Mom lied

[mollym.sequoia@]

Because of the size of the judgment ($60,000), it is probably worth the expense to have an attorney in your area personally review what you have gathered in the way of text and email exchanges with the mother, and any other tangible evidence you might have, to see where you stand legally against the mom. The attorney also could help you investigate further the account that was set up for the daughter to cover the daughter’s “expenses.”

I'm going to have a hard time affording a lawyer. Since the mom only verbally guaranteed the rent, I was thinking I should sue the mom for breach of oral contract. Not for the full $60k, but for the unpaid rent which is only $13k. She never agreed to cover damages to the house, only the rent and I want to be fair. I can prove that the verbal contract was understood by both parties by presenting the bank payments each month. They were for the same amount each month and I think that would fall under the concept of partial performance of the contract. If I went this route then the statute of fraud would be an issue since california law requires any personal guarantees or lease agreements longer than a year to be put in writing. While this lease agreement was a month to month lease, she did stay longer than a year. Would the statute of fraud requirements shut down my case if I were to sue for breach of oral contract? Just to be clear, I wouldn't try to double dip. I would mark any money the mother paid to resolve a breach of oral contract suit off the daughters $60k balance. Does this sound like a possible route?

 

[mollym.sequoia@]

I'm going to have a hard time affording a lawyer. Since the mom only verbally guaranteed the rent, I was thinking I should sue the mom for breach of oral contract. Not for the full $60k, but for the unpaid rent which is only $13k. She never agreed to cover damages to the house, only the rent and I want to be fair. I can prove that the verbal contract was understood by both parties by presenting the bank payments each month. They were for the same amount each month and I think that would fall under the concept of partial performance of the contract. If I went this route then the statute of fraud would be an issue since california law requires any personal guarantees or lease agreements longer than a year to be put in writing. While this lease agreement was a month to month lease, she did stay longer than a year. Would the statute of fraud requirements shut down my case if I were to sue for breach of oral contract? Just to be clear, I wouldn't try to double dip. I would mark any money the mother paid to resolve a breach of oral contract suit off the daughters $60k balance. Does this sound like a possible route?

 

[Zigner]

I'm going to have a hard time affording a lawyer. Since the mom only verbally guaranteed the rent, I was thinking I should sue the mom for breach of oral contract. Not for the full $60k, but for the unpaid rent which is only $13k. She never agreed to cover damages to the house, only the rent and I want to be fair. I can prove that the verbal contract was understood by both parties by presenting the bank payments each month. They were for the same amount each month and I think that would fall under the concept of partial performance of the contract. If I went this route then the statute of fraud would be an issue since california law requires any personal guarantees or lease agreements longer than a year to be put in writing. While this lease agreement was a month to month lease, she did stay longer than a year. Would the statute of fraud requirements shut down my case if I were to sue for breach of oral contract? Just to be clear, I wouldn't try to double dip. I would mark any money the mother paid to resolve a breach of oral contract suit off the daughters $60k balance. Does this sound like a possible route?

I don't believe you have a contract, verbal or otherwise. Your own words show that you (mistakenly, IMO) relied on the writing, not anything you were told verbally.

 

[quincy]

I'm going to have a hard time affording a lawyer. Since the mom only verbally guaranteed the rent, I was thinking I should sue the mom for breach of oral contract. Not for the full $60k, but for the unpaid rent which is only $13k. She never agreed to cover damages to the house, only the rent and I want to be fair. I can prove that the verbal contract was understood by both parties by presenting the bank payments each month. They were for the same amount each month and I think that would fall under the concept of partial performance of the contract. If I went this route then the statute of fraud would be an issue since california law requires any personal guarantees or lease agreements longer than a year to be put in writing. While this lease agreement was a month to month lease, she did stay longer than a year. Would the statute of fraud requirements shut down my case if I were to sue for breach of oral contract? Just to be clear, I wouldn't try to double dip. I would mark any money the mother paid to resolve a breach of oral contract suit off the daughters $60k balance. Does this sound like a possible route?

You potentially could hold the mother liable for unpaid rent. You might have enough evidence to show that the mother co-signed the lease.

Again, I recommend you have the facts reviewed personally by an attorney. You might find low or no cost legal assistance at a landlord/tenant clinic in your area, or a law school’s legal aid clinic.

 

[Zigner]

You potentially could hold the mother liable for unpaid rent. You might have enough evidence to show that the mother co-signed the lease.

What did I miss? The OP has a note that reads:
"I, VD, am responsible for my daughters expenses. I pay them out of an account we set aside from the money she received from the family Trust. Please accept this as her proof of income."
That does not seem to be a specific guarantee, rather, it was tendered as "proof of income". It certainly doesn't rise to the level of co-signing the lease.

Again, I recommend you have the facts reviewed personally by an attorney. You might find low or no cost legal assistance at a landlord/tenant clinic in your area, or a law school’s legal aid clinic.

No argument from me on this one

 

[quincy]

What did I miss? The OP has a note that reads:
"I, VD, am responsible for my daughters expenses. I pay them out of an account we set aside from the money she received from the family Trust. Please accept this as her proof of income."
That does not seem to be a specific guarantee, rather, it was tendered as "proof of income". It certainly doesn't rise to the level of co-signing the lease.


No argument from me on this one

The mom has accepted responsibility for paying her daughter’s expenses, through a trust set up for that purpose. It seems to me that the mom could be seen as not only providing proof of the daughter’s income but also her own responsibility for paying from this income the expenses (e.g., rent) of the daughter.

 

[Zigner]

The mom has accepted responsibility for paying her daughter’s expenses, through a trust set up for that purpose. It seems to me that the mom could be seen as not only providing proof of the daughter’s income but also her own responsibility for paying from this income the expenses (e.g., rent) of the daughter.

I disagree with your interpretation of the letter. I believe the letter is informational and does not create a specific commitment.

 

[quincy]

I disagree with your interpretation of the letter. I believe the letter is informational and does not create a specific commitment.

That certainly is one interpretation.

 

[Litigator22]

That certainly is one interpretation.

It also a translation defying common sense by implying the following absurdities:

1. Mom was simply being unguardedly chatty about family affairs and had not intention of offering the letter as an inducement to lease the subject premises to her deadbeat daughter.

2. The OP was entirely unmotivated by the letter and would've taken the daughter on as a tenant and allowed her to remain ensconced to the tune of $60K regardless of it. And only included the mother as a defendant in his lawsuit because there was additional space available on the complaint form, plus thinking that mom might voluntarily bail her out, duh.

 

[quincy]

It also a translation defying common sense by implying the following absurdities:

1. Mom was simply being unguardedly chatty about family affairs and had not intention of offering the letter as an inducement to lease the subject premises to her deadbeat daughter.

2. The OP was entirely unmotivated by the letter and would've taken the daughter on as a tenant and allowed her to remain ensconced to the tune of $60K regardless of it. And only included the mother as a defendant in his lawsuit because there was additional space available on the complaint form, plus thinking that mom might voluntarily bail her out, duh.

I agree that the facts as they are presented here seem to weigh in Molly’s favor.

The text and email exchanges, in addition to proof of the mom’s payments of rent, can be used with the signed letter to show the mom’s intent to help with her daughter’s expenses, should help be needed.

A personal review of all of this, by an attorney in Molly’s area, could give her a better idea what her chances might be against a mom with money enough to afford a good attorney to fight a lawsuit.

 

[Zigner]

It also a translation defying common sense by implying the following absurdities:

1. Mom was simply being unguardedly chatty about family affairs and had not intention of offering the letter as an inducement to lease the subject premises to her deadbeat daughter.

2. The OP was entirely unmotivated by the letter and would've taken the daughter on as a tenant and allowed her to remain ensconced to the tune of $60K regardless of it. And only included the mother as a defendant in his lawsuit because there was additional space available on the complaint form, plus thinking that mom might voluntarily bail her out, duh.

All fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean it rises to the level of an enforceable "guarantee".
duh

 

[mollym.sequoia@]

I disagree with your interpretation of the letter. I believe the letter is informational and does not create a specific commitment.

But she has a solid history of paying the rent and I have the paper trail to prove it. I also have texts of me asking where the rent money was an be her telling me it was on the way.

I think the statute of fraud thing might be an issue. Can rent be orally guaranteed? I know there is a form I should have had signed that would have held up in court, but I never got that form signed. I hope that mistake doesn't put this whole thing down the drain. I should have never been so trusting. Live and learn, I guess...I just wish I learned for a lot less money.

 

[mollym.sequoia@]

Thank you all for your help, BTW. Super helpful. I think I'm going to have a go at it. I hope they don't file a demurrer again, but that would be pretty mean of them to countersue considering what they already put me through, so ill take my chances. Plus, I don't think I'll be happy if I just let this go. Its the principal of the thing. I called her old landlord. The mother paid the rent to him as well. Maybe that will help my case. Should I request a jury trail?

 

[Just Blue]

You would need to have the old ll in court as a witness ...not just a statement from him/her.

 

[quincy]

The lease was a year’s length, and renewed each year?