definition.
This is true. That's why the parents are responsible, along with the realtor and the tenant.
At some point, the realtor is responsible, in her capacity as a representative of the owner and the property, to take reasonable precautions nothing is damaged (and no one is hurt) while prospects are viewing hte property.
At some point, a tenant is responsible for leaving out in the open something that is well known to be an attractive nuisance to a child. A game. An unusual game, with many pieces. The tenant is partially to blame for his negligence in leaivng that out, since it was foreseeable that a child would play with it.
In the end, though, the tenant has no proof. If someone wants to admit liability, then that's fine. But if they don't do that, he's outta luck. Someone else may have broken the game previously, but the tenant hadn't noticed.
It's not like having a car parked on the curb, and a child hits it with his bike. Clearly, the child's parents are responsible, since they should've been supervising him. Cars are commonplace and are not attractions to children. They don't lure them in. Like GAMES WITH LOTS OF PIECES do. It's more like a swimming pool, which is an "attractive nuisance." When you have an attractive nuisance, the owner has a higher obligation to protect it from children, or protect children from it.
This is true. That's why the parents are responsible, along with the realtor and the tenant.
At some point, the realtor is responsible, in her capacity as a representative of the owner and the property, to take reasonable precautions nothing is damaged (and no one is hurt) while prospects are viewing hte property.
At some point, a tenant is responsible for leaving out in the open something that is well known to be an attractive nuisance to a child. A game. An unusual game, with many pieces. The tenant is partially to blame for his negligence in leaivng that out, since it was foreseeable that a child would play with it.
In the end, though, the tenant has no proof. If someone wants to admit liability, then that's fine. But if they don't do that, he's outta luck. Someone else may have broken the game previously, but the tenant hadn't noticed.
It's not like having a car parked on the curb, and a child hits it with his bike. Clearly, the child's parents are responsible, since they should've been supervising him. Cars are commonplace and are not attractions to children. They don't lure them in. Like GAMES WITH LOTS OF PIECES do. It's more like a swimming pool, which is an "attractive nuisance." When you have an attractive nuisance, the owner has a higher obligation to protect it from children, or protect children from it.
Youre forgiving bad parenting by blaming the owners. By the above logic a museum is an attractive nuisance and children should be expected to break everything.
I find it strange that anything not part of the house was touched. While I was looking at homes to buy....I found myself feeling uncomfortable walking through a strangers home. I had a personal rule. If it was not something that would come with the homes....I.e. Cabinets, drawers, light switches, doors etc then I kept my paws off. Personally I believe the parents are responsible for replacement since they elected to bring the kiddies along and where negligent in their supervision of them....per the realtors admission. Everyone being responsible? I do not agree.
It's because it was an ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE (like a swimming pool). Something that is KNOWN to attract kids. When someone has such a thing, the owner is under a higher obligation to protect it or children. In the case of a swimming pool, an owner has to protect children (and the pool) by fencing it in and doing other things, since IT'S FORESEEABLE THAT SUCH AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE WILL ATTRACT KIDS, whether you invite them to play with/in it or not.
So it was entirely foreseeable that kids of a prospect would play or fool with a GAME WITH LOTS OF PIECES left out in the open. It would be irresistible.
So the parents are responsible, for not supervising their kids properly. The owner is responsible for putting an attractive nuisance out, knowing it would lure kids to play with it. And the realtor is responsible, in her fiduciary capacity as representative for the owner of the property.
In the end, though, he has no proof. Unless the kids or parents or realtor admit the kids broke it, he's out of luck. The pieces could have been broken at any time. Legally, proof is required. Like an admission or video tape of the incident.
If my place were being shown, I would have automatically known to put something like that away. As well as laptops, small electronics, personal papers, my jar where I keep lots of change, etc.
If he had rental ins. with a low deductible, that's his best chance of compensation, if the parents don't admit liability.
I would NEVER let my home(leased, rented or owned) be shown w/o my wife or myself being home. Sold two homes and both times had people with kids come. The parents are too preoccupied with looking at the house to watch the kids every minute. I told the realtor that if kids are in the house, I will also be in the house.
At some point I will be selling and after reading horror stories... I want to be here! I've seen too many (most) parents let their kids run wild (and too many adults w/sticky fingers)
I am the landlord and I specifically wrote the lease to specify that the tenant is to have the property in show condition and vacate during the showing. I also specify that she is to have renters insurance to cover her personal belongings.
I won't go to showings. I will most likely schedule one or two myself and pop in or have a friend do so to report on the condition of the house. But I do not forsee an issue because the tenant keeps a clean house. I have only seen one hole in the drywall that will need to be patched.
So what if your tenant calls and says $490 of medication (or their signed baseball or speaker or painting) is missing or damaged? Do you expect the tenant tosuffer the loss under $500 deductible? A landlord doesnt causr the place to get broken into, but they do cause the showings.
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.
