Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Security Deposit Withholding for Sewage Pipes Backing Up

    Really, you think that the sewer getting plugged 3 times in a year points to the tenants? This is where I strongly disagree. After the initial clog, we discontinued flushing any products down the toilet that may have led to the initial clog, unless you count toilet paper & human waste as clogging inducing products.

    The visit from the plumber should have cleared this clog to the street, so if the clog was not cleared completely, then it becomes the issue of the plumber's workmanship because that's what they were hired to do...clear the clog completely.

    I believe that a clog that keeps occuring, 3 times in 1 year points to a partially collapsed pipe. When a pipe is partially collapsed and then a plumber runs a snake through it, then it takes time for the pipe to clog again. At this point anything could potentially get hung up on this partial collapse, including toilet paper and as it continues to build up it produces a clog and backs up in the basement.

    We continued to only flush human waste and toilet paper down the toilet after the inital clog in October and after the 2nd clog in July, we moved out at the end of August. The 3rd clog occurred 1 month after we moved out and a day after the new owners of the home moved into it. Again, from the end of July to the end of August (1 month) we only flushed human waste and toilet paper, the home sat empty for a month and at the end of September when the new homeowners moved into their new home it backed up again. This either points to poor workmanship by the plumber when he came out in October & July or a collapsed pipe or tree root growth in the pipes, neither of which is our responsibility. For us to have to pay for a plumber to scope the pipe to prove this, is outrageous. And due to the cheapness of our LL, he certainly was not going to pay to have it scoped, he could care less since he was selling the home.

    I may just pay for a plumber to come out to the home to scope the pipe just to satisfy my curiousity, if nothing else, as long as the current homeowners will allow me to have it done. Too bad I didn't have it done prior to the court date, not that it would have held up in court either since it could have collapsed after we moved out or perhaps what we flushed down the toilet would have been blamed for the collapse because it became "overloaded".

    We thought it was a sure win for us, but boy were we wrong!!

    However, if I am able to prove that the pipe is collapsed and/or has tree root growth, and we are not blamed for it, what is the possibility or procedure to have the court reverse its decision? Is the appeals court my only option, or will they not listen to new evidence?

    Scott67, if you "don't see a problem with the judge or the legal system and it appears to you that they came to the right decision in this case", then please explain the following:

    The LL was also charging us $95 for the replacement of a basement door that our dog destroyed. The LL had told me that he would not charge us for the door instead of pro-rating our rent since the basement was unusable for several months. I failed to get it in writing, so that's my fault. The contractor told us (hearsay) when he replaced the door that it cost only $50. We asked the LL for a receipt when he initially provided us the initial secrity deposit check with the deductions noted. However, he was unable to provide a receipt or a copy of the cancelled check. He simply did not have it. At court, miraculously he produced a receipt indicating that the cost was $130, which is $35 more than his original claim. We argued the legitimacy of the receipt and what else may have been included in this $130 charge, if it was even authentic. The judge granted our LL the entire amount of $130.

    At the most our LL should have only received $95 since that what his original claim and because the contractor was not present explain what else was included in the $130 charge. What we do know, but did not argue because we cannot prove it, is that the LL and contractor are friends and he most likely produced a doctored receipt so the LL could bring it to court.

    With all of the different price points discussed in this argument, I hardly believe that the judge made the right decision in providing the LL the entire amount of $130. $95 should have been the max, even though we could not prove the mention of the $50 cost that the contractor had told us.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Security Deposit Withholding for Sewage Pipes Backing Up

    However, if I am able to prove that the pipe is collapsed and/or has tree root growth, and we are not blamed for it, what is the possibility or procedure to have the court reverse its decision?
    that would depend on what court the case was in and if you have an automatic right to appeal. If there is not automatic right to appeal, you have 0%chance of getting the court to rehear the case. Both sides were there and both sides presented their evidence and the court ruled. Unless there was a mistake of law during the trial, you have no grounds for appeal. Not bringing any and all evidence to your trial is not grounds for an appeal.


    Is the appeals court my only option, or will they not listen to new evidence?
    No, they will not listen to new evidence. They will only hear the appeal for a mistake of law. You had your shot, it is gone.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Security Deposit Withholding for Sewage Pipes Backing Up

    Quote Quoting Scott67
    View Post
    Well, the simple fact is there are far more cases of sewers clogged due to what has been put down drains then are are of sewer pipes being bad. Ask any plumber what percentage of plugged sewer jobs he has gotten result in the pipes being replaced. The sewer getting plugged 3 times in a year points more to the tenants than to any other cause, absent proof to the contrary. (Maybe the first time was partially due to the previous tenants activity). Perhaps there were things being put down the drain that you weren't aware of. Perhaps it was things that you were aware of but didn't think would matter.

    I don't see a problem with the judge or the legal system. It appears to me that they came to the right decision in this case.
    Scott67, if you "don't see a problem with the judge or the legal system and it appears to you that they came to the right decision in this case", then please explain the following:

    The LL was also charging us $95 for the replacement of a basement door that our dog destroyed. The LL had told me that he would not charge us for the door instead of pro-rating our rent since the basement was unusable for several months. I failed to get it in writing, so that's my fault. The contractor told us (hearsay) when he replaced the door that it cost only $50. We asked the LL for a receipt when he initially provided us the initial secrity deposit check with the deductions noted. However, he was unable to provide a receipt or a copy of the cancelled check. He simply did not have it. At court, miraculously he produced a receipt indicating that the cost was $130, which is $35 more than his original claim. We argued the legitimacy of the receipt and what else may have been included in this $130 charge, if it was even authentic. The judge granted our LL the entire amount of $130.

    At the most our LL should have only received $95 since that what his original claim and because the contractor was not present explain what else was included in the $130 charge. What we do know, but did not argue because we cannot prove it, is that the LL and contractor are friends and he most likely produced a doctored receipt so the LL could bring it to court.

    With all of the different price points discussed in this argument, I hardly believe that the judge made the right decision in providing the LL the entire amount of $130. $95 should have been the max, even though we could not prove the mention of the $50 cost that the contractor had told us.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    666

    Default Re: Security Deposit Withholding for Sewage Pipes Backing Up

    Your rather rude demand that I explain the actions of the court in a situation which I did not observe is ridiculous. I frankly did not waste my time reading the paragraphs that followed that demand. When it appeared that you wanted advice, I was happy to respond. If you want to rant and bicker, I'll leave it to others to respond to you if they so choose.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Security Deposit Withholding for Sewage Pipes Backing Up

    Scott67, sorry to offend you. It's not what I meant to do. I am only trying to present a convincing argument, (which I wish I had used in court) to present my case to you & others in this forum to determine if there could have been a different outcome. I am also completely unclear as to how the judge granted our LL an amount for the door replacement that exceeded the original claimed amount and I believe that it was unfair. It's a small amount, only $35 over what we actually owed for the door, so in the end I guess it really doesn't matter. I am just bitter that our vindictive LL won this case and because of his demeanor in court, he should have clearly lost.

    JhonSmith, did you respond to the correct forum? Half of your reply responds to my court case and the other half responds to a HID kit???

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Security Deposit Withholding for Sewage Pipes Backing Up

    Quote Quoting Hemicuda
    View Post

    JhonSmith, did you respond to the correct forum? Half of your reply responds to my court case and the other half responds to a HID kit???
    He is probably a spammer.

    to the door: have you priced doors? if you consider the cost of a door and the labor to install and the labor and material to finish the door, $135 is cheap. I would just let that go.

    and yes, if you had presented a proper argument in court, you very well might have won but, as I said previously, unless this was in a court that allowed an absolute right to appeal (often times, small claims courts have such rights. It varies from state to state), there is nothing you can do about it now. There is no reason to keep beating this if you have no action available to you.

    Even if you did have an action, the cost to present it may far outweigh any gain possible for you. You always have to look at the ultimate cost of a court action. It is often not determined by the actual case but the costs to present the case.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Security Deposits: Security Deposit for Burst Pipes
    By kirsten2 in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 06:29 PM
  2. Security Deposits: Withholding Security Deposit For Repainting
    By KK85296 in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-21-2008, 09:39 AM
  3. Security Deposits: Landlord Withholding Security Deposit
    By smile007 in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 02:49 PM
  4. Roommates: Withholding Roomate's Security Deposit
    By Poopsie in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-07-2008, 07:21 PM
  5. Security Deposits: Landlord Withholding Security Deposit
    By aa909 in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 04:46 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources