Detrimental reliance. . .?

[MandaBear]

What is the name of your state? Iowa

Scroll to bottom to get to actual point.

A "friend" of my family has been trying to get us to move in with him and split the rent and utilities and all that, a typical roomate type situation. He says our apartment is too small and he likes spending time with us. Anyway, he gets to rent this big farmhouse on the edge of town, with land, and asks us to move in with him. As we are begining to feel that the apartment is a bit crowded, we agree to half the rent, half the utilities. We offer to have ours paid in the begining of the month, he says not to worry about it, he can't have it all done by the 17 anyway. Go ahead and move stuff in,though, he says, it's all cleared with the landlord. (he is already practically living there anyway). So we get started moving crap in and buying the stuff you need to transfer from apartment to house in country.

Eventually there is an argument when he locks my brother out of the house when he is there to clean up his room with a friend of his. That escalates into why we haven't gotten a key yet, and then an argument over whether or not there could be cows in the pasture (he already had agreed to it, offered to help buy one even). We leave after a lengthy argument and say we will back the 17. We stop by around the 10 to deliver a messege to him from work, and find all the stuff we brought over there, sitting outside. When he came back, another argument followed.


But anyway, to the point-- since he promised we would be "roomies" then changed his mind, and we invested money and lost out on other houses we were going to call, isn't that detrimental reliance on a promise and we can be reimbursed for the loss? Plus, can he legally throw our stuff outside without telling us?

 

[FarmerJ]

You have been illegally evicted , Do you have any written documents like rent reciept proving you were a tenant ?

 

[MandaBear]

Since we technically weren't residents of the house yet, no there was no documentation, except the few things I had listed that address as mine. Technically he wasn't supposed to live there yet so I wasn't worried about it.

 

[franklin2003]

Sorry, but this is a good lesson in Life Skills, I guess you will know from now on...when you hand someone MONEY for a place to live, get a reciept and a lease.

 

[abezon]

Whether he was legally there is irrelevant to your case. He had possession of the house. You & he agreed that you would live there and pay 1/2 the rent & utilities. He agreed that your possession could start before the 10th. (Essentially he gave you the first month's rent free.) He then denied you entry into the premises you had leased & threw your stuff out onto the street. This is unlawful ouster. You can sue him for damages & attorney fees. He won't like you anymore, but do you really care at this point?



562A.22 Failure to deliver possession.
1. If the landlord fails to deliver possession of the dwelling unit to the tenant as provided in section 562A.14, rent abates until possession is delivered and the tenant shall:

a. Upon at least five days' written notice to the landlord, terminate the rental agreement and upon termination the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security; or

b. Demand performance of the rental agreement by the landlord and, if the tenant elects, maintain an action for possession of the dwelling unit against the landlord or a person wrongfully in possession and recover the damages sustained by the tenant.

2. If a landlord's failure to deliver possession is willful and not in good faith, a tenant may recover from the landlord the actual damages sustained by the tenant and reasonable attorney's fees.



562A.26 Tenant's remedies for landlord's unlawful ouster, exclusion, or diminution of service.
If the landlord unlawfully removes or excludes the tenant from the premises or willfully diminishes services to the tenant by interrupting or causing the interruption of electric, gas, water or other essential service to the tenant, the tenant may recover possession or terminate the rental agreement and, in either case, recover the actual damages sustained by the tenant and reasonable attorney's fees. If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Abezon - -

Our writer does NOT have a valid contract or agreement. A lease (or rental agreement) MUST be in writing to be enforceable. Our writer merely had a "verbal" agreement - - and that, and a dime, won't buy her a cup of coffee.

In other words, our writer does not have a "cause of action". Besides, in another thread, I already gave her the "what for's" about written contracts. She's learned her lesson.


Iowa Statute 554.13201

Statute of frauds.

1. A lease contract is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless:

a. the total payments to be made under the lease contract, excluding payments for options to renew or buy, are less than one thousand dollars; or

b. there is a writing, signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by that party's authorized agent, sufficient to indicate that a lease contract has been made between the parties and to describe the goods leased and the lease term.

2. Any description of leased goods or of the lease term is sufficient and satisfies subsection 1, paragraph "b", whether or not it is specific, if it reasonably identifies what is described.

3. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon, but the lease contract is not enforceable under subsection 1, paragraph "b", beyond the lease term and the quantity of goods shown in the writing.

4. A lease contract that does not satisfy the requirements of subsection 1, but which is valid in other respects, is enforceable:

a. if the goods are to be specially manufactured or obtained for the lessee and are not suitable for lease or sale to others in the ordinary course of the lessor's business, and the lessor, before notice of repudiation is received and under circumstances that reasonably indicate that the goods are for the lessee, has made either a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitments for their procurement;

b. if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in that party's pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a lease contract was made, but the lease contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted; or

c. with respect to goods that have been received and accepted by the lessee.

5. The lease term under a lease contract referred to in subsection 4 is:

a. if there is a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by that party's authorized agent specifying the lease term, the term so specified;

b. if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in that party's pleading, testimony, or otherwise in court a lease term, the term so admitted; or

c. a reasonable lease term.


IAAL

 

[abezon]

I respectfully disagree. IC 562A.9 states that unless the rental agreement fixes a definite term, the agreement is month-to-month. (Or week-to-week) Thus, the statute of frauds would not bar action, as the "contract" is actually a series of month-long leases, each for one month's rent. Unless they agreed to pay over $1000 in rent each month, the Statute of Frauds would not apply.

That's how this argument was resolved in IL, any way. I know that's not binding on IA, but I'd think it would be a good argument to make. Also, the S/F is not an automatic defense -- the guy would have to assert it & I doubt he knows enough law to think of it.

 

[stephenk]

the poster also admits she knew the guy did not have possession of the farmhouse. she never mentions seeing his lease he had with the owner of the property.

she never mentioned if the landlord was allowing her family to move into the farmhouse.

 

[abezon]

He had apparent possession -- "he was practically living there." He also had keys, and keys = possession. As to whether he had permission of the LL, that's his problem, not hers. Someone who sublets illegally is still treated as a LL under the law & can be held liable for failure to repair, wrongful withholding of the damage deposit, unlawful ouster, etc.

 

[MandaBear]

goodness, fortunately I hadn't paid any money yet. That was coming the 17, found out about the stuff on the lawn the 15th I do believe.