annefan, prove that you really know the PA law.....

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state? PA

In a previous thread;
annfan wrote: "painting is considered normal wear and tear when a tenant vacates a property"

Homeguru wrote: " annefan, please post the PA L/T law that supports your statement"

annefan responded to JETX with a cut and paste excerpt from some non relevant case.
To date, annefan has not responded to the request from HomeGuru to provide the PA statute that confirms that painting is considered normal wear and tear.

Let's cut to the chase, there is no PA law that supports the statement made by annefan.
Therefore, in conclusion, annefan does not know the PA Landlord Tenant law as he so claims.

 

[annefan]

68 Pa. S. Section 250.512

DAMAGES CAUSED BY TENANT...Perhaps the DJ in my civil suit found that there were no 'damages' done through misuse, abuse and negligence on my (tenants) part.

Now, put your teeth away, wolfie.

 

[HomeGuru]

68 Pa. S. Section 250.512

DAMAGES CAUSED BY TENANT...Perhaps the DJ in my civil suit found that there were no 'damages' done through misuse, abuse and negligence on my (tenants) part.

Now, put your teeth away, wolfie.

**A: please post the actual law in its entirety and not just the heading number, stating the statute with respect to specifically the painting and normal wear and tear issue. The many readers of the this website deserve to be aware of the truth.

 

[annefan]

It does not contain language regarding painting specifically, so, you win the round HG.... DING DING DING

However, an attorney friend returned my call and told me that
a landlord may deduct the amount to cover costs of cleaning or to make repairs (including painting) caused by use BEYOND ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR. I don't know why he *and* the district court used these words with me, but I base my original response on the authorities I have encountered.

I guess when matters get to court, it plays out according to interpretation of the laws. I'll be interested to know how the original poster's situation plays out.

 

[HomeGuru]

It does not contain language regarding painting specifically, so, you win the round HG.... DING DING DING

However, an attorney friend returned my call and told me that
a landlord may deduct the amount to cover costs of cleaning or to make repairs (including painting) caused by use BEYOND ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR. I don't know why he *and* the district court used these words with me, but I base my original response on the authorities I have encountered.

I guess when matters get to court, it plays out according to interpretation of the laws. I'll be interested to know how the original poster's situation plays out.

**A: and there you have it readers. Admission by the guilty party.

 

[annefan]

My brain hurts. You are worse than my college ethics teacher.

 

[HomeGuru]

annefan does not know the PA L/T law

My brain hurts. You are worse than my college ethics teacher.

**A: that's right and don't you forget it. Do not post if you do not know the law as your misinformation misleads the readers of this website. The readers of this website are entitled and give reliance to the information posted by contributors.
As such, the information presented should be factual and truthful. You are doing a great injustice by posting incorrect information. And this has not been the first time. I am sick and tired of reading posts from people like you who act like they know the law, then argue about it with a "I'm right and you're not" attitude, then post non-relevant or incomplete case or statutory law in a feeble attempt to support your grossly erroneous position. I have no time to waste here playing your silly little games.

 

[coosi]

Guru, you said,
"The readers of this website are entitled and give reliance to the information posted by contributors."

Would that be all readers or just a chosen few?

and then,
"As such, the information presented should be factual and truthful. "

Absolutely, and answered to the best of one's knowledge (of course, some have more knowledge of others, but they don't always choose to share it, unfortunately).

Also
"You are doing a great injustice by posting incorrect information."

If someone had a similiar experience, in the same state, in an actual judicial proceeding, do you not consider that in any way relevant or helpful?

Finally
"I am sick and tired of reading posts from people . . .who act like they know the law. . ."

. . .And then offer no helpful advice whatsoever, but use abusive and profane language and are outright rude to posters seeking help in a "so called" legal advice forum.

And I have read posts where this type of behavior was encouraged by you. Enlighten me. Please.

 

[hexeliebe]

If someone had a similiar experience, in the same state, in an actual judicial proceeding, do you not consider that in any way relevant or helpful?

NO! Because the judge is not the same, the jurisdiction is not always the same, the defense attorney, prosecuting attorney, issues and family members are not the same....

To put it simply, no two cases are ever exactly the same ...so one case happening does not necessarily mean you can learn anything from it.

 

[annefan]

Re: annefan does not know the PA L/T law

**A: that's right and don't you forget it. Do not post if you do not know the law as your misinformation misleads the readers of this website. The readers of this website are entitled and give reliance to the information posted by contributors.
As such, the information presented should be factual and truthful. You are doing a great injustice by posting incorrect information. And this has not been the first time. I am sick and tired of reading posts from people like you who act like they know the law, then argue about it with a "I'm right and you're not" attitude, then post non-relevant or incomplete case or statutory law in a feeble attempt to support your grossly erroneous position. I have no time to waste here playing your silly little games.

I said put your teeth away, wolfie. Anger is unbecoming of you.

 

[coosi]

"NO! Because the judge is not the same, the jurisdiction is not always the same, the defense attorney, prosecuting attorney, issues and family members are not the same....

To put it simply, no two cases are ever exactly the same ...so one case happening does not necessarily mean you can learn anything from it."

From the Free Advice site, BTW
"IMPORTANT NOTICE
The FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding."

The site says legal experience is exactly what it's here for.

"Use of the Forums is subject to our Terms and Conditions which prohibit ...defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting."

Now that's interesting. . .

And I thought legal decisions were always based, to a degree on history?

So what is the point of this forum?

 

[hexeliebe]

The point of this forum is "LEGAL ADVICE" Period.

The laws of the jurisdiction can be found in the state statues, not court decisions, although court decision can be used as precidence in other cases as long as the relevant facts of BOTH cases are the same.

This is not a discussion board. It's Legal Facts, which too many people seem to forget.

 

[coosi]

Read it again,

"The FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding."

Did I copy it wrong or did the "Four Horsemen" (?) change the rules without telling anyone at Free Advice?

 

[annefan]

The point of this forum is "LEGAL ADVICE" Period.

The laws of the jurisdiction can be found in the state statues, not court decisions, although court decision can be used as precidence in other cases as long as the relevant facts of BOTH cases are the same.

This is not a discussion board. It's Legal Facts, which too many people seem to forget.

We would all agree that those most qualified to give legal facts and opinions are those in the LEGAL profession. Attorneys, judges, etc. However, if this site is not to be used as a "discussion board", perhaps consumers should just be given the ability to post an initial question, with no reply button option.

 

[coosi]

"if this site is not to be used as a "discussion board", perhaps consumers should just be given the ability to post an initial question, with no reply button option."

Maybe the "hefes" will forward that suggestion to the forum administrators. Or maybe not, because that might ruin their fun. I'm beginning to think that's the primary purpose, entertainment by abusing the legally inept.