|
Nice piece of fish posted:Anyway, here's my legal question: Is there any kind of thread where legal nerds nerd out about more theoretical/philosophical stuff or is this thread kind of for that kind of thing too? We used to do that but then people kept trying to subtly ask for legal advice under the cover of 'hypothetical' questions about their 'friend'.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:We used to do that but then people kept trying to subtly ask for legal advice under the cover of 'hypothetical' questions about their 'friend'. Ah. Should have seen that one coming. Maybe I'll just stick to nerding out with collegues then. I was offered a summer course in the US aimed at aquainting foreign attourneys with the US system, but I just can't justify it because it would be worthless to my day-to-day practice. I'll do it when you relieve Cheeto Benito of power, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
My train conductor friend has a problem where, at a bifurcation, someone keeps tying a group of children to one track, and a fat guy to the other. Any advice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:My train conductor friend has a problem where, at a bifurcation, someone keeps tying a group of children to one track, and a fat guy to the other. Any advice? Figure out how to split the train at speed while throqung the switch. Two birds, one stone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:My train conductor friend has a problem where, at a bifurcation, someone keeps tying a group of children to one track, and a fat guy to the other. Any advice? Fat guy has more stopping power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Fat guy has more stopping power. If the train stops, crucial supplies will not make it to a hospital and a bunch of cancer patients will die. Also his boss requires utilitarian justifications for any route changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Looks like this will be quite the derail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Looks like this will be quite the derail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:If the train stops, crucial supplies will not make it to a hospital and a bunch of cancer patients will die. Also his boss requires utilitarian justifications for any route changes. Fat guy will slow the train but provide lubrication. The childrens will be much more bony, resulting in a higher chance of machinery damage. 420 run down fat guys every day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
This is easy if you are a goon because there's probably already a court order requiring you to keep your distance from children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
You dummy, get a lawyer! You can't handle ethical decisions like this without one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:You dummy, get a lawyer! You can't handle ethical decisions like this without one. I already chose and confessed to the cops but I think if I just call the DA and explain I'm sure he'll understand. Do you think I need a lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Should we even have laws?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Just don't get a public defender. You want a real lawyer. I saw this ad by a guy called the "law hawk"....
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
I believe you mean birdman
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Also his boss requires utilitarian justifications for any route changes. Just punch the known facts accurately into your ethical calculator and the blame will be on the guy who set the values used.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:We used to do that but then people kept trying to subtly ask for legal advice under the cover of 'hypothetical' questions about their 'friend'. IIRC one of the past OPs directed people to do that (the very last one, I think). I can't imagine anybody but an actual lawyer writes the OP of a law thread, so I'm blaming all of you in aggregate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
In my (non-US) experience, you really need to look at the deposit as something you're not getting back. If you do, then it's a nice surprise but otherwise assume it's part of the rental cost. The law is just not equipped to handle small claims like these fairly. The cost of legal action (both in money and stress) is too high even if you're 100% right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:In my (non-US) experience, you really need to look at the deposit as something you're not getting back. If you do, then it's a nice surprise but otherwise assume it's part of the rental cost. My experience has been that an assertive move-out notice and a clean apartment has always gotten my security deposit returned. I've never had to pursue legal action. I know that in a lot of places it's the norm to have to fight for it, but that's really not my question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
In Texas I believe they have to return what isn't used to pay for allowed damages. The demand provision is step one of suing your landlord for it back. You demand the return of the deposits and provide a forwarding address. If you demand it and they don't return whatever is left, you can get a (very small) statutory penalty and then up the 3x your deposit in damages. If you don't demand it, and skip straight to suing, you can only get up to your remaining deposit back
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Not seeking legal advice and I am not in a ~*~situation~*~, just trying to understand my state's rental law. Basically, does this mean that a tenant has to demand their deposit back again after providing a notice to vacate? Someone else has a situation and it made me wonder if their landlord is being hinky or they're allowed to just sit on a deposit until it's demanded back. This is pretty standard for multiple states. Ordinary wear and tear is not something that is deductible from a deposit for any state I've looked at. Almost all states require landlords provide an itemized list of things they are deducting from the deposit and a timeframe to give it back. Typically, scummy landlords just gently caress over broke renters knowing there won't be a legal challenge. If the landlord doesn't remit the full deposit or give an itemized list of what's deducted and return the balance, the former tenants recourse is to sue in whatever the local flavor of small claims court turns out to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Nancy Pants you really have a lot of legal questions what's going on?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Unauthorized practice of law is only a misdemeanor where he/she's from. With no law school loans, nancy pants is making tons of money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:In my (non-US) experience, you really need to look at the deposit as something you're not getting back. If you do, then it's a nice surprise but otherwise assume it's part of the rental cost. pretty sure that depends a lot on where you are, especially since you're bringing different countries into the mix (for instance, in the UK, all deposits have to be lodged with a third party and nothing is released until the disposition of the deposit is agreed, so a landlord trying to pull something shady is in a much worse position than they would be if they already had the deposit in hand)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Yeah, some states in Australia also have that same deposit-with-the-government-branch system. Even in places where it doesn't it differs, I've never had a problem getting a security deposit back in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
That's because y'all do capitalism wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Nancy Pants you really have a lot of legal questions what's going on? I'm just curious like a kitty cat. I've never run into that problem. I just wanted to understand what this law is saying, not how to apply it. joat mon posted:Unauthorized practice of law is only a misdemeanor where he/she's from. With no law school loans, nancy pants is making tons of money. Pretty sure Fauxton has quite a few years more education than me and can see my uninformed spitballing for what it is, especially when I said to sit down with a lawyer about it if it's real money. E: I was only thinking about talking to him in the context of his education and understanding, and not who else would read. That's why you guys are professionals and I am not. If I were having problems with the practical application, I'd sit down with a lawyer too. E: Genuine question: do you have to be careful about a question like mine in case it leads to someone trying to apply it? BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Unauthorized practice of law is only a misdemeanor where he/she's from. With no law school loans, nancy pants is making tons of money. I'd rather just cheat on the Bar exam if it came to that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
There are radical differences in the Landlord Tenant Act from state to state in the US. Some are extremely tenant friendly, some are mustache-twirlingly evil (like Arkansas, the only state without an Implied Warranty of Habitability law). There are also massive differences in how small claims work from state to state as well. I work in WA state and here landlords are allowed to require up to 100% of the monthly rent as a deposit (so in Seattle you could be looking at $3000 deposit for a house) but it costs like $25 to file a small claim in county court (where everyone is pro se) so you can bet your rear end it's worth suing a landlord for dragging their feet on a deposit refund. If you have a real problem contact a tenant's rights group in your state. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I am a property manager.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
I paid a whole months rent as deposit for several poo poo hole apartments in west campus when I went to UT, so I don't think it's that uncommon. I think the slum lords in south Dallas do that as well I don't think there is even a provision in the Texas property code that limits deposit amounts EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I paid a whole months rent as deposit Where is this not a thing? I thought one month rent was pretty standard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Where is this not a thing? I thought one month rent was pretty standard. in British Columbia a half month's rent is the maximum legal limit, in Quebec it's illegal to take a damage deposit at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
HookShot posted:in British Columbia a half month's rent is the maximum legal limit, in Quebec it's illegal to take a damage deposit at all. Like I said, Landlord/Tenant laws vary WILDLY. There are also legal shenanigans (technical term) about the difference between a damage deposit and a deposit for security of the final month's rent and it's always a fun time when a tenant or landlord doesn't understand the difference. Upon rereading Nancy Pant's question, I (not a lawyer) read that specific law as the state providing the landlord an out in case the tenant does not provide a forwarding address (this happens more than you'd think and it is always a gigantic pain in the rear end and pisses me off since we are literally trying to give you money) or if they skip town in some other fashion. When the tenant wants to leave they would provide notice of intent to vacate, give a forwarding address, and the "demand" for the deposit would come at that time or at the time of vacating the property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Unload My Head posted:Like I said, Landlord/Tenant laws vary WILDLY. There are also legal shenanigans (technical term) about the difference between a damage deposit and a deposit for security of the final month's rent and it's always a fun time when a tenant or landlord doesn't understand the difference. Now I'm clearly not an expert, but don't you need an address to know where to send something? I've heard of doing separate deposits, I just haven't lived anywhere that had them. If I'm reading our law and the case law correctly, renters have to make a separate demand from the notice to vacate in order to recover their deposit. As a landlord, is there a reason for requiring renters to demand the deposit back in addition to providing a notice to vacate with their forwarding address? That's the part that's bizarre to me. In Hilliard v Robinson (annotation to the first statute) the landlord argued that since the renter had not made a demand within 2 weeks of terminating the lease other than her notice to vacate (the apartment was unlivable), she was not entitled to recover the deposit. That was the case that established that the 14 day limit applies only to how long a landlord has to return the deposit/itemized list of damages, not a limit to the renter's demand, and establishes the demand as the trigger that starts the clock. The court ultimately said that the renter had more than two weeks to make a demand, but not that she had already made one by providing a notice to vacate with forwarding address.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
NP: I really thought you were constantly running into legal problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:As a landlord, is there a reason for requiring renters to demand the deposit back in addition to providing a notice to vacate with their forwarding address? The reasoning is the same any landlord-friendly hoop for tenants to jump through. A small percentage of people won't jump through that hoop, and you keep their deposit for some sweet ill-gotten profit! TBH though, for us in our Northwestern liberal paradise your entire system seems like a Boss Hogg nightmare. NancyPants posted:In Hilliard v Robinson (annotation to the first statute) the landlord argued that since the renter had not made a demand within 2 weeks of terminating the lease other than her notice to vacate (the apartment was unlivable), she was not entitled to recover the deposit. That was the case that established that the 14 day limit applies only to how long a landlord has to return the deposit/itemized list of damages, not a limit to the renter's demand, and establishes the demand as the trigger that starts the clock. The court ultimately said that the renter had more than two weeks to make a demand, but not that she had already made one by providing a notice to vacate with forwarding address. Sounds like an rear end in a top hat landlord tried to dick someone over using a law already slanted towards them to begin with and the court slapped them down. The system... works... I guess? FWIW this is the relevant statute in my state: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.18.280
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:NP: I really thought you were constantly running into legal problems. Nope. Other than the couple times I've had to ask for input (which I have appreciated), it's all curiosity on an internet comedy forum. Unload My Head posted:The reasoning is the same any landlord-friendly hoop for tenants to jump through. A small percentage of people won't jump through that hoop, and you keep their deposit for some sweet ill-gotten profit! TBH though, for us in our Northwestern liberal paradise your entire system seems like a Boss Hogg nightmare. Wanted to make sure there wasn't some facet of property ownership I just don't understand as a lowly plebe. Even not compared to any liberal paradise, it seems like a Boss Hogg nightmare. To me, the best part about Hilliard v Robinson was that the landlord was such a dirtbag. The apartment had no thermostat and heat was controlled by the one next door. It had mice. The renter had given notice of the problems and then that she was moving out, and the landlord did nothing to advertise the property besides a sign in the yard with a faded phone number, didn't advertise anywhere until after the lease had ended, still tried to come after the renter for the remainder of the rent through the period of the lease (there was no lease cancellation) and tried to keep the deposit because the renter hadn't demanded it within 2 weeks. Is this what people mean when they say slumlord? Unload My Head posted:FWIW this is the relevant statute in my state: Uh. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
In Texas, the landlord can't deduct costs for "ordinary wear and tear" from your security deposit. What is, "ordinary wear and tear", you ask? Nobody knows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Oh God I'm so screwed. I've lived in the same apartment in Texas for the last 5 years, and didn't pay a deposit. We did something were you pay some other company a $100 fee, and any cleaning expenses they just bill you for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:52
|
|