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.
I would imagine they will lie about the condition the house is left in and what not, which means I need to take a lot of good pictures and get them printed to take to court with me.
Just to be sure, the day you take the photos, take some of them with that day's newspaper which shows the date, so the LL can't say they were taken some other time... I've heard some horror stories
I looked up Missouri's landlord-tenant laws and found that they have 30 days to return the security deposit or I can sue them for up to 2x the security deposit. Sounds like if this house doesn't work out I'll be bringing in a cool $1,764.
Just wanted to say that just because a law says you can sue for up to X times the money, that does not mean you will get X times the money. I have seen many times when a place was sold or bought in a forclosure and the first LL didn;t turn over the security deposits to the second LL, judges may enter a judgement of the security deposit but nothing else because the second LL is also a victim. I have also seen where they award a judgement but against the first LL and you now have to go after that person to collect if you can find them. And I have seen them award nothing because the second LL never had your security deposit to return.
So don't count on the security deposit or extar money being retun until the judge rules.
I have also seen where they award a judgement but against the first LL and you now have to go after that person to collect if you can find them.
Wait, what? That's impossible. A judge cannot enter a judgement against someone who is not party to the lawsuit. That violates the most basic principles of due process.
Wait, what? That's impossible. A judge cannot enter a judgement against someone who is not party to the lawsuit. That violates the most basic principles of due process.
It may have to do with how different states write their laws and how they handle trust account for security deposits. If you buy a property from someone and its a rental, the buyer is supposed to get a transfer of security deposits. Until that is done, many states have buried within their laws something that the seller is appointing the buyer as their agent for security deposit trust account on that property until all security deposits are transfered. When you sue, you are supposed to name both but can serve it on the new LL as the landlord and as the trust account agent for the seller. It doesn;t appear to be widespread but my understanding is its a bit more common than most people know and even less common that people know how to use it. What makes it hard is that even if the judge says the funds are due from the first LL, you really have little ways to colect otherwise the second Ll would have tried collecting from the first Ll..
I got the proof of the security deposit back, and the company on the "For deposit only" line is the landlord who claims they never received the security deposit.
Slam dunk
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.
