Security Deposit, Pet Deposit, Notice

[CourtClerk]

Stop playing with the semantics.

You're right... you've purchased a home...

 

[MIRAKALES]

As a matter of practical options, tenants with “family in the rental business in several states” would obtain their FIRST line of information from the “family in the rental business in several states.” Apparently, the “family in the rental business in several states” has not be able to address the matter to the tenant’s satisfaction. It is perfectly clear why tenant would need someone to “pass a sanity screen” when members of the “family in the rental business in several states” are not able to “answer the very general and very simple question, typed slowly.” It is unfortunate that NO ONE is able to provide tenant with the response desired -- not the LL, not the PM, not the message board, and not even the "family in the rental business in several states.” The situation is pathetic and unfortunate for tenant (YOU)!

 

[CJane]

As a matter of practical options, tenants with “family in the rental business in several states” would obtain their FIRST line of information from the “family in the rental business in several states.” Apparently, the “family in the rental business in several states” has not be able to address the matter to the tenant’s satisfaction. It is perfectly clear why tenant would need someone to “pass a sanity screen” when members of the “family in the rental business in several states” are not able to “answer the very general and very simple question, typed slowly.” It is unfortunate that NO ONE is able to provide tenant with the response desired -- not the LL, not the PM, not the message board, and not even the "family in the rental business in several states.” The situation is pathetic and unfortunate for tenant (YOU)!

Wow, you're seriously insane aren't you?

It's interesting to me that you can't answer the question but have chosen to troll my thread repeatedly.

 

[MIRAKALES]

Question Asked and Answered:
Posts #6, #9, #11, #15, #18, #20, #24, #26, #28, #32.
To acknowledge and address all potential arguments and scenarios -- real, imaginary, or otherwise -- that tenant (YOU) may attempt to present in a court of law -- to waste Missouri State tax dollars. The arguments and scenarios may change (10 times) but the application of the law to the issue will remain unchanged.
Give the Missouri taxpayers a break! (The nation is in a recession.)

 

[Bloopy]

Question Asked and Answered:
Posts #6, #9, #11, #15, #18, #20, #24, #26, #28, #32.
To acknowledge and address all potential arguments and scenarios -- real, imaginary, or otherwise -- that tenant (YOU) may attempt to present in a court of law -- to waste Missouri State tax dollars. The arguments and scenarios may change (10 times) but the application of the law to the issue will remain unchanged.
Give the Missouri taxpayers a break! (The nation is in a recession.)

The question is
IF a landlord violates any or all of the section(s) of statute that require(s) them to:

1. Notify tenant of the date/time of inspection
2. Allow tenant to be present at the time of inspection
3. Mail the inspection results/damages/deposit to tenant's last known address w/in 30 days of the termination of residency

Does that then mean that any portion of the deposit that is withheld is considered by a reasonable person to be 'wrongfully' withheld?

You keep saying she does not have proof, blah blah blah. She’s asking plain and simple, IF and LL fails to meet any of those requirement does that AUTOMATICALLY make it illegal for the LL to withhold any money.

You keep harassing her with the merits of case, merits that are obvious to others, but never answered this basic question.

Are you her Ex or just randomly stalking? What has your panties in a twist?

What does ANY of this have to do with taxpayers?

 

[CJane]

So yeah, I just went back and read all of your responses.

Not a single one of them answered the actual question. Yes, you have repeatedly stated what might have happened to the original letter(s) from the LL if they in fact sent them back in June.

You've repeatedly stated that they probably didn't have my forwarding address, even though they stated that they did.

You've repeatedly stated that it's possible that the post office 'lost' the paperwork.

You've indicated that any small claims action would be petty and a waste of time and resources. Amusing to me because I have not indicated that I wish to sue them. The only reference I believe I made to a lawsuit was in my first post in which I asked if small claims would be the proper venue if I did sue.

You've posted to this thread MANY times. And you've refused to cite either statute or case law when specifically asked for it (see post 16, quoted below)

MIRAKALES SAID:

State Law:
Tenant must deliver the forwarding address IN WRITING with the Notice to Vacate in order to make a claim of security deposit violation.

Tenant statements clearly imply that the original WRITTEN notice to vacate did NOT include the forwarding address. The law will not work in YOUR (tenant) favor if the notice to vacate did not include the forwarding mailing address. If the forwarding address was included with the notice to vacate then it is a clear error of the LL's part. Otherwise, tenant is responsible for the delayed delivery for not providing the forwarding address with the notice to vacate.

To which I replied:

Please provide the cite/link for the 'State Law' you've paraphrased above. I'll be most interested in reading it.

Interestingly, MANY posts from you later, I've yet to see the cite I requested. Though you were kind enough to quote a MO statute that I quoted in my first (maybe second) post.

But through all of your many posts? Not once have you answered the question. The question that doesn't pertain specifically to ME or specifically to anyone else. But GENERALLY.

It's ok that you can't answer it. Gawd knows I'm ok with it. It's clear to me you have no knowledge of the issue at hand. And that's ok to.

 

[MIRAKALES]

IF (the significant factor) ANY (the secondary factor) of the issues described in post #30 and #35 were true then tenant would have a valid claim which would need to be supported with the evidences previously posted. (Those evidences were posted to support a valid and successful claim.)

With that said, tenant initially posted that the settlement statement outlined: 1) excessive pet urine stains, 2) burner drip pan (2) replacements, 3) painting entire premises as damages to premises. Tenant protests the damages.

Now, with that said, yet AGAIN…
Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 535, Landlord-Tenant Actions Section 535.300 (August 28, 2007) states: (BOLD emphasis added)

6. NOTHING in this section shall be construed to limit the right of the landlord to recover actual damages in excess of the security deposit…
(which also implies in deficiency of the security deposit)

This Missouri section of law includes:
2. Within thirty days after the date of termination of the tenancy, the landlord shall:
(1) Return the full amount of the security deposit; or
(2) Furnish to the tenant a written itemized list of the damages for which the security deposit or any portion thereof is withheld, along with the balance of the security deposit. The landlord shall have complied with this subsection by mailing such statement and any payment to the last known address of the tenant.

NOTHING in the Missouri statutes would limit the right of the LL to recover actual damages -- NOTHING! (including Missouri section 2, post #30 and post #35)

 

[CourtClerk]

In all of that typing you did... you have still failed to answer CJane's question (but you do keep trying to answer the question you want to answer - which wasn't asked), but good try kid. Good try.

 

[CJane]

In all of that typing you did... you have still failed to answer CJane's question (but you do keep trying to answer the question you want to answer - which wasn't asked), but good try kid. Good try.

So it's not just me?

I think I'll take everything that RMetJr has said and give it the respect it's due.

I mailed the demand letter today. We'll see what happens.

 

[CourtClerk]

So it's not just me?

Nope, it's not just you, and you're too far from me for us to be sipping on the same stuff

I think I'll take everything that RMetJr has said and give it the respect it's due.

None???

 

[Alaska landlord]

I don't plan into getting sucked into this debate, but it is the Judges discretion to determine whether or not the LL was acting in bad faith. If he determines that he has acted improperly, he may award you damages if not; you are out of the deposit and will be incurring court fees as well.

Did the dog pee on the carpet? Probably, all that is needed is a simple distraction and they will do their thing. Would it cost more than 150.00 to eliminate the odor from the carpet and padding? Yes.

If it should cost more than 150, can the LL charge you the overage of the cost? Yes.

P.S. If the 150 was described as a deposit, then theoretically it is refundable. Your landlord and you have to learn to make a distinction between "fee" and "deposit"

 

[CJane]

I don't plan into getting sucked into this debate, but it is the Judges discretion to determine whether or not the LL was acting in bad faith. If he determines that he has acted improperly, he may award you damages if not; you are out of the deposit and will be incurring court fees as well.

I understand that. And again, I did NOT say that I wished to sue. I simply asked that if I DECIDED to, small claims was the proper venue.

I DO, however think that they should be acting according to statute and the lease and it doesn't appear TO ME that they are. I also wonder how many other tenants, in far more dire straits than I have had their deposit withheld wrongfully and have not had the time nor the resources to even discover if they had recourse.

Did the dog pee on the carpet? Probably, all that is needed is a simple distraction and they will do their thing.

Absolutely, unequivocally no. I know that no one here knows me, but if you did, you would know that I'm not just being one of those people who says "Not MY kid!" It simply didn't happen.

Would it cost more than 150.00 to eliminate the odor from the carpet and padding? Yes.

Which is why I always had my dog either outside on the patio, in his crate, or closed into the room I was in. He was not left to wander the house in the night, not left in the house during the day, etc.

If it should cost more than 150, can the LL charge you the overage of the cost? Yes.

Absolutely agreed. She's stating it cost $200. Which, if my dog HAD peed on the carpets would seem reasonable. It would also seem that she would need to first with withhold the 'pet deposit' and any additional monies should be held from the security deposit. But they're withholding all of the alleged cleaning expenses from the security deposit and acting as if the pet deposit is just a gift to them from me.

P.S. If the 150 was described as a deposit, then theoretically it is refundable. Your landlord and you have to learn to make a distinction between "fee" and "deposit"

The lease says "If tenant is moving in with a pet, a non-refundable deposit in the amount of $150 is required at the time of move-in, or when the pet is acquired/approved by management."

That's why I'm calling it a deposit. But they're saying it's non-refundable and they're not referring to it as a fee.