Posted on 01/25/2012 5:17:03 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck
I know some of you guys gave me a hard time when I shared the story of my buddy who rented a room in a house in Nashville and fell behind on his rent (though good faith discussions with the landlady were in progress) and then when gone a couple of weeks all of a sudden found his stuff taken to storage and the landlady's lawyer demanding a ransom for it. You said my buddy ought to suck it up, not try to "legally steal" from the landlady, and such.
If you're still of the same opinion and don't want to go to surrounding matters beyond that point, please spare me your repeated moralizing. I know what you said. I heard you.
But I found what looked like a gem of a provision in Tennessee law:
66-28-509. Landlord liens.
A contracted lien or security interest on behalf of the landlord in the tenant's household goods shall not be enforceable unless perfected by a Uniform Commercial Code filing with the secretary of state. All other liens are hereby expressly prohibited under this chapter. The landlord shall be responsible for releasing lien at expiration or termination of the lease.
Well, there was no lease signed, it was all oral, and nothing recorded contracting a lien (and nothing said according to my buddy either). Yes yes yes this doesn't negate anything my buddy might owe the landlady, BUT! this looks like she can't just grab his stuff and demand a ransom and sell it if she doesn't get the ransom. She's got to go through another procedure, or come to a voluntary accommodation with my buddy (which he seems to want to do eventually). Oh yes my buddy is staying with me now in Illinois; I am not charging rent and I wouldn't dream of pulling a stunt like this if I was charging rent.
I'm not a lawyer and don't even stay in Holiday Inn Expresses, but I've been through a couple of lawsuits where I won both of them. The law still counts for something in this country. Even Nashville, I'd think. Unless there is some sneaky provision by the city or county that filed some "implied landlord lien" provision with the Sec. of State (and whoever did that ought to be horse whipped IMHO, but that is a political issue).
Can anyone shed any further light (not heat) on this?
The only thing I about evictions in TN is that when someone is evicted all of their belongings are put to the curb.
Did your buddy call the police? That’s what you’re supposed to do when someone takes your property illegally. The situation is going to be difficult to resolve from another state.
Yes he did, and the police said oh that’s a civil matter we can’t get involved, but we’ll take a report for record in case you go to court. I’m thinking next step in pursuing the criminal side of it (unless I can persuade the old, apparently half drunk lawyer to give up the charade) is going to the district attorney.
Yes, we’re working on getting my buddy back to Nashville ASAP. We are living on a shoestring but have a rummage sale planned.
Come back three months from now when you are sick of paying your buddys bills and ask us again.
Unless he offered his property as security for the rent, the landlady, in essence, stole his stuff. He should contact the sheriff and report it stolen.
—Yes he did, and the police said oh that’s a civil matter-
How is someone stealing your stuff a civil matter? What if the item they took was his car? Still civil? If not, why not?
He needs to not give the police complicated stories. He needs to report it as stolen property and they have admitted to him that they took it and he wants the police to pursue it as a criminal, not civil, matter. End of story.
Their motivation is not relevant. The fact that they took his stuff without his permission is what counts, unless they can show paperwork showing what they did is the legal equivalent of repossessing a car, which I highly doubt they can do.
Well I asked you moralizers to spare me, but you couldn’t resist. Be happy that I cannot zot. This is nothing new. I know how to get him out if it really came to that — sell the house.
If there is no lease, there is no landlord-tenant relationship. The “tenant” is a guest and can be “evicted” w/o any requirement of due process.
As such, the “landlord” should’ve just moved the “tenants” stuff to the curb and changed the locks. The “tenant” would have no recourse because they’re not actually a tenant.
Since they put the stuff in storage, it is now legally considered theft and the “tenant” has recourse against the “landlord”.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m going to play one on FR.
It is my opinion the landlord has committed “conversion”.
No written contract. No deal, in any real estate transaction.
No deal, no grounds to take ownership of the stuff.
IMHO it’s theft. And probably chargeable.
Consult a local lawyer, I’m betting there’s a case.
Is the landlady required to go through some formal evictions procedures that she did not follow? Most places require written notice, 60 days or along that line. He/you should check as to what is required for her to evict him, as well.
Sorry you are getting grief when just asking for help and ideas from fellow FReepers. Hopefully you will get something useful from some of the responses. I tend to agree with the concept that his property has been stolen, and to push the police or call the local DA’s office about filing criminal charges.
Lawyers typically charge upwards of $400/hr and you will burn many tens of hours resolving this matter, more if you actually listen to the lawyer. How much more do you want to spend? Generally, walking away from small time disputes is the prudent thing to do.
Good luck in court. IANAL, but if it were me, I would do all I could to help him pay the storage fees, get his stuff out of storage, and back to him. Because once he sues, she'll counter-sue, and the money he spends from then on out will be money he could have spent getting his things back. And the storage place will not keep his stuff forever. It will be auctioned for the storage fees if he waits very long. Time is of the essence here.
But if he decides to sue: First of all, the landlady is going to argue that your buddy abandoned his property (you wrote: when gone a couple of weeks")
She's gonna say, "Judge, he was behind on his rent. He refused to pay rent, he disappeared for weeks, and he abandoned his property. I took care and didn't throw it to the curb. I put it in storage.
"And now, because I did the right thing, he's suing me for his property. Judge, I'm out two month's rent (or whatever), lawyers fees, the money I paid to carefully put his belongings in storage, the money it cost to move it, the money it cost to inform him that it was in storage ( you wrote: found his stuff taken to storage) and the money I paid the movers. Plus the following incidentals___"
And then she is going to say, "Which I why I am counter-suing today". And unlike your buddy, who will have a devil of a time proving what his stuff was worth or even which stuff he had, you can bet that she has her receipts. Rent is a specific amount. Storage, movers, all that - if she paid people to do it, she got a receipt.
Your buddy will then be in the position of explaining to the judge why his stuff was worth thousands, even though he has no receipts (and remember, it isn't worth what he paid or what it would cost to replace - he could, at best, potentially get the value at the time, which is depreciated through ownership and use).
And he'll have to explain to the judge, probably without receipts, why he had such incredibly valuable stuff, but no money to pay the rent and no inclination to sell his solid gold stuff to get the rent.
Someone said that "two wrongs don't make a right", and that is true. But judges especially don't like to award money that seems to be "unjust enrichment" when one party has "dirty hands" (called the "clean hands/dirty hands doctrine"). "Dirty hands" means that the person goes to court asking for relief, but has themselves done something bad with regard to the case.
The judge will listen when she explains the steps she took to take care of the stuff that her deadbeat renter abandoned.
If she is smart enough to have a lawyer sending letters at this point, she is smart enough to counter sue, and she will move to have it heard at the same time if it isn't already scheduled that way. And since she has already proven herself smart enough to put his stuff in storage and have a lawyer send your buddy a letter about it, she'll sue for all it's worth.
So, your buddy cheated her out of rent, and at best would be able to get the provable value of his stuff, minus what he owes her.
Assuming that the judge didn't look at the case for 30 seconds, determine that she met the burden of proving his stuff was abandoned, and throw his case out. Hers would be allowed to continue.
What the judge will not want to hear: That he's a veteran, that he is a former Marine (whatever those are), that he was having a hard time, that he was sick, was robbed, etc. It is really simple: he had a contract with his landlady, and he breached it in at least one way (non-payment). He may have met the definition for abandonment (you'd have to check state law). And she will sue for any damage he did to the property. Either way, he may have a very hard row to hoe proving that he's owed a dime after she counter-sues.
Seriously, good luck.
Look, I hope it is not the case and your buddy does not stiff you, but I used to own aparmtment buildings. I had tenants who could not pay.
The sincere ones WORKED for me to pay off the rent (there is always painting or cleaning or something to be done...)
The ones who did not pay and did not make it good all fell into another category- deadbeats
once again... I hope you are NOT going to experience that, if you do I will be the first to apologize- if you promise to come back and tell us if we were right.
The idea that she would be possibly criminally liable is one of the levers we wish to use, of course. This is the crime of “conversion” and she stands to go to jail.
I make no promises to trolls like you.
We still believe from the sound of his messages (and I have dealt with competent attorneys before) this particular attorney is a senile half drunk hillbilly pettifogger who was a crony of the landlady who was a screaming, screaming liberal that decades ago was party to a case where the USSC slapped it down 9-0. We aren’t asking to come away with anything more than the property free and clear, even if we could get damages. We eat the cost of filing in the small claims court which is much less than the ransom being demanded (again illegally). No lease, all things were oral. History of accepting partial payments and the bank has record of that.
The landlady and her lawyer blinked. We get the stuff. No malice. Buddy looks like he’s on the verge of a great music contract too... may soon not need to worry about money (and yes, we’ll probably slip the landlady a small wad of Franklins when it becomes possible).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.