Signed Lease, Key, Utilities in my name and problem current tenant won't leave cont.

[Zigner]

Boy oh boy what a hot topic...As I said in my other post it was not the new renters fault the landlord couldn't get old renter out...whose fault is it? The old renter I guess. Maybe the LL can sue the old tennet for not vacating and costing him after sjpmom wins for her additional expenses. I think sjpmom should go to small claims court, you don't need a lawyer for that, just the cost to file a claim and your time. If she couldn't move in because house was destroyed by flood or tornado then she probably wouldn't win, but in this case it just seems like common sense. She had a contract which, when it comes down to it LL breached..but then again maybe the law doesn't always use common sense.

You make a good point - New tenant (who couldn't move in) can recover from the LL. LL can then add that to what he attempts to recover from the old tenant.

 

[ecmst12]

Exactly. Holdover does not have a contractual agreement with OP, landlord does. Holdover has no DUTY to OP and OP cannot sue him for breech of a duty that does not exist. On the other hand, LL's duties are EXPLICITLY spelled out in the contract. Duties were breeched, resulting in damages to OP. Therefore, LL is liable to OP, and holdover is liable to LL, who holdover has a contractual agreement with.

I'll explain this real slowly for Johnd...tort law 101.
1. One party has an established duty to the other.
2. That party has breeched the duty through negligence or maliciousness.
3. That breech in duty directly led to monetary damages.

The only element that might be questionable is negligence, but at least IMO, from the facts that have been presented, the LL was negligent in his representation of the property as available when he was fully aware he was going to need a court order (which he did not yet have nor had filed the court action to obtain) in order to get the holdover out. Which is the element that the landlords on this board seem to be ignoring. The holdover was not a SURPRISE to this landlord, he wasn't blindsided or caught unawares. He KNEW the guy had already refused to leave and would continue to do so until the sheriff physically threw him out. Yet he continued to represent the property as "available" or "available any day now", right up until moving day. Had he even attempted to let OP know a few days beforehand so she could have remained at her old place and not incurred so many expenses, that might have been sufficient to get him off the hook, but he didn't even do that. And that makes him liable.

And I don't get why you think a holdover tenant is beyond the landlord's control anyway. You all know exactly how to get a holdover out of your building and how long it will take to do it. You could tell your prospective tenant, I filed the UD on this date, the hearing is on this date, I should have the order of posession by around this date, and you should be able to move in by X at the latest. Had this LL done that, that might have exempted him from negligence. But he didn't. In fact he TOLD OP that he'd gotten an eviction when he hadn't even filed one, I suspect that this LL was clueless enough to think that a 30 day notice expiring was enough for him to be able to get the sheriff involved.

OK I'm done now, my head hurts from beating it against this wall.

 

[johnd]

For the professors here that are keeping their tutelage within the scope of opinion, rather than the law (as requested)...well that just about says it all. They don't strike me as LL's, nor post-pubescent sophists...and I can't believe they've ever prosecuted or defended an eviction.

Anyhow, by their theory, since the LL is responsible for all consequential damages (though they refuse to post statutes or case law mind you), the OP could have stored her items in a locker that costs $100,000.00 per day...and the LL would be resonsible. As the OP hasn't posted back, I think she's seen the light. As far as the professors and their baseless claims: they're just writing to themselves...and anyone foolhardy enough to listen.

Professors: please post a statute or case law (for the 3rd time) that makes the LL culpable for the existing tenant's wilful conduct.