Signed a lease in hand, utilities in my name and current tentant wont leave

[xylene]

Here is the owner's response to my request that he pay expenses incurred on Saturday as he had said, I got this monday morning:

"Unfortunately, I will not be able to cover the moving and storage expenses. I made that offer in good faith assuming you would continue to rent the property. But since you requested to break the lease, I am not able to honor that request. Since the Sheriff's staff doesn't work on weekends, there was now way I could've know that they eviction will take place this Wednesday; as I was informed this morning."

I spoke with the Sherriff and Colorado Police on Saturday and they told me an eviction had not been filed and therefore there was nothing they could do and told him that!

I did get a note tonight from the owner: "I have taken the utilities out of your name and have assumed the costs that were incurred under your name, to included the reconnect fee. " At least he did that much... still ticks me off he let me go ahead and start up utilities too knowing there was a problem here.

This Landlord is clearly a dumbass. The fact he has decided to not pay doesn't change the law. He owes you damages, it is not a request he can choose to 'honor' or ignor.

 

[sjpmom]

This Landlord is clearly a dumbass. The fact he has decided to not pay doesn't change the law. He owes you damages, it is not a request he can choose to 'honor' or ignor.

I'm still very confused as to what my options are as I am getting conflicting advice here. I do like xylene response especially the description of the landlord!

 

[ecmst12]

You should take your contract to a local attorney and see who he/she thinks is at fault. I think the people who are claiming the LL is not responsible for being unable to deliver on his legal obligations per the contract he signed are full of crap. If the situation was reversed, those same people would be the first to say the tenant was responsible for the rent etc. LL breeched the contract, you suffered damages because of it, so he owes you for those damages, seems like black letter basic law to me. But you're not going to get a real professional legal opinion until you pay a real professional for one. And if it turns out you do have to sue him, you have the lawyer to help you with it.

 

[johnd]

Heads up johmd , Zinger was responding that the tenant that signed the new lease would have to go after the tenant(s) that didn't move out .

NO, BL, he stated (and I quote):

"Congratulations - I haven't seen such a blatantly false statement in quite a while."
in reference to the comment that I made:
"The LL is not responsible for things out of his control."

Which infers (via Zigner's logic) that since the statement that "the LL is not responsible for things out of his control" is "blatantly false", the reverse is true. The LL is responsible for the earthquake in China, the flood in Louisiana and the receding ice caps (if he is responsible for things out of his control). Pure poppy****. If there is some cryptic message in what he wrote that escapes me, please enlighten me.

I'll reiterate what I stated before: The LL is not responsible for things out of his control. In regards to this case, if the existing tenant informed the LL that she was leaving, and the LL in good faith rented the unit to a new tenant, the LL is not liable. Period. It's really rather simple. There is not a judge in this country that would rule otherwise (and if, in a drunken stupor, he was to rule against the LL, any appeals court of the lowest intelligence would overturn it). It is common law!

The only way I can see that the LL is responsible to the new "tenant" because of the existing tenant's refusal to vacate, is if there is some form of collusion, or the LL never ascertained that the existing tenant agreed to leave on a set date.

 

[johnd]

I think the people who are claiming the LL is not responsible for being unable to deliver on his legal obligations per the contract he signed are full of crap.

Well, you're just wrong. And why don't you guys stop being so damn obtuse? Responsible is an all encompassing term: responsible for what?

The jilted tenant is only owed a refund of all the monies she paid the LL....and no more. If that's what you mean by "responsible" then state that. (Unless there was collusion or negligence...then the LL is responsible for extraneous costs incurred by the OP...and an existing tenant's refusal to leave after agreement to the contrary is not negligence on the part of the LL).

 

[izzie01]

I am not a lawyer but have seen one on TV..I would think you could file a small claims case and at least get some of your expenses back from the landlord. Find out what the maximum is in your state for small claims, you don't need a lawyer. Be sure to keep all correspondence w/LL and bills, cancelled checks etc. You had a signed lease to start on such and such a day and that is not what you got and you had additional expenses incured, through no fault of your own but HIS tennent. I guess it seems like common sense he would be liable for the additional expenses. But like I said, I am not a lawyer and law sometimes doesn't use common sense. I don't think it cost too much to have a small claims case filed, check it out. The most of what you would be out is that charge and of course your time. I guess I would weight if you wanted to use your time for that or not. I can understand why the landlord doesn't feel it's his fault, but it was his renter and she wasn't out, not your fault.

 

[johnd]

I am not a lawyer but have seen one on TV..I would think you could file a small claims case and at least get some of your expenses back from the landlord.

On what grounds, legal theory or statute is the LL responsible for those things (other than returning all of the OP's monies)?

 

[xylene]

Echo....

On what grounds, legal theory or statute is the LL responsible for those things (other than returning all of the OP's monies)?

You asked this and it was answered already. But here it is. The law is clear cut.

Breech of contract.

They are asking for the damages arising from them not being able to take possession of their apartment. Yes their apartment. They had a valid lease... In ADDITION to the return of rent, the landlord's material breech of lease resulted in consequential damages (the added moving expenses and storage fees).

The poster is not asking for earthquake damages or anything to do with china. Irrelevant metaphors change nothing.

Wanting to put on blinders about consequential damages is not logical.

When you don't perform on a contract more can be the line than just the value of the contract, you advising otherwise is dangerous, spurious, bunk.

 

[ecmst12]

If the LL had been unable to fulfill the lease because an earthquake hit and destroyed the building the night before OP was to move in, then I would agree that he would not be responsible for more then a refund. THAT would have been truly beyond his control. But that is not what happened.

LL was unable to deliver because of HIS problem tenant, who he KNEW was a problem, apparently he expected to be able to enforce an eviction and have the sherrif remove the former tenant on the same day OP was to move in, without inspecting the unit, cleaning it, anything. It's not even clear whether the court had granted the eviction or if it had even been filed. That was irresponsible and negligent and most certainly NOT beyond the LL's control. That is why LL is responsible for damages beyond a refund.

 

[xylene]

LL was unable to deliver because of HIS problem tenant, who he KNEW was a problem, apparently he expected to be able to enforce an eviction and have the sherrif remove the former tenant on the same day OP was to move in, without inspecting the unit, cleaning it, anything. It's not even clear whether the court had granted the eviction or if it had even been filed. That was irresponsible and negligent and most certainly NOT beyond the LL's control. That is why LL is responsible for damages beyond a refund.

Indeed.

But even if there was no trouble with the tenant and the tenant just flipped out and refused to move, the landlord would still be liable for the breech of lease including consequential damages, if any.

This is why REAL professional landlords do not and do not need to hot-bunk their units like some small timers who end up in hot water like this.

 

[johnd]

You asked this and it was answered already. But here it is. The law is clear cut.

Breech of contract.

They are asking for the damages arising from them not being able to take possession of their apartment. Yes their apartment. They had a valid lease... In ADDITION to the return of rent, the landlord's material breech of lease resulted in consequential damages (the added moving expenses and storage fees).

The poster is not asking for earthquake damages or anything to do with china. Irrelevant metaphors change nothing.

Wanting to put on blinders about consequential damages is not logical.

When you don't perform on a contract more can be the line than just the value of the contract, you advising otherwise is dangerous, spurious, bunk.

The breach (not breech) is not the LL's fault...unless collusion or negligence exists. I asked for a statute wherein a LL can be held culpable for a tenant's extraneous expenses (before possession is taken) when the fault is not that of the LL. Anyone? Anyone please? I didn't think so.

The breach, xylene, cannot be attributed to the LL wherein the existing tenant refuses to vacate after agreeing to do so. Some nitwit proffered keeping units vacant for a month or two after every vacancy to avoid such an issue as this. That is not the law. What you and others are submitting is akin to holding a LL culpable for a fire, explosion or infestation caused by a vacating tenant, delaying the move-in date for a new tenant (again, matters outside the LL's control). This is simply not the law, and will not hold up in court (barring an agreement, negligence or collusion). If anyone else wants to back up their position with some case law, statutes, or longstanding common law: please do so. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Courts would be inundated with cases if we were to adopt this theory. Shheeesh. And I thought this site was about LL/tenant LAW.

 

[johnd]

But even if there was no trouble with the tenant and the tenant just flipped out and refused to move, the landlord would still be liable for the breech of lease including consequential damages, if any.

Please proffer case law, statute, legal theory (for consequential damages). It just aint so.

 

[xylene]

Please proffer case law, statute, legal theory (for consequential damages). It just aint so.

What is blatantly false is your underlined assertion that collusion or negligence need be present to allow for consequential damages.

I am afraid I can't find any evidence that proves your false assertion, since it is false.

Good luck

 

[BL]

The breach (not breech) is not the LL's fault...unless collusion or negligence exists. I asked for a statute wherein a LL can be held culpable for a tenant's extraneous expenses (before possession is taken) when the fault is not that of the LL. Anyone? Anyone please? I didn't think so.

The breach, xylene, cannot be attributed to the LL wherein the existing tenant refuses to vacate after agreeing to do so. Some nitwit proffered keeping units vacant for a month or two after every vacancy to avoid such an issue as this. That is not the law. What you and others are submitting is akin to holding a LL culpable for a fire, explosion or infestation caused by a vacating tenant, delaying the move-in date for a new tenant (again, matters outside the LL's control). This is simply not the law, and will not hold up in court (barring an agreement, negligence or collusion). If anyone else wants to back up their position with some case law, statutes, or longstanding common law: please do so. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Courts would be inundated with cases if we were to adopt this theory. Shheeesh. And I thought this site was about LL/tenant LAW.

You back it up with law .

I beleive I read you claim to be a LL . As such of course you would be bias .

 

[sjpmom]

Is it considered negligence because the owner had listed the house as available effective 5/15/2008 on the website ad that I originally responded to, was told she needed more time to move and would be out by 5/30 then again told around the 6/10 that it was an eviction and she was being served on 6/11 and would be removed from the house yet the Sherriff's department nor the Colorado Springs Police department could find any evidence that an eviction had been filed. All week long he requested that I work with him and things would be okay. On Saturday he even said he would designate me as his representive to go with the Sherriff to remover her, but of course when I called the main number the office is closed on weekends... My Father-in-law, that is a State Police Officer back home, used his contacts to speak with someone there on Saturday and that is when I started to have my doubts that the owner's honesty.

Now that I have done some research, if he followed CO law he would have to have been here to file the paperwork for the eviction and then be here for the court date or have given the neighbor/property manager POA to represent him. If he did that then wouldn't the Property manager would have been able to go with the Sherriff to remove her?

I feel that he misrepresented the situation to me and was negligent for not starting the eviction process sooner because he knew that this woman was not paying her rent, stalling on moving out, living in a house that had all the utilities shut off with no furniture and no place to go for weeks and still signed our lease on 6/12/2008 knowing all of this. But then I don't know the laws and am biased because I am the one that was left on the street.