Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-21-2018, 05:41 PM
 
16 posts, read 9,877 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II View Post
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.
The 2009 tenant did not notify the landlord. But the 2009 tenant also has no knowledge of:
- Whether or not the landlord became aware
- Whether or not the 2017 tenant told the landlord
- Any other leases were signed, or the original lease amended

IF Landlord A became aware that the 2009 tenant moved out (such as by entering the unit to do a repair to the property), is Landlord A legally entitled to keep the 2009 tenant on the lease anyway, or is Landlord A legally obligated to remove the 2009 tenant from the lease?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II View Post
That's highly unlikely in my opinion, but we can't be sure yet.
The 2009 tenant wonders how to find out if the lease survived the change in ownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II View Post
Was the 2009 tenant named in that suit and/or judgment?
The written court case does not name the 2009 tenant; the only 2 parties are the 2017 tenant who is named as the landlord, and Tenant C, who is the defendant.

The 2009 tenant does not know if he is mentioned otherwise in audio court records, and he is waiting on those records.

It has now occurred to the 2009 tenant that receipt of the original 2008 lease is not enough to prove that a debt is owed, or that the 2009 tenant owes it.

The 2009 tenant is now contemplating sending a certified letter to the 2014 landlord and requesting a complete payment history, record of last payment, and other documentation demonstrating what was owed and why and by whom.

The 2009 tenant also wonders, if the 2014 landlord became aware of the subletting (violating of the lease) and chose not to terminate the lease at that time, how can he expect to enforce any other part of the lease (requiring the 2009 tenant to pay for unpaid rents accrued in 2017)?

The answer may lie in this:
IF Tenant C had possession of the unit in 2017,
and IF the 2017 tenant no longer had possession,
and IF the unpaid rents that were sold to collections were incurred by Tenant C in year 2017,

Given that subletting was not permitted and given that the 2009 tenant was never made aware of the subletting and never gave permission for the subletting,

How can the 2009 tenant possibly be held liable for those rents--rents incurred by an illegal sublet? The 2009 tenant could argue that the 2014 landlord should have known the occupancy status and should have terminated the lease for lease violations at the time. And because the 2009 tenant never knew of or agreed to the illegal sublet, the 2009 tenant cannot be held liable for damages incurred by Tenant C to the unit. After 30 days of the 2017 tenant's lack of possession, the 2014 landlord should have seen the unit as abandoned for legal purposes, evicted Tenant C and the 2017 tenant, and taken possession.

Landlord A and the 2014 landlord were both extremely negligent, in that neither of them knew or cared who was occupying the unit for years.

Last edited by TheyDidWhat; 09-21-2018 at 05:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2018, 05:06 AM
 
9,952 posts, read 6,623,246 times
Reputation: 19656
If the 2009 tenant is not named in the judgment, he does not owe the debt. There is nothing else to consider. Quit these mental gymnastics and move on with your life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2018, 10:23 AM
 
16 posts, read 9,877 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict View Post
If the 2009 tenant is not named in the judgment, he does not owe the debt. There is nothing else to consider. Quit these mental gymnastics and move on with your life.
The 2009 tenant has had the debt reported on his credit reports with all three credit bureaus and a debt collection company has been calling and mailing. The 2009's mental gymnastics are an effort to restore his credit and stop the collections company.

The 2009 tenant appreciates all the help and input received thus far from this forum, and apologizes for the lengthiness of it all, as it does seem to go on and on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2018, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
14,561 posts, read 23,012,670 times
Reputation: 10356
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict View Post
If the 2009 tenant is not named in the judgment, he does not owe the debt. There is nothing else to consider. Quit these mental gymnastics and move on with your life.
You should read the thread again. The lawsuit was between one tenant and his sublessee. While it is a very solid argument in the 2009 tenant's case, it is certainly not the be all end all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2018, 12:57 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
14,561 posts, read 23,012,670 times
Reputation: 10356
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheyDidWhat View Post
The 2009 tenant did not notify the landlord.
I understand that. What I'm saying is that the landlord cannot prove that unless the tenant admits it.

Quote:
IF Landlord A became aware that the 2009 tenant moved out (such as by entering the unit to do a repair to the property), is Landlord A legally entitled to keep the 2009 tenant on the lease anyway, or is Landlord A legally obligated to remove the 2009 tenant from the lease?
Absent some very fancy contract wording and a very landlord friendly jurisdiction, then yes, the landlord would have to remove the 2009 tenant from the lease. Basic contract law dictates that for one to be bound to a contract, they must have agreed/consented as such. The landlord could have pursued the 2009 tenant for any money owed under the original lease, but that is all.

Quote:
The 2009 tenant wonders how to find out if the lease survived the change in ownership.
It almost certainly did.

Quote:
The 2009 tenant is now contemplating sending a certified letter to the 2014 landlord and requesting a complete payment history, record of last payment, and other documentation demonstrating what was owed and why and by whom.
Don't do this. Deal only with the debt collector. More on that later.

Quote:
The 2009 tenant also wonders, if the 2014 landlord became aware of the subletting (violating of the lease) and chose not to terminate the lease at that time, how can he expect to enforce any other part of the lease (requiring the 2009 tenant to pay for unpaid rents accrued in 2017)?

The answer may lie in this:
IF Tenant C had possession of the unit in 2017,
and IF the 2017 tenant no longer had possession,
and IF the unpaid rents that were sold to collections were incurred by Tenant C in year 2017,

Given that subletting was not permitted and given that the 2009 tenant was never made aware of the subletting and never gave permission for the subletting,

How can the 2009 tenant possibly be held liable for those rents--rents incurred by an illegal sublet? The 2009 tenant could argue that the 2014 landlord should have known the occupancy status and should have terminated the lease for lease violations at the time. And because the 2009 tenant never knew of or agreed to the illegal sublet, the 2009 tenant cannot be held liable for damages incurred by Tenant C to the unit. After 30 days of the 2017 tenant's lack of possession, the 2014 landlord should have seen the unit as abandoned for legal purposes, evicted Tenant C and the 2017 tenant, and taken possession.

Landlord A and the 2014 landlord were both extremely negligent, in that neither of them knew or cared who was occupying the unit for years.
I wouldn't get bogged down in this, it is ultimately irrelevant for the issue at hand. Here is what I would do if I was the 2009 tenant:

1) When the debt collector calls, go ahead and answer. Deny knowing anything about the debt or having received any letters. Ask them to send something in writing and refuse to discuss the matter further.

2) When the letter comes, send a basic dispute letter back to the debt collector. Don't bother with the long form ones used on some online forums. All it needs to say is that you're disputing the debt and requesting complete information about where this debt originated from and how the total was arrived at. Send this certified mail, return receipt.

3) If they come back with anything that would have happened after the original expired, simply send another certified letter stating that the 2009 tenant had vacated the rental at the expiration of that original lease and anything that happened after that point is not his responsibility. If they come back with anything related to that original lease, simply remind them that both the statute of limitations and the 7 year reporting period under the Fair Credit Reporting Act have expired and that listing this on the 2009 tenant's credit is a violation of federal law.

4) Wait and see what they do. They'll probably do nothing, but maybe they'll go ahead and remove it from the credit reports. If not, simply send them one more certified letter giving them ten business days to comply or complaints will be filed with the CFPB, FTC, Attorney Generals and anyone else who might have any sort of jurisdiction on the matter. Follow through if needed.

It's not a quick fix, but it's almost guaranteed to solve the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2018, 01:41 AM
 
Location: 53179
14,416 posts, read 22,427,310 times
Reputation: 14476
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheyDidWhat View Post
Two tenants sign a lease for a rental property in Oregon in 2008. One of them moves out in 2009. The other one stops paying rent in 2017 and then is evicted in 2017.

Neither tenant thought to notify the landlord of the tenant that moved out in 2009.

The unpaid rental debt is sold to collections in 2017, and collections is pursuing both tenants.

Is the tenant who moved out in 2009 liable for the unpaid rent accrued by the one that got evicted in 2017?

How can that be possible?
im confused...or stupid.


But if the person moves out in 2009 and stops paying rent, then the landlord is not getting that money? Because tenant 2 is not covering both rents...or is he?
Did it take landlord 10 years to realize he missed all those years worth of money? ?

Last edited by glass_of_merlot; 09-24-2018 at 01:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2018, 10:51 AM
 
16 posts, read 9,877 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II View Post
1) When the debt collector calls, go ahead and answer. Deny knowing anything about the debt or having received any letters. Ask them to send something in writing and refuse to discuss the matter further.
The 2009 tenant never did discuss anything on the phone with the debt collectors, and has sent them a cease and desist letter, certified mail, with proof of delivery. They ignored it and left another voice mail anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II View Post
2) When the letter comes, send a basic dispute letter back to the debt collector. Don't bother with the long form ones used on some online forums. All it needs to say is that you're disputing the debt and requesting complete information about where this debt originated from and how the total was arrived at. Send this certified mail, return receipt.
The 2009 tenant did that over a month ago, and the collections agency completely ignored it and continued calling and mailing, and participated in the dispute process with the credit bureaus, providing the documentation requested by the credit bureaus (which isn't much) to ensure that they would defeat the dispute process and the collections account would remain in tact. This collections company is extremely aggressive.

What the collections company does not realize is that they used up all their leverage and defeated themselves, by reporting to the credit bureaus before even attempting to contact the 2009 tenant. The 2009 tenant is not afraid of legal action, because he is in a very good position to win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II View Post
...simply send another certified letter stating that the 2009 tenant had vacated the rental at the expiration of that original lease ...
The debt collector, if they respond at all, will state that the original lease did not expire until 2017 and that the 2009 tenant is legally liable. In the absence of a new lease being signed, they would be correct in that the lease did not expire until 2017.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II View Post
If they come back with anything related to that original lease, simply remind them that both the statute of limitations and the 7 year reporting period under the Fair Credit Reporting Act have expired...
Which would be true if the original lease had expired over 7 years ago. But it expired in 2017. As far as the 2009 tenant knows.

Last edited by TheyDidWhat; 09-24-2018 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2018, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
14,561 posts, read 23,012,670 times
Reputation: 10356
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheyDidWhat View Post
The 2009 tenant never did discuss anything on the phone with the debt collectors, and has sent them a cease and desist letter, certified mail, with proof of delivery. They ignored it and left another voice mail anyway.

The 2009 tenant did that over a month ago, and the collections agency completely ignored it and continued calling and mailing, and participated in the dispute process with the credit bureaus, providing the documentation requested by the credit bureaus (which isn't much) to ensure that they would defeat the dispute process and the collections account would remain in tact. This collections company is extremely aggressive.
Did you send the cease and desist first? Or was it after the dispute? If so, how much longer?


Quote:
The debt collector, if they respond at all, will state that the original lease did not expire until 2017 and that the 2009 tenant is legally liable.
You'd be surprised. Depending on how much is actually owed and the penalties they could be facing under state and federal law, they may very well say screw it and stop pursuing the 2009 tenant. That said, the 2009 tenant needs to grow some stones and fight back. He/she should stop making the debt collector's case for them.

Quote:
In the absence of a new lease being signed, they would be correct in that the lease did not expire until 2017.

Which would be true if the original lease had expired over 7 years ago. But it expired in 2017. As far as the 2009 tenant knows.
No offense, but I already covered this.

Quote:
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.
The landlord and the other tenant were well within their bounds to continue their relationship after the 2009 tenant moved out, but they could not bind him/her to a lease renewal she did not want and did not authorize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top