|
Why won't your landlord renew your lease WITHOUT the guy on it? You'll never get him removed for the current term, if he doesn't sign on for the next term, he's not on it. You have no realistic legal remedy here. You can take him to small claims court and get a default judgment (if you can even manage to serve him), but you'll never be able to collect.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
If I understand your question right, he's skipping out on the last two months that he's liable for, and is refusing to sign up to be liable for another 6-12?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
From what I understand the current lease is signed by both of them. For whatever reason, their current lease has a discounted price. If the lease is renewed/exteneded, then he keeps the discount. If the current lease is ended, then he will have to sign a new one which will not have a discount. To renew his current lease he either needs to a) have his ex-roommate sign the renewal or, b) have his former roommate sign a release that waives his right to the lease, leaving the OP as the only signer and thus free to renew the lease on his own. The bizarre part is the whole discount thing. I'm not a US lawyer so maybe that's normal there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
It's not so much a discount as it is that the rent is frozen at a lower rate than the landlord thinks they can get. So, the landlord is sticking to his guns and strictly enforcing the letter of the lease to try and force a new lease to raise the price. Whether you feel that's fair is moot. If the lease is between (A&B)&C and has language that it cannot be renewed or altered without consent of all involved parties, that's what it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Landlord killed your roommate, hth
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:The bizarre part is the whole discount thing. I'm not a US lawyer so maybe that's normal there? Its not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Possible the landlord just calls it a discount because he is an idiot in the practice of renting to idiots. I think he's telling them they can keep the same rent if they renew within X period as an incentive to keeping them there instead of having to find new renters, which in my experience is very common as it was done at the end of literally every lease I have had for the last 10 years. In fact, in my current place, 6 months into a 1 year lease term, they'll offer me the same rent if I go ahead and renew for another year at the 6 month mark. It essentially turns a 12 month lease into an 18 month and the current rent is a shade below market as is, so they are leaving money on the table. Perhaps this is a regional thing? What I don't get is why he would allow them to renew the lease or even offer them any lower rate if he wants to jack up the rent. Why not just increase the rent as much as he's legally allowed? What am I missing here? If he wants to charge more for the place than he can legally raise their rent, why not notify them within the required period that he's not renewing the lease? I also don't get how the previous lease affects the new one. For every "renewal" I've had, it was really a new lease. The terms were different, we weren't modifying the previous one, it just so happens that I stayed in the same place. The only way the previous affected the next was that state law limited how much the rent could be increased from term to term for the same renter. The "keep $Y rent" or "$Y+$15 rent" thing was done just as an incentive for me to stay and was absolutely not required by the lease at all. Is extension of current lease vs new lease some kind of weird regional thing? I'm assuming this is some auto-renew crap if neither party gives proper notice at the end of the lease term, otherwise this makes even less sense. So what would happen here if Renter A wanted to move, the rent is paid up, and he gives proper notice? He can't still be on the hook for B's auto renewal, can he? For that matter, why does B need to do anything here other than give termination notice (assuming this is a new lease, and not some strange modification of the previous one)? None of this makes sense to me. e: I just realized maybe the renewal deadline for the reduced rent is outside the required notice period (like Oct 15 would be 45 days notice but law/lease only require 30), but why the landlord would be such a dumbass about it still doesn't make sense; if he doesn't want to charge the lower rent, don't offer it, and if he doesn't want to increase the rent, he doesn't have to. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Sep 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
I am looking to transfer the lease on the house I rent to another renter. A woman comes in and she loves the place. She wants to rent it on the spot. I say I need proof of income, a credit check and deposit. She has all three with her. Great! We write I out a rudimentary contract stating that she would make every effort to rent the place or else her deposit would be kept. I, the idiot, figured I'd give her the only draft of our informal contract because I'm getting the money - a fair trade in my mind. I forward all of the info to my landlords. They take a look at all the info and they, being that they work for the IRS, notice that the bank statements provided by her looks doctored. Spooked, they call her and ask to run their own credit check. She refuses. In lieu of that, they ask for last years tax return... She refuses and then backs out on the spot. I get called and asked for the deposit back and I, knowing that I'm going to have to keep the place for another month in order to rent it out, I know that I've lost money. Because of her unwillingness to cooperate. She, after all, backed out on our arrangement. I say, "I need to figure out my legal obligation to you. Allow me to consult a lawyer." I approach a firm that makes a habit of answering questions for people who can't afford proper law consultation, but they're obviously taking their time on getting back to me. Meanwhile there are people who I don't recognize pounding on my door and I'm getting some calls from strange numbers that don't leave a message. Am I so obviously in the right or wrong that someone on the internet can tell me? George Sex - REAL fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Right or wrong, you gonna get stabbed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:I am looking to transfer the lease on the house I rent to another renter... I mean she made every effort to rent the place per your contract. She even went so far as to make fake documents... Legal stuff: No attorney except one who is representing you will give you an answer to your question. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth it to pay for someone tomorrow or wait til the legal aid people get back to you. Practical stuff: You should do some serious thinking about whether this time, money, and effort will be worth it in the end and you may realize chalking it up to an expensive life lesson/unfortunate mishap and giving her the money may be the best option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Right or wrong, you gonna get stabbed. On the plus side I've moved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:I am looking to transfer the lease on the house I rent to another renter. Follow-up question: Without me having evidence of a pre-lease deposit agreement, am I, or am less than, totally boned?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Here's the real question: is the deposit enough money to allow you to hire a lawyer when she sues you for it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
Is the identity of LLC owners in Florida a matter of public record? I've been to sunbiz.org but all I can find online is the manager and/or the registered agent. Is there a more detailed request I can make? I don't mind paying if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Write up a second agreement stipulating the return of her deposit money and give her the only copy of that one too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
A person in NYC has an injured dog, they take it to a rescue shelter and the rescue shelter says she needs to give up the dog since she can't pay for the surgery. The rescue shelter doesn't perform the surgery, turns out the dog was fine. She finds out they didn't do the surgery and asks for her dog back, they reply thus:  And it turns out they've rehomed the dog. Here's the story unfolding on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jadedid/status/649348145617444864 I noticed one of the replies said what the shelter did may constitute fraud, which sounds possible to me but aren't most shelters non-profit and wouldn't you need to turn a profit to create that fraud? Would a lawyer suing have to prove they had intent to deceive? I always thought if something happens like a comic book collector says "Ugh your Superman #1 is terrible and worth 5 bucks" then sells it for $100,000, that's fraud. Or is that just shrewd business? Basically, what exactly is fraud? I'm not involved in this case in any way other than seeing it in my timeline and being curious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Fraud is 1) a false material misrepresentation, 2) made as a positive assertion which is either known to be false or is made recklessly without knowledge of the truth, 3) with the intention that it be acted upon, and 4) which is relied on by the other party to his (or her) own detriment. The comic book bit is fraud because comic book guy saying "It's worth $5" meets all the elements. The dog thing is more nuanced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
I'm willing to bet money that some of the material facts of this situation are 100% false.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I'm willing to bet money that some of the material facts of this situation are 100% false. That's what I thought too, what shelter says if you can't pay for the surgery you have to sign over ownership of the dog? Is that a thing that happens?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Just curious, if a dog had a wound, and it needed treated or euthanized that could be the "had to" part of the story. While dogs are properties there are laws about animal cruelty, so if you can not treat a dogs medical issue, you can humanely terminate it. She was probably given the option to A. pay a vet to do whatever B. surrender it to their care C. euthanize it. Most dog owners would probably feel like the actual choices were B. only if they couldn't pay the vet bill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:A person in NYC has an injured dog, they take it to a rescue shelter and the rescue shelter says she needs to give up the dog since she can't pay for the surgery. This person should be naming and shaming which will be way more effective and faster than suing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:That's what I thought too, what shelter says if you can't pay for the surgery you have to sign over ownership of the dog? Is that a thing that happens? I'm actually more skeptical of the "response" from the alleged lawyer, witch seems pretty fuckin fake. I can envision a situation where the woman can't take care of it, so she gives up her dog, and has second thoughts but has no recourse, so she invents this story of persecution and deceit to get the attention from social media that she discovered getting from a pet took too much effort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
It's like, look, lady, I promise you, they all taste exactly alike.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Fraud is Wouldn't the dog case be just as straight forward since they claimed that the dog required expensive surgery, yet they didn't actually perform it and then sold the dog for profit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:Wouldn't the dog case be just as straight forward since they claimed that the dog required expensive surgery, yet they didn't actually perform it and then sold the dog for profit? I read it that it was the owner who thought the dog required expensive surgery. The shelter took the owner her at her word, but when the dog was examined by a vet in preparation for surgery it turned out the surgery was unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I read it that it was the owner who thought the dog required expensive surgery. The shelter took the owner her at her word, but when the dog was examined by a vet in preparation for surgery it turned out the surgery was unnecessary. Why wouldn't they just call her and ask her to reimburse the cost of the examination and give it back then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:Why wouldn't they just call her and ask her to reimburse the cost of the examination and give it back then? Because they sold the dog for $$$.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Not a US lawyer, but in my country (and I suspect everywhere else) donations aren't the same as onerous transactions. Donations are usually made towards a specific person or persons for a specific purpose and under specific circumstances. If later you find out that those circumstances were not actually such then there's fair grounds for the person who made the donation to (try to) revoke it, especially if the receiving party was in a position to inform the donating party of their error. If the twitter person is actually telling the truth, I think she would have a case. She made the donation under the conviction that she could not afford the upkeep of the dog (as per the costs informed to her by the shelter). If those costs did not materialize then the reason for the donation does not fully exist anymore and an argument could be made that the shelter had a good faith obligation to notify her so she could revoke the donation. And, I mean, I think just in the sense of being decent human beings, if someone gives you their dog because they can't pay for their surgery, and then you find out that the surgery isn't necessary, then rather than giving the dog to complete strangers, it might be better to give him back to its actual owner?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:Why wouldn't they just call her and ask her to reimburse the cost of the examination and give it back then? If the original owner couldn't afford an exam before, where would she get the money for an exam later? "Here, house, feed and care for my animal for free, get him examined by a vet, and if it turns out to be not too serious, you shall give him back if I reimburse you for the exam." Who took on the risk here? I'd submit that the answer to that question points to the legal and moral 'owner' of the dog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
What joat said. You can't just let people use shelters as free food, board, and vet care for obvious reasons. You are either donating or you aren't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Just take the salomonic solution and cut the dog in half.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
joat mon posted:They could, but they're under no legal obligation to do so. (assuming the facts as stated) I can even see a situation where the people in the charity would see no moral obligation to return a living animal to a person who specifically told them she could not afford to provide necessary care for a living animal and in fact, was unwilling to provide necessary care for a living animal. So have her pay for housing too, and all the costs of the shelter. I don't think she's asking for free services. And I dislike the implication that she's an unfit owner. We have the technology to do $20k surgeries on pets but that doesn't mean it's necessary to do so. It's not a normal cost of having a pet, and if she chose to put it to sleep that would be completely okay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:So have her pay for housing too, and all the costs of the shelter. I don't think she's asking for free services. Lol what the gently caress is this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:So have her pay for housing too, and all the costs of the shelter. I don't think she's asking for free services. Please come up with a scenario where the cost of surgery is the sticking point--rather than the cost of a test, in which case it's exactly the scenario joat described--where it could turn out no surgery was actually needed without the owner having hosed up somewhere along the way, eg by having diagnosed via internet forum. Then explain why the details of this scenario do not appear in the text we're discussing. Edit: in an attempt to be less snarky, it seems like you're responding to an element of the story in isolation. The problem isn't that she decided she couldn't afford whatever she thought the dog needed; it's that she decided she couldn't afford it AND no treatment was actually needed. There's a limited number of problems where that's possible without obvious you'd-include-them-if-you-had-them details being missing from the story. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Not a US lawyer, but in my country (and I suspect everywhere else) donations aren't the same as onerous transactions. I think it's perfectly arguable that the circumstances were that she wasn't able to care for a dog that had the risk of needing surgery, and gave away the dog on that basis. Clearly she didn't have the dog inspected to the point where it was conclusively determined whether or not it needed surgery, so that isn't the basis of the gift. On policy grounds you are just going to have a much harder time trying to revoke a gift made for the purpose of avoiding cost rather than a gift made wholly charitably. The rule that gifts are revocable doesn't exist to provide insurance for people attempting to offload a liability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Please come up with a scenario where the cost of surgery is the sticking point--rather than the cost of a test, in which case it's exactly the scenario joat described--where it could turn out no surgery was actually needed without the owner having hosed up somewhere along the way, eg by having diagnosed via internet forum. If joat is only saying that if you can't afford basic testing you aren't properly caring for your pet, then I agree with that, and I'm sorry I misread. But that's not what happened with this woman, which is why I was confused. quote:Edit: in an attempt to be less snarky, it seems like you're responding to an element of the story in isolation. The problem isn't that she decided she couldn't afford whatever she thought the dog needed; it's that she decided she couldn't afford it AND no treatment was actually needed. There's a limited number of problems where that's possible without obvious you'd-include-them-if-you-had-them details being missing from the story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:Looking at her twitter now, she took the dog to a vet. The vet examined the dog and said the surgery was necessary. That part was not her fault. She could and did afford an exam. (Unless she's lying.) Dylan16807 posted:If joat is only saying that if you can't afford basic testing you aren't properly caring for your pet, then I agree with that, and I'm sorry I misread. But that's not what happened with this woman, which is why I was confused.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
poo poo just got real enough that I thought I'd clue the legal thread in: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14979-Chairmans-Response-To-The-Escapist
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
That's a nuts demand letter. Who doesn't use their outside counsel for demand letters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:That's a nuts demand letter. Who doesn't use their outside counsel for demand letters? Chris Roberts doesn't, that's who.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 12:41
|
|