|
Winkle-Daddy posted:Finally, does the employee have to sue to get the extra day wages, or will asking for it normally result in them being paid? This company has been pretty weak on following laws and regulations in the past, so I was suggesting that my wife do whatever it takes to get any appropriate penalties or fines levied, however, she'll just take the extra money if they're supposed to just "add it on" otherwise, no lawyering up so long as they pay for worked hours and PTO. IANAL, but I had a friend who went through this in California. From what you say, the law in Oregon sounds pretty much identical. Here in CA, you would go to your local Division of Labor Standards Enforcement office and fill out some paperwork describing the situation. The DLSE office contacts your employer and asks them what the gently caress is going on, and your employer can either try to explain it away somehow or fess up to it. With the government breathing down their neck they have some good incentive to cough up the money owed; that's all it took for my friend to get his paycheck (+ extra three weeks) so I don't know what step 2 would be if the employer contests it. I imagine the DLSE would provide some guidance. This seems to be a list of equivalent offices for the Oregon Bureau of Labor. You don't have nearly as many as we do in CA, but your state is much less populous so hopefully they have one convenient to you. You should call them and ask if they provide the same sort of assistance I described above. Good luck.
|
# ? Sep 28, 2012 23:42 |
|
|
# ? Jun 3, 2024 23:48 |
|
Hey guys. I was planning on moving out of my parents house October 1st, but my step-dad beat me to the punch. Yesterday he informed us that he just wasn't happy and that he was getting his own place. They were behind on a few bills even when he was so kind as to spare a few dollars for the family, and now that he isn't going to be seeing her or his two kids on a daily basis, I'm afraid that he's going to bail on what financial responsibility he can. I've already put off moving out, and now I have to deal with keeping our lights on and food on the table. My mom works, but we've got a lot of payments. I'm just trying to get a general feel of what kind of ground we have to stand on. I'm in Illinois. Some friends at work were saying that she needs to file for separation ASAP, but I don't truly understand the ramifications of anything we would attempt to do. My biggest thing is making sure he is held responsible for his financial obligation to the family, and trying to make sure my mom and I don't get bent over a table while he is chilling in his bachelor pad. We need to figure out how to ensure that his bills go on him, and also what we should do legally, moving forward. Any advice?
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 00:11 |
|
sternstuff posted:[quote="errol _flynn" post="407994379"] Probably I didn't make it clear enough, but both kids said yep, situation over and done with after their fight. So yeah, it's all a non-issue. And yes, there's more detail I have left out, but mainly it was because my question was about a school being able to force a kid to write a letter of apology, not going into lots of detail. I'm .....*sigh*...old compared to most of you, and in my day, kids having fights was the sort of thing nobody ever even considered worthy of lawsuits; I come from the era of no bike helmets, Lawn Darts and dodgeball being ok in gym. The current mindset of school culture weirds me out. If the bully kid had happened to beat up my kid (and we never thought that he actually could win in a fight with my kid, despite the size and weight difference, he just didn't seem to understand you don't go talking like that) it would have never entered our heads to consider an assault charge and suing. I don't know how to put it, it seems like adults are such pussies in a lot of ways now; suing over a kid fight seems like one of those ways to me. *get off my lawn* Anyhow, I do appreciate the goonly advice, it's been interesting.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 01:45 |
|
Disclaimer: This isn't legal advice or representation, neither is it an offer for same, and I am not licensed in Oregon or Wisconsin.Illegibly Eligible posted:I'm in the state of Wisconsin and after working for my (part time) employer for five months I'm now being told that if I don't wear a uniform to work I will be taken off the schedule. I was never provided with a uniform and it's not been an issue until now. My boss is telling me that I have to buy a few of their $9 shirts and a $45 jacket, which ends up being about a week's pay. A cursory online search indicates that forcing employees to purchase non-streetclothes uniforms may not be allowable under the FLSA but I'm unsure since it's just a local pub and grill. Your search wasn't very thorough, I'm afraid. This is what the US Department of Labor has to say: Department of Labor posted:Uniforms: The FLSA does not require that employees wear uniforms. However, if the wearing of a uniform is required by some other law, the nature of a business, or by an employer, the cost and maintenance of the uniform is considered to be a business expense of the employer. If the employer requires the employee to bear the cost, it may not reduce the employee's wage below the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. In other words, the employer can deduct for uniform costs as long as that doesn't reduce your total paycheck amount below the minimum wage for the hours worked. Illegibly Eligible posted:Additionally, same job... I was going to comment on the sexual harassment part, too, but joat man dealt with it far more succinctly than I could hope to. Winkle-Daddy posted:Hey legal goons. My wife quit her job a couple of weeks ago and her employer called her today telling her that if she wanted to claim her final check she had to drive back out to their headquarters (several hour drive, they're making her go into an office she never worked at). Oregon law requires the employer to mail the final paycheck to the employee upon request. This is a handy chart of your state's wage and hour rights: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/WHD/docs/statelawswages_english2012.pdf Winkle-Daddy posted:If the employee gives less than 72 hours notice the employer must pay the final check within 72 hours. Either way, once that period expires the employer is obligated to pay for each day of an employees wages for each day they haven't paid out. I'm just wondering if these laws are nationwide or not? I am in Oregon but most of the references I saw online were for California. No, that is not a federal law. Oregon and California just happen to be a bit better than most other states in protecting employee wage and hour rights. Winkle-Daddy posted:Finally, does the employee have to sue to get the extra day wages, or will asking for it normally result in them being paid? Ordinarily, she could file a wage claim with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. Unfortunately: Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries website posted:Due to budget/staff reductions, BOLI is currently unable to accept wage claims for unpaid amounts other than unpaid minimum wages and overtime or claims in which the employer has gone out of business. If you are owed unpaid wages other than unpaid minimum wages or overtime and your employer has not gone out of business, you may file with small claims court in the county in which the employer is located (if the amount is $10,000 or less) or consult a private attorney. That would have been the easiest (and cheapest, since it's free!) way to deal with this issue. And you know what, it might still be worth her giving the Bureau a call (goverment websites don't always get updated that quickly, after all!). Edited to add: One other option is to have an attorney write a letter on her behalf, citing the relevant statutes, penalties, and offer to settle for the statutory amount in lieu of litigation. That might work or it might be a waste of attorney fees (don't know how much the charge would be; I'm in California and probably would bill $50 for something that straightforward, including mailing costs, and my sister got a similar quote from a Maryland attorney for a similar type of letter). Hopefully the employer just gives in once the realization hits that the employee is taking this seriously; if not, well, there's still the small claims or circuit court lawsuit route. ibntumart fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Sep 29, 2012 |
# ? Sep 29, 2012 02:03 |
I am (in Oregon) renting a room in a house the owner intends to sell at some point. I've looked up as best I can, but http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/tenant.html only covers tenants in properties that are foreclosed on. A lot of the language seems like it might apply to any sale, is that accurate? If not, what rights do I have? I'm mainly concerned about the length of time I have between when a sale happens and when I have to leave. I do not expect the owner to end our agreement before then. I sent this exact question to the bar association itself as well, but any thoughts would be helpful.
|
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 04:17 |
|
If you have a written lease, the new owner must honor the terms of the lease. If not, then they can kick you out with 30 days notice.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 06:07 |
|
State of Georgia I got into an accident today. The citation says I failed to yield after stopping at a stop sign. I'm not going to go into the specifics of the accident here because I will be meeting with an attorney Monday or Tuesday. I am meeting the attorney because one passenger in the other vehicle had a small cut on his mouth possibly from impact of his teeth with the seat in front of him. Another occupant neck discomfort. They hit the side of my truck with the front of their SUV. Small fact about the intersection. There is a hill peek, higher than the intersection and impossible to see cars coming up, approximately 200-225 feet away from the intersection to the east. I was heading south to north, other vehicle east to west coming over this hill. Two-way stop north to south, posted speed limit 30 MPH. So just a couple questions. 1) The officer made the remark,"I've seen a lot of accidents at this intersection." How helpful is this to me with myself and an observer on the scene hearing this? 2) Would it be better to pay the misdemeanor or go to court and see what a judge says about the citation? 3) Who's insurance do they check when there are passengers in the other vehicle? Everyone's or just the driver and/or vehicle owner? I ask this because I heard the dispatcher say my name and something like valid insurance then I heard another person's name followed by no valid insurance. SlayVus fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Sep 29, 2012 |
# ? Sep 29, 2012 06:32 |
|
SlayVus posted:State of Georgia Those are all excellent questions to ask the attorney. You will get much better help from him than from a bunch of people on the internet. In the mean time go ahead and write down everything you remember about what happened and keep your notes with you when talking to your lawyer.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 07:32 |
|
SlayVus posted:Things This has nothing to do with legal advice, but: Did the police take photos of the scene? Did you (even if the police did they are rarely thorough)? It is obviously too late if you didn't, but if there where any skid marks or other evidence that might still be there, you should go back and get shots of that at least.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 08:01 |
|
Family member and myself both took accident photos. With two different cameras. Family member said officer made remark of not seeing skid marks. I didn't learn this fact until I called the family member an hour later and specifically asked them to go back to scene and check for skid mark.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 08:04 |
|
Yo if you're talking to a lawyer just collect as much information and evidence as you can and present it to him. Be thorough and detailed in recounting what you know, and he'll help you parse what is useful or not. To be honest a lot of the stuff you're saying is probably not relevant or helpful, but some of it might be. Not really a lot we can do to help you. Motor vehicle accidents are awful the same way most personal injury stuff is -- usually a little bumper contact isn't a huge deal, but sometimes you'll get a guy who's like blargh I was going to be a vetrinarian trauma surgeon lawyer astronaut but for the fact you ran into me and now I never can please give me a million billion dollars for my pain awooo
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 08:24 |
|
I'm having trouble remembering specific stuff after I was asked by the officer to move the vehicle because I was getting extremely stressed as I thought the vehicle was totaled because the engine wouldn't stay cranked. The wreckers were coming at this point to get the vehicles. I remembered a lot of stuff before this though and I've written it all down. Is this going to be a problem?
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 08:49 |
|
Yeah they're probably going to hang you. Sorry you had to find out like this.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 09:51 |
|
SlayVus posted:I'm having trouble remembering specific stuff after I was asked by the officer to move the vehicle because I was getting extremely stressed as I thought the vehicle was totaled because the engine wouldn't stay cranked. The wreckers were coming at this point to get the vehicles. I remembered a lot of stuff before this though and I've written it all down. Is this going to be a problem? Just write down everything you can remember and have your family member do the same. If your attorney is any good she's seen a thousand cases like this and will be able to give you good advice. Being diligent in writing everything down and doing your homework will make her job easier and make her like you better as a client. Both of those are good things. Beyond that, don't panic and let your attorney take care of things.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2012 20:05 |
|
I'm living in Philadelphia and having some issues with my landlord. Originally, I was on a yearly lease. During the renewal process, I spoke with my landlord company and told them that I would be moving out on August 31st and if I could renew the lease until then. They agreed, and sent me the following addendum that I signed and returned: "You are hereby notified that effective 04/01/2012 thru 08/31/2012 your lease is extended for an additional one month period and so on from month to month. Your monthly rent will be x instead of y, the current monthly rent. Notice as required by the tenant (Lessee) not to renew this lease must be sent via Ceritifed Mail to the office of Company at the address listed above. Notices required by the landlord (Lessor) to change terms of lease shall be sent via regular mail or by hand delivery. (paragraph about increasing security deposit and things about late fee) All other provisions of the lease remain in full force and effect. The duplicate is for your records. If you are not in agreement with this addendum, sixty days written notice prior to your current expiration date is required." When August 31st arrived, I turned in my keys and my landlord company feigned ignorance. They said that I was required to give them 60 days notice, despite telling them during the renewal process that I was leaving August 31st. Basically, am I going to be screwed out of the security deposit that I gave them because I moved out without giving notice, according to my leasing company?
|
# ? Sep 30, 2012 20:13 |
|
SneakySnake posted:Basically, am I going to be screwed out of the security deposit that I gave them because I moved out without giving notice, according to my leasing company? Did you give notice that you weren't renewing the lease by certified mail like the agreement you signed told you to?
|
# ? Oct 1, 2012 00:14 |
|
The odd thing is that it looks like his month-to-month renewal ended 8/31/12. It's not clear from his paste, we'd have to see the full text of the lease, but it might have ended 8/31. If it did naturally end on 8/31, then the landlord is just a moron and you're in the clear. Tell them to read their own lease. If it didn't end 8/31, and there wasn't the certified mail notice sent: yer screwed.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2012 00:53 |
|
I didn't send a certified letter. I was under the impression from the wording of the lease that they understood I was moving out on August 31st.woozle wuzzle posted:The odd thing is that it looks like his month-to-month renewal ended 8/31/12. It's not clear from his paste, we'd have to see the full text of the lease, but it might have ended 8/31. The rest of the lease that's referred was the original lease that I signed that was yearly.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2012 00:59 |
|
woozle wuzzle posted:The odd thing is that it looks like his month-to-month renewal ended 8/31/12. It's not clear from his paste, we'd have to see the full text of the lease, but it might have ended 8/31. I think the phrase "and so on from month to month" nails that. Whether or not he's screwed is going to depend upon the prior correspondence, how clear and firm he was that he'd be moving out on August 31st
|
# ? Oct 1, 2012 10:26 |
|
I'm in Wisconsin and my boyfriend has a super weird neighbor who is making some false allegations against him. Last night my boyfriend received a call from his landlord. Apparently one of his neighbors had called the landlord to complain about an incident that supposedly occurred when he walked through the shared entry way earlier in the evening. At first they were strongly implying that he had struck their child, then it changed to might have bumped into, then it changed into never touched, or even looked at, their child but was in very close proximity to said child. (Yeah, the entryway is *maybe* 6 x 4 feet in area so of course someone is going to be in close proximity to your child idiot.) From there it turned into a tirade about how a single man without children should not be allowed to live in a building with families, because while it had not happened yet, clearly he would at some point attack their children. We were pretty floored as was the landlord. Then she called the police. I'm not sure what she told them over the phone, but they were out here pretty drat fast. Fortunately, the officer told her that entry ways are common space and you can't stop people from using them, even if your children are there. And though they may be tall, bearded, and have shaved heads, its perfectly legal for single men to live near families. No report was filed either. We're unsure what to do from here. The landlord did offer my boyfriend the option of getting out of the lease if he wanted, however he really doesn't want to move as the apartment is generally well maintained, affordable, and close to work. We're going to give LRIS a call tomorrow for a referral. Right now we're thinking that a letter of representation and/or cease and desist would be the best way to go to get this harpy to shut the hell up. There's quite a sewing circle dynamic in the building and we don't want her drumming up support and making more claims that might screw up his rental history or cause problems for me in the future. (I work with kids and am subject to rather extensive background checks, any history that I, or my husband, were investigated would not be good.) Is this a horrible idea?
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 00:31 |
|
I have a very general question about court proceedings. I could probably get the information from a website but I don't know what to look for. (I am in Australia, fwiw). Let's say I got into a fight with a stranger on the street one day. In this scenario I was walking down the street acting in an anti-social manner (yelling at people, possibly drunk in public), a person walking down the street tells me to watch myself, I respond by running over and punching him. We scuffle, I break a couple of his bones and the police are called. When the police arrive the victim is taken to hospital and I am questioned but not detained as I insist that I was provoked and did not start the fight despite the accounts of witnesses. After some investigation I am summoned to my local magistrate's court as a defendant charged with assault and some other small charges. Witnesses are called into court who all allege that I was acting in an antisocial manner and attacked the stranger unprovoked. All witness accounts are roughly the same and they all show me as the 'bad guy' in the situation. At the end of the hearing I plead 'not guilty' to all charges. What happens from here? In my scenario I am clearly guilty and this is supported by witness statements. What can the judge / prosecutor / police do in a case where the defendant continues to insist that they are not guilty of a crime that everyone knows they committed but lack concrete evidence (such as CCTV footage) showing the incident? What if they do have something irrefutable like a recording of the incident? (Note: I am not involved in a case like this, I just heard about it from a friend and am curious as to how courts handle these sorts of defendants.)
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 06:45 |
|
Generally, the jury says "What a piece of poo poo" and convicts you.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 06:57 |
|
Uhm, they call the witnesses who testify, and you most likely get convicted? How exactly do you think people went to jail before video cameras?
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 07:16 |
|
In this particular case it was held before a magistrate, not a jury so the verdict is up to the magistrate. But I guess my question is what benefit there is for the defendant (if any) in continuing to plead not guilty in this situation. And also how the judge handles these situations; as in what they have to consider before rejecting the defendant's plea and how it affects the sentencing (if it does). edit - to address NM's comment, the case has been heard and the witnesses have already testified. At the end of the hearing the defendant pleaded 'not guilty'. So what happens from there?
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 07:30 |
|
cyberia posted:In this particular case it was held before a magistrate, not a jury so the verdict is up to the magistrate. Further, maybe he is innocent. A not guilty preserves more appeal routes. And poo poo, once you've gotten there, why the gently caress not? You're not getting a better offer at that point (unless the wits were terrible), might as well go all in. Please not that in the US at least, the vast majority of trials involve no testimony from the defendant and probably a smaller majority or sizable minority involve no defense witnesses at all. And you can and will win those cases at a reasonable route. nm fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Oct 2, 2012 |
# ? Oct 2, 2012 07:41 |
|
cyberia posted:In this particular case it was held before a magistrate, not a jury so the verdict is up to the magistrate. This is how it would go: The case is put by the prosecution. If the defendant pleads not guilty they get an opportunity to put their own case before the magistrate by making an opening (which would give an outline of what they wish to prove and any evidence they wish to lead). They would then either call each witness in turn, carry out an examination-in-chief, followed by cross-examination by the police prosecutor, until they are out of witnesses. In practice if they don't wish to present a case there isn't much substance to them maintaining a plea of not guilty unless they feel the prosecutor hasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt they committed the offence. In practice as well if there was a hearing required all of this would be done at a special date set down already after it was clear to all parties the charge was going to be contested. If the defendant doesn't lead evidence the magistrate will conclude whether he was convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the offence and proceed to sentencing. This is all done summarily before a magistrate. A plea of 'guilty' as opposed to 'not guilty' may be taken into account in sentencing, to reduce the theoretical sentence. This is especially so if it occasioned cooperation with police. But maintaining not guilty over guilty is technically a right all defendants have and won't per se lead to a higher sentence. Ie. there is a discount for the plea of guilty. Millennial fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Oct 2, 2012 |
# ? Oct 2, 2012 13:12 |
|
Thank you, Millennial, that answered all my questions very thoroughly.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 13:38 |
|
A defendant doesn't plead "not guilty" at the end of a trial. It sounds like you're talking about an arraignment hearing. If so, it means the state had to put on a bear minimum of evidence to bring the initial charges, then the magistrate asked for a plea. If the defendant pleads not guilty, they set it for trial. So I think the answer to your question might be "they then have a trial, what you describe wasn't the trial".
woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Oct 2, 2012 |
# ? Oct 2, 2012 13:44 |
|
cyberia posted:I have a very general question about court proceedings. I could probably get the information from a website but I don't know what to look for. And one with a bit more depth: http://www.criminallawsurvivalkit.com.au/Crime.html#2/.%20Trial%20Procedure both are Australia specific, don't know what state you're in. cyberia posted:...After some investigation I am summoned to my local magistrate's court as a defendant charged with assault and some other small charges. Witnesses are called into court who all allege that I was acting in an antisocial manner and attacked the stranger unprovoked. All witness accounts are roughly the same and they all show me as the 'bad guy' in the situation. Of note to US folks, the burden on the state is whether there is a "reasonable prospect a jury would convict" which is a good bit higher than "some evidence a crime was committed." The committal magistrate is also allowed to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. cyberia posted:What happens from here? In my scenario I am clearly guilty and this is supported by witness statements. cyberia posted:What can the judge / prosecutor / police do in a case where the defendant continues to insist that they are not guilty of a crime that everyone knows they committed but lack concrete evidence (such as CCTV footage) showing the incident? cyberia posted:What if they do have something irrefutable like a recording of the incident? cyberia posted:(Note: I am not involved in a case like this, I just heard about it from a friend and am curious as to how courts handle these sorts of defendants.) cyberia posted:In this particular case it was held before a magistrate, not a jury so the verdict is up to the magistrate. cyberia posted:But I guess my question is what benefit there is for the defendant (if any) in continuing to plead not guilty in this situation. Even if the defendant believes that things will go badly for him at trial there are good reasons for not throwing oneself at the mercy of the prosecutor/magistrate. Most have to do with getting more time to: -get one's affairs in order -hope accusers/witnesses move/die/forget/stop caring/heal get less angry -work out with the prosecutor a less severe punishment in exchange for pleading guilty -track down witnesses who aren't the accuser's friends -take anger management/drug rehab etc. to demonstrate for judge/prosecutor at a later plea of guilty that you know you did wrong and are working on your own initiative to fix what got you into trouble. cyberia posted:And also how the judge handles these situations; as in what they have to consider before rejecting the defendant's plea and how it affects the sentencing (if it does). cyberia posted:edit - to address NM's comment, the case has been heard and the witnesses have already testified. At the end of the hearing the defendant pleaded 'not guilty'. So what happens from there? Now, the case moves along just like every other case. Start with "Higher Court Proceedings" on page 2 of the first link, above to find out what happens next.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 16:55 |
|
In the following statue, what is meant by "tortious intent"? What would be an example of that? It is legal for a person to record an oral conversation if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording — so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 20:15 |
|
Tort just means "wrong". So wrongful intent generally but not raised to the level of a crime. So planning to murder someone is a criminal intent. Planning to defame someone is a tortious intent.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 20:17 |
I hoping this is the proper place to put this: I rent an apartment in California and, since I started living here (at this complex), the office has changed the rules on how they accept payment for monthly rent. It used to be that you could drop a check off at the office deposit box. Due to safety concerns (the possibility that somebody could break into the deposit box in the middle of the night, etc.) rent checks now have to be handed off to an office employee, in person. Not a problem, since most apartments are pretty flexible, with two or three people in the office and a 3 or 4 day "pay period." There are a couple of issues with this: 1. There's usually only one employee in the office. If they leave to go do something, or take a lunch break, the office gets locked up. The "Time I Will Return" note is frequently inaccurate. I've had employees show up 45 or 60 minutes after they were supposed to, or even take off from lunch and never return that day. 2. The office is closed three days a week. The office is frequently closed on the single day rent is due. My concern is that, if I cannot pay rent without an office employee present, and if those same office employees are frequently unavailable, even on the day rent is due, is the apartment in the wrong? Especially if they try to hit me with a $50 fee for failing to pay rent on time? Even if the office is technically open on the day rent is due, the blinds are frequently closed and the door is locked. I can't just sit and lurk around the office until the single employee decides to show up. I'm having difficult finding laws regarding the availability of a landlord or his employees, or how restrictive they can be with how they accept payments, but it seems like they should be obligated to make themselves more available for payment, or keep the deposit box available as an option. Am I crazy here? Cream-of-Plenty fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Oct 2, 2012 |
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 23:40 |
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:I hoping this is the proper place to put this: I rent an apartment in California and, since I started living here (at this complex), the office has changed the rules on how they accept payment for monthly rent. It used to be that you could drop a check off at the office deposit box. Due to safety concerns (the possibility that somebody could break into the deposit box in the middle of the night, etc.) rent checks now have to be handed off to an office employee, in person. Not a problem, since most apartments are pretty flexible, with two or three people in the office and a 3 or 4 day "pay period." Have you tried talking to them about it? Sure it might be factored in if indeed you fail to get them the rent due to this situation, but you really don't want to get to that point. In these instances better communication is much better then legal action. Plus if the Apt complex's employees are banging out early and they shouldn't be, I'm sure they would want to know that, so just try shooting the office manager an email or something.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 23:52 |
|
I have a question regarding what some legal code means, regarding evictions in the state of Colorado (in the city of Boulder specifically.)quote:If a tenant leaves the premises before the end of the lease term in compliance with a landlord’s demand to vacate, the tenant may still be responsible under the terms of their lease to pay rent or other costs. However, Colorado courts view the election of the eviction remedy as terminating the lease, and costs owed by tenants may be limited accordingly. What does this actually mean? So if a tenant vacates because the landlord asked them too, they still can owe money under their lease, but that the courts can limit how much they actually owe? Corny fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Oct 3, 2012 |
# ? Oct 2, 2012 23:55 |
|
I'm not 100% sure, but I'd assume that means that if the landlord asks you to evict, and kicks you out, and you comply, you are still liable for unpaid rent. Say I miss two months of rent, and the landlord tells me to get the hell out on day 61. I do. My lease is up on day 90. I am still obligated for rent from days 1 through 61. But, a court will probably not make me liable for rent for days 62 through 90.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2012 00:00 |
|
Emo Rodeo is right that you should try to contact them first, but here is what the California Department of Consumer Affairs has to say here and here: CDCA posted:The rental agreement or lease must disclose: IANAL, but it sounds to me like they MUST give you an address to which you can mail payments, and if they (in addition) give you the option of paying in person, the days/hours of availability need to be in the lease.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2012 00:04 |
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:I hoping this is the proper place to put this: I rent an apartment in California and, since I started living here (at this complex), the office has changed the rules on how they accept payment for monthly rent. It used to be that you could drop a check off at the office deposit box. Due to safety concerns (the possibility that somebody could break into the deposit box in the middle of the night, etc.) rent checks now have to be handed off to an office employee, in person. Not a problem, since most apartments are pretty flexible, with two or three people in the office and a 3 or 4 day "pay period." Can't you just give them post-dated checks? I just hand my landlord an envelope with 12 post dated checks at the beginning of the lease year, then forget all about him.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2012 00:05 |
|
FrozenVent posted:Can't you just give them post-dated checks? There's nothing to prevent the landlord from cashing those checks early. Plus it's quite possible an apartment manager as incompetent as seems to be the case here wouldn't exactly do a bang-up job of keeping track of the fact they have post-dated checks or credit them in a timely manner.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2012 00:58 |
Emo Rodeo posted:Have you tried talking to them about it? Sure it might be factored in if indeed you fail to get them the rent due to this situation, but you really don't want to get to that point. In these instances better communication is much better then legal action. Plus if the Apt complex's employees are banging out early and they shouldn't be, I'm sure they would want to know that, so just try shooting the office manager an email or something. Yeah, I definitely should do this. It hasn't been a big issue until recently, when I haven't been able to find them to take my money. I plan on talking to them...whenever I can actually find them in the office, that is. Choadmaster posted:Emo Rodeo is right that you should try to contact them first, but here is what the California Department of Consumer Affairs has to say here and here: Thank you for this. I'm going to review my most recent lease and see if they have listed the hours on it. They just recently changed the three days that they're unavailable (part of the reason I was unable to pay them for the month) and I'll bet you anything that those days no longer match those from the lease I signed back in April.
|
|
# ? Oct 3, 2012 01:03 |
|
|
# ? Jun 3, 2024 23:48 |
|
Arcturas posted:I'm not 100% sure, but I'd assume that means that if the landlord asks you to evict, and kicks you out, and you comply, you are still liable for unpaid rent. Say I miss two months of rent, and the landlord tells me to get the hell out on day 61. I do. My lease is up on day 90. I am still obligated for rent from days 1 through 61. But, a court will probably not make me liable for rent for days 62 through 90. I agree, and it goes along with 100+ years of Colorado caselaw. One of the cases involved constructive eviction of a second-floor family because: Lay v. Bennett, 35 P. 748 (Colo.App. 1894) posted:the third story of the building was occupied by lewd and disorderly female tenants of the [landlord], who were in the habit of receiving male visitors; that the occupants and their visitors indulged in boisterous and disorderly conduct, jumping upon the floor, screaming, singing, and using profane and obscene language, until a late hour in the night, breaking the sleep of defendant and his family, depriving them of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, and giving the building an unsavory reputation.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2012 01:05 |