Rent Debt

[AGuyInAZ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

I moved into an apartment complex in January 2013. In October 2013, the complex's debit card reader stopped working (the method I normally used to pay). I was instructed to begin paying by money order. On the final day of the month, I got a money order, but since the office was closed, I deposited in a drop box. That night, the drop box was broken into and several money orders, including mine, were stolen. The complex informed me how to get in touch with Western Union and I obtained a copy of the money order I had deposited, which had been washed and a new name and address had been used to cash the money order. However, a small portion of my signature is still visible, but the copy from West Union is quite poor, and because of this, Western Union said they could not refund the money order based on fraud. I gave this information to the complex and understood they would use this information in the police report of the incident. I thought the police would go after the thiefs and the complex would sue them because I was led to believe the drop box would be secure. I continued to live at the complex until January 2015 and was never late on another rent payment.

At various times since then, I have been contacted by a law firm charged with collecting the debt, but I have never been able to contact them back and I would go up to a year without hearing about this and often forgot it entirely until yesterday when I was served by the court.

I still have the copy of the money order from Western Union as well as copies of the money orders from other tenants that had been stolen, washed and cashed. I also have the letter from Western Union saying they could not offer a refund. I kept receipts from subsequent months' money orders, but I do not have the receipt for the one in question other than the money order number on the copy from Western Union. Do I have any legal ground to fight this or am I better off paying the debt + interest + legal fees?

 

[adjusterjack]

Do I have any legal ground to fight this

The landlord's legal position is that he never got his money through no fault of his own and you owed him the rent money.

or am I better off paying the debt + interest + legal fees?

Up to you. But the longer you wait the more it will cost.

Try negotiating a lump sum discounted settlement for cash if you have the money. Make sure you get the agreement in writing.

 

[LdiJ]

The landlord's legal position is that he never got his money through no fault of his own and you owed him the rent money.



Up to you. But the longer you wait the more it will cost.

Try negotiating a lump sum discounted settlement for cash if you have the money. Make sure you get the agreement in writing.

I have never understood why a landlord, who has constructive receipt of a check or money order, and it gets stolen and cashed, has no responsibility. Would not the landlord's insurance cover something like that?

 

[Zigner]

I have never understood why a landlord, who has constructive receipt of a check or money order ...

What proof is there that the OP gave the money order to them? That's the problem with your line of thinking. It's a tough place to be in, but why shouldn't the OP's insurance cover it? In any case, the OP wouldn't be in this position had he paid his rent promptly...just sayin'

 

[LdiJ]

What proof is there that the OP gave the money order to them? That's the problem with your line of thinking. It's a tough place to be in, but why shouldn't the OP's insurance cover it? In any case, the OP wouldn't be in this position had he paid his rent promptly...just sayin'

In this case though there were multiple checks/money orders taken and cashed...and washed...which I have to assume was something that allowed them to alter the checks? Do personal insurance polices cover things like that? I know that business insurance does but do personal ones?

 

[quincy]

In this case though there were multiple checks/money orders taken and cashed...and washed...which I have to assume was something that allowed them to alter the checks? Do personal insurance polices cover things like that? I know that business insurance does but do personal ones?

The one responsible for the missing money is the thief who took it. The landlord is owed the rent and the tenant needs to make sure the rent is paid on time.

The tenant probably should pay what is owed, report his loss to the police and seek reimbursement from the thief or his insurer.

 

[adjusterjack]

The standard renters policy has a limit of $200 on money. The tenant could have made a claim on his own policy (if he had one) and probably gotten the $200, assuming the total rent wasn't less than his deductible.

On a business policy theft of money is an optional coverage that is not cheap because it has to do with crime and is often a hard sell for an insurance agent because of the cost.

If the landlord had the coverage he could, of course, have made the claim for all of the stolen rent, subject to a much higher deductible than is normally found on renters policies.

A handful of rent checks might not have exceeded the deductible if he had the coverage, or might not have exceeded it by enough for the claim to be worth making.

At any rate, that would still be his choice and he wouldn't have to make the claim if all the tenants stopped pay on their checks and just replaced them.

By the way, I'm not sure I see constructive receipt here. If I were a landlord providing a lockbox for after hours rent payment for the convenience of the tenants I'd make damned sure that my leases said that was all it was and depositing rent in it was done at the tenant's own risk. Could be the case with OP's landlord, too.

 

[quincy]

The standard renters policy has a limit of $200 on money. The tenant could have made a claim on his own policy (if he had one) and probably gotten the $200, assuming the total rent wasn't less than his deductible.

On a business policy theft of money is an optional coverage that is not cheap because it has to do with crime and is often a hard sell for an insurance agent because of the cost.

If the landlord had the coverage he could, of course, have made the claim for all of the stolen rent, subject to a much higher deductible than is normally found on renters policies.

A handful of rent checks might not have exceeded the deductible if he had the coverage, or might not have exceeded it by enough for the claim to be worth making.

At any rate, that would still be his choice and he wouldn't have to make the claim if all the tenants stopped pay on their checks and just replaced them.

By the way, I'm not sure I see constructive receipt here. If I were a landlord providing a lockbox for after hours rent payment for the convenience of the tenants I'd make damned sure that my leases said that was all it was and depositing rent in it was done at the tenant's own risk. Could be the case with OP's landlord, too.

A lockbox deposit of rent should be treated by a landlord like a bank treats an ATM deposit.

Every landlord I know who provides lockboxes for tenants to use after hours have clear conditions of use (e.g., rent will not be considered paid until checks clear, etc).

 

[HRZ]

Conversely if the lease specifed drop box as one of the delivery methods ...if one can prevail on credibility of,delivery to box the OP might win that thenrisk of loss shifted to LL upon delivery to his drop box......I've read of both views and one on my lawyer friends , not in AZ, previaled on his own behalf that delivery to a drop box was timely delivery ..
..some leases say use it at your own risk....what does your lease say?

THe fact that the exsting rather safe payment method was broken thru no fault of tenant and apparently LL issued alternate payment instructions and provided the drop box ....suggests to me a judge might just let LL eat it ...after all how long does it take to get a replacement card reader?