Lost refundable deposit on a house I never moved into

[tiller86]

Hello all,

I am in a very tough situation and am looking for some advice/guidance. I will try and explain this as simple as possible. I contacted a lady in late August regarding a house she was renting. Upon seeing the house I decided to submit an application along with a 35.00 fee. A day later I was contacted and told I was approved and the house was mine if I wanted. I explained to the landlord that I was indeed very interested still but due to a recent change in work I needed aprox. a week to give them a final answer. I was simply waiting to see what location I would be working at so I wasn't 100% sure if I wanted to commit or not. I explained that to the landlord and was told there was a lot of interest but they could understand my situation. I was then asked if I would supply a check for the security deposit in the amount of 400.00 to show my interest was serious and I wasn't "leading them on". I agreed to write a check again with the stipulation being I would be more then happy to become their tenant as long as I was relocated to a location close to the rental. I wrote a 400.00 dollar check and wrote in the memo field "REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT ONLY". Aprox 4 days later I found out where I would working and it was not near the above referenced rental. I communicated this to the landlord via voicemail and received a message a day later saying they were going to move ahead with renting to another individual. At this point I thought everything was fine and got back to the busy process of switching careers and homes.

Fast forward 2 months later and I am doing an audit of my financial records and come across a 400.00 check and can't recall why it was wrote. I go online and pull the image and see if was in fact the deposit check I wrote back in August. As I stated I wrote very clearly "REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT ONLY" on the memo line. To my surprise I see handwriting that is obviously not mine stating "If moved in by 9/1/09" with the initials of the landlord under my original text. I contacted the landlord immediately upon finding this and very nicely explained who I was and the reason for my call. I then asked very simply how the process of me being refunded would look like and I was told that I would not be receiving my money back. I asked how exactly they could justify this and was told we had a verbal agreement that the deposit was a non refundable deposit. I of course disputed this and explained to them that no verbal agreement ever existed and told them on the check I even noted it was a refundable deposit. They said they remembered that and admitted adding their own text. After way to much time on the phone I then told them I would pursue the issue with a small claims action and they hung up.

At this point my argument is: #1 The check clearly stated REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT because that was my understanding. #2 Considering they altered the check without my consent it shows a lot regarding their character and trustworthiness. #3 They are claiming a verbal agreement was made which it was not. The only document I ever signed was a credit check consent, NOTHING ELSE. #4 Under Oregon State Law a landlord has 31 days to refund a deposit or send a letter explaining why a refund will not be made. This was never done and by law I have the right to sue for up to 2xs the amount of the original deposit. With all this being said I feel I have a fairly solid case and feel confident. I know what was said and what wasn't. Does anyone have any feedback/criticism/advice. All will be greatly appreciated. Thank you

[aabbcc]

It's odd that a landlord would agree to hold the property while you make up your mind. I wonder how many landlords reading this thread would do that?

I was then asked if I would supply a check for the security deposit in the amount of 400.00 to show my interest was serious and I wasn't "leading them on".

It appears you were "leading them on", because you did not rent from them.


Perhaps you should go to small claims court and let the Judge figure out what the agreement really was.

[tiller86]

When I saw the unit there was 9 days left until it was move in ready and I matched what the landlord was looking for in a tenant. Since the unit was being vacated before the end of the month and the previous tenant was not receiving prorated rent back I can only assume they were confident they had time to find a GOOD tenant and still have it rented by the following month.

Originally Posted by aabbcc

It appears you were "leading them on", because you did not rent from them.

Leading someone on is providing false information with the intention of deceiving, I did no such thing, I believe in full discloser in any business transaction and handled this no differently.

Maybe the landlord thought they could make an easy buck. I am trying to recover my losses and hopefully prevent them from preying on another honest individual in the future.

I fully intend on presenting my case before a judge, just reaching out to see what other people think who aren't involved.

[Cvillecpm]

Why would it be refundable to the landlords?

They asked for a good faith SHOW of your interst in the property and you provided it. What you placed in the memo field of the check is immaterial....that is for YOUR records.

Now, what you put on the BACK of your check in the endorsement area is something else!!!

[acmb05]

Originally Posted by Cvillecpm

Why would it be refundable to the landlords?

They asked for a good faith SHOW of your interst in the property and you provided it. What you placed in the memo field of the check is immaterial....that is for YOUR records.

Now, what you put on the BACK of your check in the endorsement area is something else!!!

Why would you put anything on the back of the check. You don't endorse a check you write to some one else. You sign the front of it not the back.

That being said the tenant unless otherwise noted in writing is due her money back. The landlord altering the check after the fact is fraud. I think the OP has a very good chance of getting their money back if they take this to court, as they should.

[JustAPal00]

OP, what you need to do here is go to small claims court. We have a he said she said story here. Your side of the story makes sense, but I'm sure the landlords will too. The fact that you wrote that on the front of the check and the LL altered it seems to back your side of the story up. Let a judge decide!

[Cvillecpm]

The BACK of the check where it was ENDORSED is where OP should have put his "refundable deposit ONLY" wording...where the endorsement of the landlord would have been EVIDENCE that the landlord accepted that notation.

My ex used to put "hampster clothes" on the memo line of his checks....what does that even mean?

[acmb05]

Originally Posted by Cvillecpm

The BACK of the check where it was ENDORSED is where OP should have put his "refundable deposit ONLY" wording...where the endorsement of the landlord would have been EVIDENCE that the landlord accepted that notation.

My ex used to put "hampster clothes" on the memo line of his checks....what does that even mean?

And I still say it is not going to matter if they wrote it in the memo spot or on the back. I have used checks a few times in court where it was written in the memo section and it has always been accepted like that.


At the most the landlord can keep whatever money she lost out on if she did not re rent it by the first. If she ended up getting a renter to move in on the same date as the OP would have then landlord has no right to keep her money.

And the landlord committed fraud when she altered the check.

P.S. I have no idea what hampster clothes are.

[acmb05]

Oregon law states a landlord MUST return the deposit unless it is clearly stated in writing that it is non refundable.

[tiller86]

First off thanks to everyone for the feedback its been very informative.
I do have a few more questions now. Cvillecpm, you stated I should have placed the "Refundable deposit" in the endorsement area. Is this because it would have indicated the landlord knew/saw what I had put on there? The assumption being if it was right next to their signature they had to have seen it? If so wouldn't the fact that they added their own terms right under my memo line AND initialed it indicate they did indeed see what I wrote? Also wouldn't you agree its reasonable to say if they disagreed whatsoever with what I wrote they should have brought it up with me and asked for a new check instead of adding their own terms?

acmb05, you said that under Oregon state law if a deposit isn't clearly defined as non refundable in writing it must be refunded. Can you reference where you found/know that from? I am just curious and I would like to be able to mention it when I present my case. Also do you think it would be wise to ask for 2xs the disputed amount? I do know under Oregon law the landlord is obligated to send me a written explanation as to why they are keeping my deposit or the tenant can sue for 2xs the deposit. I just don't know if it would apply in this situation because I never did move in or sign a rental agreement.

Are verbal agreements even binding in court in this type of situation? The landlord is making the false claim the deposit was non refundable due to verbal agreement which never did happen. If there is nothing is writing wouldn't the check be the only real documentation of what the arrangement was?

Again thanks for the feedback everyone!

P.S. - What does OP stand for?

[ecmst12]

OP = Original Poster