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

[coosi]

Are any of the powerful ones going to take the time to enlighten us all as to the previous posts (particularly where the forum is quoted. . .)???

 

[HomeGuru]

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.

**A: you are straying further and further from the main point of this thread.
The purpose of this thread was to prove that providing statements that are untrue and cannot be supported by statutory law is dangerous. You have a history of posting incorrect advice then arguing about it trying to prove that you are right, when in fact, you are not.

 

[HomeGuru]

"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.

**A: what the heck are you griping about? Not only did you hijack this thread but you do realize that the suggestion of posting a question with no reply button feature is totally ridiculous and idiotic at best. Furthermore, this thread was created for the sole purpose to prove that annefan was incorrect in her/his/its advice. I was not amused by annefan being legally inept.

 

[annefan]

**A: you are straying further and further from the main point of this thread.
The purpose of this thread was to prove that providing statements that are untrue and cannot be supported by statutory law is dangerous. You have a history of posting incorrect advice then arguing about it trying to prove that you are right, when in fact, you are not. [/B]

I understand that providing statements that cannot be backed by statutes or laws are dangerous. I also understand that I had one incident, historically, and that thread contained the issue of MLS (which had nothing to do with the original question on the thread, and I acknowledge that). I disagree with your accusation that I have a "history" of posting incorrect advice and then argue about it trying to prove that I'm right. What constitutes history, one time? multiple times? I never stated that I responded with a factually correct statement, I responded that this was my experience based on what legal professionals relayed to me during my security deposit litigation. I responded with statements based on my experience, as the home page of this site ENCOURAGES consumers to post helpful information based upon their OWN EXPERIENCES. If we are not to respond with personal experience, then perhaps that disclaimer should be removed.

I try to be very careful how I respond on these boards, using language such as "may" "might" "could" in order to avoid making blanket statements. My mistake here was that I did not clarify that this was my opinion. And I accept that.

If you, yourself, are infallible, HomeGuru, then more power to you...now, put your teeth away!

 

[JETX]

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.

BTW, for the enlightenment of alll, here is the ACTUAL text from the cited statute (and the above is not in it!!).

"§ 250.512. RECOVERY OF IMPROPERLY HELD ESCROW FUNDS.
(a) Every landlord shall within thirty days of termination of a lease or upon surrender and acceptance of the leasehold premises, whichever first occurs, provide a tenant with a written list of any damages to the leasehold premises for which the landlord claims the tenant is liable. Deliver of the list shall be accompanied by payment of the difference between any sum deposited in escrow, including any unpaid interest thereon, for the payment of damages to the leasehold premises and the actual amount of damages to the leasehold premises caused by the tenant. Nothing in this section shall preclude the landlord from refusing to return the escrow fund, including any unpaid interest thereon, for nonpayment of rent or for the breach of any other condition in the lease by the tenant.
(b) Any landlord who fails to provide a written list within thirty days as required in subsection (a), above, shall forfeit all rights to withhold any portion of sums held in escrow, including any unpaid interest thereon, or to bring suit against the tenant for damages to the leasehold premises.
(c) If the landlord fails to pay the tenant the difference between the sum deposited, including any unpaid interest thereon, and the actual damages to the leasehold premises caused by the tenant within thirty days after termination of the lease or surrender and acceptance of the leasehold premises, the landlord shall be liable in assumpsit to double the amount by which the sum deposited in escrow, including any unpaid interest thereon, exceeds the actual damages to the leasehold premises caused by the tenant as determined by any court of record or court not of record having jurisdiction in civil actions at law. The burden of proof of actual damages caused by the tenant to the leasehold premises shall be on the landlord.
(d) Any attempted waiver of this section by a tenant by contract or otherwise shall be void and unenforceable.
(e) Failure of the tenant to provide the landlord with his new address in writing upon termination of the lease or upon surrender and acceptance of the leasehold premises shall relieve the landlord from any liability under this section.
(f) This section shall apply only to residential leaseholds and not to commercial leaseholds."

 

[annefan]

BTW, for the enlightenment of alll, here is the ACTUAL text from the cited statute (and the above is not in it!!).

"§ 250.512. RECOVERY OF IMPROPERLY HELD ESCROW FUNDS.
(a) ...provide a tenant with a written list of any DAMAGES to the leasehold premises for which the landlord claims the tenant is liable. .... for the payment of DAMAGES to the leasehold premises and the actual amount of DAMAGES to the leasehold premises CAUSED BY THE TENANT.
(b) ... to bring suit against the tenant for DAMAGES to the leasehold premises.
(c) If the landlord fails to pay the tenant the difference between the sum deposited, including any unpaid interest thereon, and the ACTUAL DAMAGES to the leasehold premises CAUSED BY THE TENANT.... .... exceeds the actual DAMAGES to the leasehold premises CAUSED BY THE TENANT as determined by any court of record ....The burden of proof of actual DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE TENANT to the leasehold premises shall be on the landlord.
(d) ....
(e) ....
(f) ....

And your point, JETX? Are those.....fangs showing?

 

[JETX]

No. I am just confused (and curious) on how you managed to take a perfectly clear statute and somehow say/imply that it included:
"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."

Or have you been de-fanged??

 

[coosi]

Hexy, to quote HomeGuru,

**A: On the contrary my dear, I am not here for advice. I am here for entertainment. I get a big kick reading some of the threads

My sentiments exactly!!

 

[HomeGuru]

I understand that providing statements that cannot be backed by statutes or laws are dangerous. I also understand that I had one incident, historically, and that thread contained the issue of MLS (which had nothing to do with the original question on the thread, and I acknowledge that).

**A: since the "MLS" thread was archived, we could revisit it and I could prove to you once again that you were incorrect. As I remember, you stated if a property was listed then it is listed in MLS. And in another thread, you also stated that if a real estate agent is licensed then that agent must belong to the Board of Realtors. You also stated other erroneous information in other threads.
************

I disagree with your accusation that I have a "history" of posting incorrect advice and then argue about it trying to prove that I'm right. What constitutes history, one time? multiple times?

**A: multiple times.
*********



I never stated that I responded with a factually correct statement, I responded that this was my experience based on what legal professionals relayed to me during my security deposit litigation. I responded with statements based on my experience, as the home page of this site ENCOURAGES consumers to post helpful information based upon their OWN EXPERIENCES. If we are not to respond with personal experience, then perhaps that disclaimer should be removed.

I try to be very careful how I respond on these boards, using language such as "may" "might" "could" in order to avoid making blanket statements. My mistake here was that I did not clarify that this was my opinion. And I accept that.

**A: very good.
*********

If you, yourself, are infallible, HomeGuru, then more power to you...now, put your teeth away!

**A: you are still playing games and the recent posts by you proves that. JETX makes it clear that you are twisting things around and now got caught.

 

[HomeGuru]

Hexy, you said,

**A: On the contrary my dear, I am not here for advice. I am here for entertainment. I get a big kick reading some of the threads

My sentiments exactly!!

**A: hexy did not say that, I did. The HomeGuru.

 

[coosi]

Thanks, I corrected it. And I agree, very entertaining!

 

[annefan]

No. I am just confused (and curious) on how you managed to take a perfectly clear statute and somehow say/imply that it included:
"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."

Or have you been de-fanged??

No. In context of that response, I was forwarding text from what I received by the DJs office in answer to MY inquiry to them. I was challenged to give "statutes or case law", so I called my court and the clerk faxed me (the statute whereupon my suit was found) while I was searching the code. I never denied that my statement, as given, was inaccurate according the Pennsylvania LL/T law. I found nothing in the statute that specifically states "painting is considered normal wear", but I responded with MY experience and relayed what I was told by the legal professionals involved in my litigation. What can be made of it? I suppose it comes down to how the judge translated the language of the statute. Who the hell knows?

 

[HomeGuru]

annefan, review the thread titled "seller refuses to release escrow amount" by kristin2002. That was one thread that you responded to under your old user name annefan1000. There are others but my point has been made.

 

[annefan]

annefan, review the thread titled "seller refuses to release escrow amount" by kristin2002. That was one thread that you responded to under your old user name annefan1000. There are others but my point has been made.

That's nice. Multiple times. Shall I stay or shall I go?

 

[HomeGuru]

That's nice. Multiple times. Shall I stay or shall I go?

**A: that was one thread that I used as an example. And the painting/wear and tear was another. There were more in between. I am not going to waste my time searching for the other numerous ones that you gave incorrect advice on.