Quote Quoting Harold99
View Post
The date of deposit proves nothing. I can sit on a $10,000 check for weeks.
As I said, the date of the deposit is not meaningless. You are correct in that the date of deposit by itself it won't prove the date the the check was received, but it is not necessarily "worthless" as you claimed. Along with other evidence, like evidence of the landlord's practice in depositing checks, it can be useful for proving the payment was late. The same with the date the tenant put on the check. If the date the tenant put on the check was after the date the payment was due it's pretty hard for the tenant to argue the payment was timely, after all.

Quote Quoting Harold99
View Post
Also, the OP already said the landlord made no written notice of rent due, late payments, or late penalties. So, when the landlord has nothing but his word against the OP...good luck landlord.
Of course that's a harder case for the landlord. But again, if the court believes him over the tenant — if the landlord is more persuasive — the landlord can still win that. It'd be better for the landlord to have more to back him up, but it's not automatic he'd lose.

Quote Quoting Harold99
View Post
Funny how in some cases you claim a plaintiff needs written proof and now you say his word is like gold...even going back 3+ years.
Reread what I wrote, Harold. Nowhere did I say his word was "gold". Far from it. What I am saying is that I disagree with your earlier contention that the date of deposit is "worthless". It's not worthless. A good lawyer can combine that with other evidence (if it exists) to make a good case that the payment was late. Thus, as I said before, how it goes for the landlord depends very much on the totality of the evidence presented and how convincing that evidence is. I'm not saying the landlord automatically wins. I'm saying that your statements that the date of the deposit is "worthless" and that the landlords testimony is similarly worthless is wrong. They do have value. They are evidence that can help the fact finder determine what the deal was. How much weight the fact finder puts on it is, of course, up to that fact finder (judge or jury). Each one is going to view it a bit differently. So from what we know so far the landlord isn't automatically going to win on this issue, but neither will he automatically lose as you seem to contend.

Quote Quoting Harold99
View Post
If I was the judge, I'd tell the landlord what the IRS would tell him under similar scrutiny..."KEEP BETTER RECORDS...OR ELSE! And at least act like a professional landlord and notify people when they owe you money."
Ah, but that's the thing, isn't it, Harold? You aren't going to be the judge that hears the case. Evidence that you would discount might not be discounted by the judge that actually hears it. Neither you nor I knows whether the judge/jury will find that the payment was late because neither you nor I have (1) seen all the evidence that will be presented and (2) know anything about the judge (or jury) who would decide the case.