|
For Cleveland, Ohio: My old landlord has rented out the apartment that I'm still the sole member of the lease until Feb. I left it on the 11th. He has not provided me the security deposit back, informed me that he rented out the unit or offered a pro-rated rent. The unit already has people living in it. What type of recourse do I have? I verbally stated on the 11th that the unit would not be available until February. Submarine Sandpaper fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jan 22, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:For Cleveland, Ohio: Security Deposit + 10 days rent = how much?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
932 dollars /e- I have not paid any of January's rent and at the moment have canceled the pending bill payment that was scheduled to go out in 4 days as that was for the full amount. IMO he was hoping I would not check the place and wanted to doublerent the property. He also took my keys on the 11th. Submarine Sandpaper fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
You voluntarily surrendered possession early and didn't pay rent for the month. Why do you think you're owed money again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:You voluntarily surrendered possession early and didn't pay rent for the month. Why do you think you're owed money again? According to the lease and as is I pay at end of month. I'm looking to not pay him more than he can get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
has he said, "I want money for all of January" or have you suggested to him, "why don't you take the 11 days I owe for January out of my security deposit and send me the rest?" Any conversations like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Let me get this straight: 1. Your lease formally ended at the end of January. 2. You left the apartment on the 11th, took your stuff, and gave the keys to the landlord. With those two facts I would consider the remainder of the lease forfeited and the landlord free to re-rent the property. "Verbally stating" is the same as nothing so I wouldn't go that route. I'm sure the landlord dicked you over, but I don't see how you'd have any actual recourse. Do as blarzgh says and try to negotiate a prorated payment for the days you actually stayed in January, but the way it stands you actually owe the full month. Edit: also whatever "recourse" you might have will not be worth the money you could recoup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
^^^ Does it matter I have copies of the keys and am 99% sure he did not change the locks? Last I spoke to him regarding the place he wanted full rent and just said "I will send you a letter." He had no problem calling me at work asking if I did heroin or other IV drugs after I left the place  .
Submarine Sandpaper fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
When did you give the landlord notice that you were moving out on the 11th?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:^^^
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
gman14msu posted:When did you give the landlord notice that you were moving out on the 11th? Mr. Wookums posted:...I left it on the 11th....I verbally stated on the 11th [of January] that the unit would not be available until February. Edit is how I read it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Edit is how I read it. I emailed him stating that I saw the apartment was rented out. He replied with just "You will be receiving a statement within 30 days of vacancy." Submarine Sandpaper fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Edit ^^^ that's pretty normal actually. interesting that rent is due after a month of occupancy. Most places have it at the beginning. That's really odd, and I'd be curious if you're not paying at the end of a month in advance of the following month (e.g. Rent for January is for December 30th). I'll take you at your word. All the little things your landlord does wrong do not eliminate your requirements to perform under the lease. You still owe at least 11 days rent, and quite possibly owe the full month of January, but you could probably sue for the prorated amount from when new tenants moved in to the end of the month. You not paying the last month most likely means the landlord can deduct that amount from your security deposit. That's how it works in Texas. Don't know about Ohio. Don't break into the apartment, don't do IV drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
More of an abstract question, but can someone give me a primer on sovereign immunity? I understand it from a conceptual point of view - you can't sue the sovereign (or, in modernity, the state) without their consent unless it is specifically provided for by law. This varies from country to country of course, but what is the reasoning behind it? What is the legal justification for sovereign immunity beyond "We make the rules, so we will place ourselves above them"? This is probably a very dumb question that I haven't really considered enough, but it'd be cool to understand the modern theory behind it. If my question isn't clear, let me know and I'll try to rephrase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:What is the legal justification for sovereign immunity beyond "We make the rules, so we will place ourselves above them"? That's pretty much the justification. It goes way back. Other modern justifications include letting the government operate without having to constantly defend lawsuits, not redirecting taxpayer funds to specific individuals, and not having the judicial branch completely running the executive branch of the government (in each case, of course, except pursuant to some law of the government).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
I'm rolling into a hearing on Tuesday with 8 causes of action against the government. Can't wait to get them all tossed based off sovereign immunity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I'm rolling into a hearing on Tuesday with 8 causes of action against the government. Can't wait to get them all tossed based off sovereign immunity. Wait are you to the government or the poor sap on the other side?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
In general, how successful are Section 1981 suits?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
I'm the government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I'm the government. Good thing you only have power within the bounds of the lands of the United States and its territories, not on this system of tubes we call the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
After reading the Wikipedia article on sovereign immunity in the US, I'm firmly of the opinion that it's a truckload of bullshit. "You can't sue us unless we agree to let you" is a terrible law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
KillHour posted:After reading the Wikipedia article on sovereign immunity in the US, I'm firmly of the opinion that it's a truckload of bullshit. "You can't sue us unless we agree to let you" is a terrible law. And yet I was just reading a case the other day that got tossed on the grounds of sovereign immunity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
sullat posted:And yet I was just reading a case the other day that got tossed on the grounds of sovereign immunity. I'm not saying that's not how the law works. I'm saying that's not how the law should work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
It's mostly an anachronism now, but sometimes you just have to say 'look the state just gets to do this without having to worry about being tied up in litigation for years' if you want a functioning government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's mostly an anachronism now, but sometimes you just have to say 'look the state just gets to do this without having to worry about being tied up in litigation for years' if you want a functioning government. I can see instances where this may be warranted, but I have a hard time believing that it is an issue often enough to be the default for pretty much everything. Things like not being able to sue the FBI because they broke into the wrong house and shot your dog and/or kid doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies. And even if it's something that the government should be able to do (like say burn down your crops to kill an invasive insect species or whatever), they should still have to foot the bill for the damage/inconvenience it caused you. Edit: And if the TSA loses my luggage, they should drat well have to pay for it. KillHour fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
The government pays a lot out in damages for the terrible acts of its officials. But sometimes they don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
ulmont posted:That's pretty much the justification. It goes way back. There is also the justification that no foreign soverign should be held to the laws of somewhere else because that would mean that laws in places that prohibit talking and about the monarchy would be applied to foreign dignitaries who shouldn't have that apply to them because they are leaders. Basically a bunch of bullshit made up so you could still negotiate with the HRE without getting arrested for being a Protestant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Newfie posted:There is also the justification that no foreign soverign should be held to the laws of somewhere else because that would mean that laws in places that prohibit talking and about the monarchy would be applied to foreign dignitaries who shouldn't have that apply to them because they are leaders. Basically a bunch of bullshit made up so you could still negotiate with the HRE without getting arrested for being a Protestant. That's the justification for the US respecting France's sovereign immunity, not for the US's sovereign immunity against its own citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I can see instances where this may be warranted, but I have a hard time believing that it is an issue often enough to be the default for pretty much everything. Things like not being able to sue the FBI because they broke into the wrong house and shot your dog and/or kid doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies. Making civil litigants the check on executive power is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:The government pays a lot out in damages for the terrible acts of its officials. But sometimes they don't. yeah, like building ugly powerlines. literally Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
I don't build powerlines my man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Wait, in the US the government gets to claim sovereing immunity on cases brought forward by it's own citizens? What the gently caress. Over here the government has had to paid out claims on people getting injured by potholes. Then again my country goes broke every 10 years so who knows, you guys might be on to something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Wait, in the US the government gets to claim sovereing immunity on cases brought forward by it's own citizens? What the gently caress. Yes, but there are quite a lot of exceptions, covering most torts committed by people acting on behalf of the US as well as most contracts entered into by the US government. It's mostly another set of hoops for lawyers to jump through (or gently caress up and get caught on) when trying to sue the US government. US state governments (which also have sovereign immunity) are generally similar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I don't build powerlines my man. It was a condemnation joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
But but but but what I build is beautiful and useful to the traveling public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
This is why all those gay marriage cases had the claimants suing the clerk of the marriage office and not the state of x. The state technically has immunity but there's a serious of legal hoops set up so that people can sue the state while preserving the concept of state immunity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:But but but but what I build is beautiful and useful to the traveling public. So you're a modern day Robert Moses then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Wait, in the US the government gets to claim sovereing immunity on cases brought forward by it's own citizens? What the gently caress. This is why you sue the head of an agency including the agency usually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm not saying that's not how the law works. I'm saying that's not how the law should work. It's really prone to abuse. There was s case a few years ago in a small town near me where a police officer in his squad car ran a stop light (the kind with yellows flashing one direction, reds the other, he ran the reds without his lights and siren) and T boned another car. Not only did the city refuse to pay, they refused to allow a claim on their insurance, and even got the police officer ruled to be not personally responsible because he was acting in his official capacity. Then, to add insult to injury, they tried to claim damages against the other driver, but his insurance got it tossed out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Cities and towns specifically don't have immunity. There must have been another statute that said the cop wasn't liable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:00
|
|