For LL's: Who has the burden of proof on newley bought property?

[tranquility]

I wouldn't worry about tranquility's kangaroo advice, Papa.

The tenant will say "It was there before I moved in" and the judge will say, "Do you have proof? Pictures? A move in inspection sheet? No? Judgement for the Landlord."

No, you're wrong. The burden is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff can bring in proof, but until they do, the tenant's testimony is the only evidence.

Plaintiff: "These things were damaged on move out."
Tenant: "It was like that when I moved in."
Plaintiff: "I didn't own the building then and have no knowledge of if it is true."

Judgment for the tenant because the burden is on the landlord to prove the damages were caused while the property was in the care of the tenant. Or, the court is hippity hoppiting down the path of making things up rather than the law.

Here's the deal and the legal answer to your question. You need to prove the tenant was responsible. There are ways to do so. To me, MIRAKALES advice would not convince me or win if I had a court, but at least it is *some* evidence the tenant is responsible. If the LL goes into court without such evidence, the case would be appealable if found against the tenant as NO reasonable person could find the LL met his burden of proof. Very rare to be able to appeal on such a claim, but it would clearly be appropriate here.

cabanks27, would you care to give a citation or any reasoning for your erroneous theory as to how the court would find?

 

[MIRAKALES]

Courts rely on credibility, reason and legal precedent when disputes exist without a clear source of evidence. Tenant claims that all damages and hazardous premise conditions existed at move-in. The items in question and deducted from security deposit are not considered “normal wear and tear.” Tenant would have produced evidence at mediation hearing, if there was proof of pre-existing move-in damages. The photographic evidence and witnesses that tenant claims probably do not exist. The time to produce the evidence was when the settlement statement was protested or at the mediation hearing.

In the interim, LL should collect as much information and data as possible regarding the property from sellers, LL’s records, tenants in good standing, court records, etc. The combined evidence will present the best case to support LL’s best information. Credibility will be key. It is not believable that damages existed at move-in.

 

[tranquility]

Courts rely on credibility, reason and legal precedent when disputes exist without a clear source of evidence.

Do you know what "evidence" is?

Tenant claims that all damages and hazardous premise conditions existed at move-in.

Such testimony is one example of "evidence". In fact, most any "evidence" submitted to the court, besides stipulations, require some sort of testimony to get in.

The items in question and deducted from security deposit are not considered “normal wear and tear.” Tenant would have produced evidence at mediation hearing, if there was proof of pre-existing move-in damages. The photographic evidence and witnesses that tenant claims probably do not exist. The time to produce the evidence was when the settlement statement was protested or at the mediation hearing.

You'll have to explain what you mean here. I assume the tenant would say what he believes at this time. I agree it would not be normal wear and tear if the damage happened during the tenancy. So? Prove that part up first or we don't go any farther. If you can't prove it up as the LL, I don't even need to show my evidence as you have failed in your burden.

In the interim, LL should collect as much information and data as possible regarding the property from sellers, LL’s records, tenants in good standing, court records, etc.

Agreed, and points to the error of many (including you) who have posted regarding the burden of proof.

The combined evidence will present the best case to support LL’s best information.

Agreed.

Credibility will be key.

Agreed. The fact finder may weight the evidence how he/they see fit.

It is not believable that damages existed at move-in.

You obviously don't read the news much. Besides, what is believable and legally correct is that if the LL does not give some evidence the property was in proper shape at the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant won't even need to give his side of the story.

 

[cabanks27]

No, you're wrong. The burden is on the plaintiff.

Read OP's original post. The tenant is suing him. SHE is the plaintiff.

cabanks27, would you care to give a citation or any reasoning for your erroneous theory as to how the court would find?

I would be happy to. I have been a property manager for 9 years, and have been to court dozens of times for these issues. I have never lost a case.

 

[tranquility]

Read OP's original post. The tenant is suing him. SHE is the plaintiff.

Good point. It doesn't change the reality. The tenant has evidence, the testimony, the new landlord does not. The burden would be met. At some point the landlord need to have some evidence. There will be no presumption the property was turned over in good condition.

I would be happy to. I have been a property manager for 9 years, and have been to court dozens of times for these issues. I have never lost a case.

OK, I'm waiting.

For example:

The tenant will say "It was there before I moved in" and the judge will say, "Do you have proof? Pictures? A move in inspection sheet? No? Judgement for the Landlord."

How is the tenant's testimony not enough? Give me a citation where any of the other things are required evidence in such a suit.

 

[cabanks27]

Good point. It doesn't change the reality. The tenant has evidence, the testimony, the new landlord does not. The burden would be met. At some point the landlord need to have some evidence. There will be no presumption the property was turned over in good condition.

The burden of proof for the landlord is whether there WERE damages beyond normal wear and tear, and the cost to repair the damages. If the tenant claims the damages were pre-existing, they have the burden of proving that.

OK, I'm waiting.

You asked if I "cared" to give you my reasoning for my "erroneous theory". My reasoning is "been there, done that." You can keep on waiting til the cows come home, it doesn't make me any less right.

For example:
How is the tenant's testimony not enough? Give me a citation where any of the other things are required evidence in such a suit

Testimony is not evidence. If it was, I could testify that you are an idiot, and you would be guilty of such crime.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Testimony is not evidence. If it was, I could testify that you are an idiot, and you would be guilty of such crime.

Well, there you have it Tranq. You were obviously were out playing golf the day they taught this in your Evidence class. (As a side note, he's got nine years as a PM and never lost a case. I don't know why you'd challenge him; he's clearly an expert in the field).

 

[cabanks27]

He's also a she

 

[You Are Guilty]

He's also a she

But -- we have no evidence of that, we just have your testimony

 

[tranquility]

The burden of proof for the landlord is whether there WERE damages beyond normal wear and tear, and the cost to repair the damages. If the tenant claims the damages were pre-existing, they have the burden of proving that.

Not quite. The landlord needs to prove there were damages beyond the normal wear and tear and the cost to repair AND that they occurred when the property was in the tenant's possession.

You asked if I "cared" to give you my reasoning for my "erroneous theory". My reasoning is "been there, done that." You can keep on waiting til the cows come home, it doesn't make me any less right

Your claim this is different from black letter law is "been there, done that"? Super. Let me know when you want to sit at the grown-up table.

Testimony is not evidence. If it was, I could testify that you are an idiot, and you would be guilty of such crime

Clasic. I love it when someone challenges, makes a statement they think is extraordinarily clever and proves up their point--and is so obviously wrong that anyone with any sense or knowledge of the law giggles.

 

[cabanks27]

I don't think the tenant stamping her feet and saying "I didn't do it" is clear and convincing evidence. If she had 15 impartial witnesses, or the testimony of the previous landlord, perhaps. Her testimony in and of itself is not evidence that the damages were not there.

However, there is preponderance of evidence that Tranq is an idiot, and it increases with every one of his posts.

And there is further evidence that I am, in fact, a woman. However, that is a different forum indeed...

 

[BL]

Testimony is not evidence. If it was, I could testify that you are an idiot, and you would be guilty of such crime

Being an Idiot is a Crime ?

 

[tranquility]

I don't think the tenant stamping her feet and saying "I didn't do it" is clear and convincing evidence.

Well, it would depend on the circumstances. But, even if it wasn't, "clear and convincing" is not the burden is such a case. I mean, really. Do you always listen to legal-like words you don't understand and sprinkle them about in your conversations without realizing some people know what they mean?

Her testimony in and of itself is not evidence that the damages were not there.

Actually, it is. And, absent any contrary evidence, the court would have to find the damages were not there.

However, there is preponderance of evidence that Tranq is an idiot, and it increases with every one of his posts.

OK, but such an attitude will keep you at the children's table.

 

[cabanks27]

What makes you think I am interested in sitting at the table with you?

You apparently are the expert on EVERY field, since you feel the need to post your two cents on EVERY question in EVERY category, calling anyone's argument against yours "erroneous". Your big words don't scare me. I stand by my response.

 

[BL]

What makes you think I am interested in sitting at the table with you?

You apparently are the expert on EVERY field, since you feel the need to post your two cents on EVERY question in EVERY category, calling anyone's argument against yours "erroneous". Your big words don't scare me. I stand by my response.

Hey Tranq joint the crowd . I was asked how come I always think I know everything , in another post by this poster, and some more derogatory remarks that the poster quickly deleted right after I hit report .

Ironically this occurred after being a NEW member .

Wonder what the old member name was ?

BTW , in respects to damages .

The property was bought and apparently the tenant moved out 2 1/2 months later .

Did not the NEW owner or agent(s) walk through the property to inspect before purchase ?

If not , too bad .