Collecting Money I'm Owed

SVreX wrote:

crankwalk wrote: Post dating a check is illegal. Remind him that and be firm.

I thought that too. But then I looked it up. Apparently, it is not illegal unless the intent was to defraud to recipient. However, there is no obligation to hold a check until the date, and banks will honor a check presented regardless of date. However, a check presented against insufficient funds then comes against the worthless check laws (vary by state). But stopping payment on the check is pretty clear evidence of intent to not pay. But I agree, it doesn't hurt to say so, and be firm.

He knew what he was doing. You knew it and the court would too. Just a firm reminder to him would help.

I agree.

But the the crime is intent to defraud, not post-dating a check.

Well, he finally got back to me. He is refusing to return more than half of the security deposit because I only gave him 2 weeks notice, instead of 30 days. (He was out of the country at the time.)

He might have a legal leg to stand on with that argument, but I doubt it given that he gave me a check for the full amount and then put a stop payment on it, and never gave any sort of written explanation for withholding money within the allowed 30 days.

I'm thinking the best thing to do is hedge my bets: deposit the check as partial payment, send an official letter, and see if that shakes him up. If it doesn't... well, I'm unemployed at the moment so the time to go to court would cost me nothing.

Tutorial on collections

Beer Baron wrote: Well, he finally got back to me. He is refusing to return more than half of the security deposit because I only gave him 2 weeks notice, instead of 30 days. (He was out of the country at the time.) He might have a legal leg to stand on with that argument, but I doubt it given that he gave me a check for the full amount and then put a stop payment on it, and never gave any sort of written explanation for withholding money within the allowed 30 days. I'm thinking the best thing to do is hedge my bets: deposit the check as partial payment, send an official letter, and see if that shakes him up. If it doesn't... well, I'm unemployed at the moment so the time to go to court would cost me nothing.

disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I've never been in your position …

but seems to me, that if he's going to be a dick about the 30 days notice, you should maybe pursue doing something about the bad check … let him know your intentions and maybe he'll come to his senses and do what's right

wbjones wrote: disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I've never been in your position … but seems to me, that if he's going to be a dick about the 30 days notice, you should maybe pursue doing something about the bad check … let him know your intentions and maybe he'll come to his senses and do what's right

That's my intention. I'm going to see if I can contact a tenant rights group to get advice, but I'm pretty sure I know what the score is. The two-weeks argument could have been valid if he had made it within the original 30-days after I moved out. He didn't. (Heck, I'd have held onto the key and stuck around there for another week rather than moving into an empty, unfurnished house with no cookware if he had said something when I gave notice.)

No matter what, giving me a bad check indicates that he intended to pay me that amount and canceling it is highly illegal.

If I go to court, I'm probably best off basing my argument on the check with the stop-payment on it.

I think I'm done trying to argue with him via e-mail and text though. I'm going to have to type out a very clear letter explaining the situation and send that to him certified mail.

I feel your pain. I did a side job for a woman back in OCTOBER. Out of the original $1500 she has paid me $550 (enough to cover my workers and materials but nothing for my time). She has had a whole series of excuses but it's getting old. Sigh.

In Canada, a little known fact is that if someone gives you a check and it is not honored at your bank, you can go to the issuing bank and cash it there. A check is a commitment to pay the money. If there is enough money in the account to cover it, it will clear.

Did your lease require 30 days notice?

SVreX wrote: Did your lease require 30 days notice?

It did. And if he had stated that was an issue when I moved out, I would have understood.

The law says deductions have to be provided in an itemized list, and that has 30 days to do that. He failed to do either of those things.

bearmtnmartin wrote: In Canada, a little known fact is that if someone gives you a check and it is not honored at your bank, you can go to the issuing bank and cash it there. A check is a commitment to pay the money. If there is enough money in the account to cover it, it will clear.

An Uncle of mine did this, and was not in Canada. He went by every day or so and when the lady said there was enough to cash it, he did it and never looked back.

This is after weeks of dogging him, of course.

Sounds like you have both breached a contract.

However, his claim should not be random. His loss is 2 weeks rent.

How much did you have on deposit?

You can keep fighting, but it might come down to who the judge favors. Law often favors the tenant, but if the amount he is withholding is equal to about 2 weeks, you will not win in court.

Well, I called renters' rights group for some actual answers. Sounds like it would be too iffy of a case to be worth the time, and the amount I got back is probably appropriate. I did not give him 30 days notice, so he did not originally have to give me back my full deposit.

Of course, the very improper way he handled everything else afterwards throws everything into question, but it's ambiguous enough to probably not be worth it.

If I do deposit the check, than I have accepted it as payment and can not seek the remainder in small claims.

SVreX wrote: Sounds like you have both breached a contract. However, his claim should not be random. His loss is 2 weeks rent. How much did you have on deposit? You can keep fighting, but it might come down to who the judge favors. Law often favors the tenant, but if the amount he is withholding is equal to about 2 weeks, you will not win in court.

This is the situation. He is withholding 2 weeks rent, which is what I was short. I suspect the most likely resolution would be no difference in what anyone gets paid and maybe him getting a bit of a finger-wagging for mis-handling things.

If he had brought this up when I first submitted notice or got ready to move out, I wouldn't have been bothered. What irks me is being jerked around by someone who says they are going to do something, and then doesn't.

bearmtnmartin wrote: In Canada, a little known fact is that if someone gives you a check and it is not honored at your bank, you can go to the issuing bank and cash it there. A check is a commitment to pay the money. If there is enough money in the account to cover it, it will clear.

I don't think that is technically correct, even for Canada. If the check bounces, it doesn't mean that "my" bank did not honor the check, it means that the writer's bank rejected it for insufficient funds. Typically, there will be a hold on the deposit in my bank until it clears the writer's bank. If it does not clear the writer's bank, then the deposit is reversed in my bank.

You (or your bank) can resubmit the bounced check to the writer's bank and, if there are funds that have been added to the account, it can clear on the second try. You can keep presenting the check against the writer's account until it does clear, if you think that you can hit his account when there is enough money to cover it.

If the writer has canceled the check, as it sounds like he did in this instance, then the writer's bank will reject it, regardless.

Basil Exposition wrote: If the writer has canceled the check, as it sounds like he did in this instance, then the writer's bank will reject it, regardless.

That is the situation. It was a stop-payment, not bounced due to insufficient funds.

Beer Baron wrote: Well, I called renters' rights group for some actual answers. Sounds like it would be too iffy of a case to be worth the time, and the amount I got back is probably appropriate. I did not give him 30 days notice, so he did not originally have to give me back my full deposit. Of course, the very improper way he handled everything else afterwards throws everything into question, but it's ambiguous enough to probably not be worth it. If I do deposit the check, than I have accepted it as payment and can not seek the remainder in small claims.

I think you're getting good advice (finally). Especially in real estate transactions, everything hinges on what is written and little on who said what or how somebody acted. It all comes down to who followed the letter of the lease and whether that is documented. Take it to court, and that's typically how it will be adjudicated.

Basil Exposition wrote: I think you're getting good advice (finally). Especially in real estate transactions, everything hinges on what is written and little on who said what or how somebody acted. It all comes down to who followed the letter of the lease and whether that is documented. Take it to court, and that's typically how it will be adjudicated.

I think the answer is that both of us were in some breach of what we were supposed to do. If I took him to court, I could possibly get him in trouble for not doing the things he was required as a landlord (like spending all the security deposits he's taken in, instead of setting them aside)... but I don't think I would actually get any more money for myself.

I think it is healthy for you to let go.

I know it's frustrating, and I'm sorry (especially at a time when I know you could use the money).

But pursuing it may mean little or nothing for you except a bit more stress and aggravation.