How would you handle this security deposit situation? (agreement, tenants, rental)
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'm just curious as to why you think you will win if this ends up in court? It was obviously a mistake. I am sure in the law somewhere there are provisions that cover this sort of thing.
I'm no expert, but I do enjoy watching court TV shows. In all cases the burden of the proof rests with the plaintiff. You have to PROVE that the landlord owes you $769. I'm not sure how you can prove that, other than by the lease. The judge is going to say, "Do you have a cancelled check to prove you paid the $769?" When you say, "I did not pay the $769." And you think the judge is going to give it to you?
This has to be one of the strangest questions I have ever seen. If I was a landlord, I would apologize for the clerical error and move on.
If you don't think you are entitled to it then why are you even asking how a renter or landlord would handle the situations and contemplating what "could" happen in court?
You did not pay it, you know you did not pay it, the original lease says you did not pay it so why are you asking about a legal way to steal this money?
I am not asking how to steal a damned thing. I am asking how you would handle the situation if you were the tenant and this happened and how you would handle it if you were the landlord and made this mistake. Why am I asking this? You really can't come up with any possibilities other than wanting the money? How about curiosity? Intellectual stimulation? Boredom? I enjoy conversation? I thought it was an interesting situation and I know how I handled it and how the landlord handled it and am wondering how others would have?
Frankly, now I'm just starting to wonder if a single person is actually going to answer the original questions or if everyone is just going to jump to conclusions and jump on their soap boxes to down-talk someone who they're making an awful lot of assumptions about. Apparently I'm trying to have a gray area conversation in a black and white forum. My bad.
I'm asking for nothing of the sort. I'm asking how you'd handle the situation if you were the landlord/management company and how you'd handle the situation if you were the tenant.
I gather from your condescension that you'd let it slide if you were the tenant. Fair play. What about if you were on the side that made the mistake on the lease?
Obviously, I'd point to the correct copy of the lease, and a copy of *your* $49 check. This is why paper trails were invented.
I'm just curious as to why you think you will win if this ends up in court? It was obviously a mistake. I am sure in the law somewhere there are provisions that cover this sort of thing.
I'm no expert, but I do enjoy watching court TV shows. In all cases the burden of the proof rests with the plaintiff. You have to PROVE that the landlord owes you $769. I'm not sure how you can prove that, other than by the lease. The judge is going to say, "Do you have a cancelled check to prove you paid the $769?" When you say, "I did not pay the $769." And you think the judge is going to give it to you?
This has to be one of the strangest questions I have ever seen. If I was a landlord, I would apologize for the clerical error and move on.
Hey, I appreciate that you actually answered the question -- thank you.
You make good points about the court case. The reason I assumed I'd win is the lease. But you're right -- if they asked if I actually paid it I'd say no and that would be that. But as a landlord, how confident would you be that someone low enough to go to court over a security deposit they didn't pay would tell the truth when questioned? You dismiss the lease as if it's no big thing -- everything I read on this forum tells me otherwise. It's a contract signed by both parties that says $769 was paid as a security deposit. If I were the landlord, that would make me very nervous.
Obviously, I'd point to the correct copy of the lease, and a copy of *your* $49 check. This is why paper trails were invented.
Are you saying that as a tenant you'd ask for the $49 security deposit in addition to the $769 security deposit the lease says you paid? Interesting. A little underhanded sure, but an interesting tack...
The "correct" copy of the lease as you call it, is several years old. The most recent one says "$769".
Hey, I appreciate that you actually answered the question -- thank you.
You make good points about the court case. The reason I assumed I'd win is the lease. But you're right -- if they asked if I actually paid it I'd say no and that would be that. But as a landlord, how confident would you be that someone low enough to go to court over a security deposit they didn't pay would tell the truth when questioned? You dismiss the lease as if it's no big thing -- everything I read on this forum tells me otherwise. It's a contract signed by both parties that says $769 was paid as a security deposit. If I were the landlord, that would make me very nervous.
It isn't a matter of telling the truth when questioned...you have to be able to prove it. Judges are smart, they know people lie in court all the time. The judge will ask for tangible proof that you paid the $769 deposit, and when you have none, that will be the end of your case. Your landlord probably knows this as well, and I bet he is not nervous at all.
It is kind of an unrealistic scenario.
Just to give you an example--many years ago I purchased a minivan. When the state sent the title out, they accidentally sent it to me IN MY NAME, and not the bank, even though the bank technically owned the van because I was financing it. Now, I could say---well my name is on the title, and therefore it's legally binding that the vehicle is mine. But yeah, the bank can also sue me to prove I never paid for the vehicle. It's not as easy as having the right documentation. You need hard evidence. And in the case of the deposit, you cannot claim you have a right to something you never owned to begin with (in this case, $769).
ETA I also think the first lease will supersede the second lease.
It isn't a matter of telling the truth when questioned...you have to be able to prove it. Judges are smart, they know people lie in court all the time. The judge will ask for tangible proof that you paid the $769 deposit, and when you have none, that will be the end of your case. Your landlord probably knows this as well, and I bet he is not nervous at all.
It is kind of an unrealistic scenario.
Just to give you an example--many years ago I purchased a minivan. When the state sent the title out, they accidentally sent it to me IN MY NAME, and not the bank, even though the bank technically owned the van because I was financing it. Now, I could say---well my name is on the title, and therefore it's legally binding that the vehicle is mine. But yeah, the bank can also sue me to prove I never paid for the vehicle. It's not as easy as having the right documentation. You need hard evidence. And in the case of the deposit, you cannot claim you have a right to something you never owned to begin with (in this case, $769).
ETA I also think the first lease will supersede the second lease.
I freely admit I know little or nothing about the court system. But if I were an underhanded lying type, when the judge asked for proof that I paid it I'd point to the lease. How is that not tangible proof? It's a contract signed by the people who drew up the document saying I paid them $769. I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be. If I were the landlord in that situation I'd be plenty nervous.
Why do you think a three-year old lease would supersede a current one?
Apartments can produce copies of payments and ledgers to the judge...can you provide a cancelled ck or receipt for a money order showing you paid that $769?
I wouldn't waste my time on something that was an honest mistake with mistyping.
Why waste our tax dollars trying to fight something your not entitled to?
Are you saying that as a tenant you'd ask for the $49 security deposit in addition to the $769 security deposit the lease says you paid? Interesting. A little underhanded sure, but an interesting tack...
The "correct" copy of the lease as you call it, is several years old. The most recent one says "$769".
No, I meant as a landlord, if some tenant came to me and tried to claim that I owed him/her $720 more.
As a tenant I'd recall that I only paid $49, so obviously both I and the LL were on the same page as to the actual amount of the deposit at the time of the original transaction. Depending on my relationship with the LL, I might bring it up to poke a little fun. Not sure why I'd need or want a corrected copy, but if I did, I'd ask for one. It wouldn't cross my mind to wonder how a judge would see it - since it wouldn't cross my mind to be in court over the $720.
Why do you think a three-year old lease would supersede a current one?
Because it's proof of the mutual understanding between you and the landlord at the time of the original agreement.
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.
