laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 25, 2019 15:03:06 GMT -5
Shrug shoulders...it addresses hoops carrying on about not being able to hold landlords responsible for tenants behaviour. Yes....in South Africa. Which is decidedly not Connecticut. LOL I can't wait for Ava to consult with the lawyer. I think you will be surprised by how much Conneticut and South Africa have in common on this matter.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 15:05:09 GMT -5
Ummm....that's a South African website. Shrug shoulders...it addresses hoops carrying on about not being able to hold landlords responsible for tenants behaviour. Not even remotely it doesn't. You post an article, hoping that nobody will actually read it, about whether HOAs assessing fines against properties can be attributed as liable to the rental agent who put forth a tenant. If you're going to try to intentionally mislead people, you could at least post a link to an article that is completely fictional and written by someone with no authority, as opposed to an article that might as well be about whether coffee is good for you or bad for you in terms of how irrelevant it is to anything happening in this scenario.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 15:06:46 GMT -5
Yes....in South Africa. Which is decidedly not Connecticut. LOL I can't wait for Ava to consult with the lawyer. I think you will be surprised by how much Conneticut and South Africa have in common on this matter. On which matter? On the matter of whether HOA penalty assessments are attributable to the rental agent who suggested a tenant as opposed to the owner of the residence? Or on the matter that we're actually talking about? Or did I miss the post where someone said the rental agent who suggested this tenant initially should be held responsible for things?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Apr 25, 2019 15:07:38 GMT -5
Yes....in South Africa. Which is decidedly not Connecticut. LOL I can't wait for Ava to consult with the lawyer. I think you will be surprised by how much Conneticut and South Africa have in common on this matter. I'm not saying they don't. They could be the same. But linking to a South African website to prove your right about something in the states is just, well, not proof. With only $600 of damages so far, I'm not sure Ava's luck in finding an attorney will change anytime soon.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 25, 2019 15:14:40 GMT -5
LOL I can't wait for Ava to consult with the lawyer. I think you will be surprised by how much Conneticut and South Africa have in common on this matter. On which matter? On the matter of whether HOA penalty assessments are attributable to the rental agent who suggested a tenant as opposed to the owner of the residence? Or on the matter that we're actually talking about?Or did I miss the post where someone said the rental agent who suggested this tenant initially should be held responsible for things? Exactly what matter are you talking about? I posted that article to show the logic of landlords being held responsible for tenants actions. This article lays out the logic of that. And it talks about being held financially responsible for damages caused. You keep talking like it's a crazy idea. It isn't.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 15:14:50 GMT -5
At least you're one of the few people being consistent... You think people should be civilly responsible? Or also criminally responsible for not securing their property? civilly, yes. as the property owner, you have a responsibility to secure your property in a way that mitigates the risk to other people and property. this guy didn't do that. I don't think criminal responsibility is appropriate b/c the landlord himself didn't vandalize the place. Interesting thought. I appreciate the consistency, though I kind of wonder what your reaction would be if "civilly responsible" ended up being a lot bigger than a little water damage (i.e. someone dies or is seriously injured) and whether the person posting is in a specific position would impact things. It's awfully difficult for me to imagine a woman posting that a former significant other that she broke up with entered her home without permission using either a key or an unlocked door/window, committed some horrible crimes, and in the process really hurt some other folks (a new significant other, kids sleeping over with her child, etc)...and I came on here suggesting that the woman should be held civilly responsible for someone else's death/injury because she failed to secure her property. It's hard not to imagine a lot of "you're just blaming the victim" talk coming from suggesting she needed to do things to keep someone from illegally entering her property lest she be held responsible. That's why I see it as a pretty dangerous precedent to hold anyone civilly responsible because "you didn't try hard enough to protect yourself from having a crime committed against you".
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 15:17:27 GMT -5
On which matter? On the matter of whether HOA penalty assessments are attributable to the rental agent who suggested a tenant as opposed to the owner of the residence? Or on the matter that we're actually talking about?Or did I miss the post where someone said the rental agent who suggested this tenant initially should be held responsible for things? Exactly what matter are you talking about? I posted that article to show the logic of landlords being held responsible for tenants actions. This article lays out the logic of that. And it talks about being held financially responsible for damages caused. You keep talking like it's a crazy idea. It isn't. No you didn't, you should go back and actually read that article. If you still don't understand it, then it's probably no use trying to explain it to you. That article is about whether the HOA imposed fines on renting tenants ultimately go back to the landlord or the rental agent who supplied the tenant. We aren't talking about HOA fines nor rental agents. Your only argument seems to be "that article has the word "landlord" in it".
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,740
|
Post by raeoflyte on Apr 25, 2019 15:27:48 GMT -5
If the landlord had changed the locks and the ex-tenant still managed to break in and flood the unit would everyone still consider the landlord at fault for someone else's crime? Or now we have moved on that he should have turned off the water to the property to properly protect himself and others?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,558
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 25, 2019 16:56:09 GMT -5
civilly, yes. as the property owner, you have a responsibility to secure your property in a way that mitigates the risk to other people and property. this guy didn't do that. I don't think criminal responsibility is appropriate b/c the landlord himself didn't vandalize the place. Interesting thought. I appreciate the consistency, though I kind of wonder what your reaction would be if "civilly responsible" ended up being a lot bigger than a little water damage (i.e. someone dies or is seriously injured) and whether the person posting is in a specific position would impact things. It's awfully difficult for me to imagine a woman posting that a former significant other that she broke up with entered her home without permission using either a key or an unlocked door/window, committed some horrible crimes, and in the process really hurt some other folks (a new significant other, kids sleeping over with her child, etc)...and I came on here suggesting that the woman should be held civilly responsible for someone else's death/injury because she failed to secure her property. It's hard not to imagine a lot of "you're just blaming the victim" talk coming from suggesting she needed to do things to keep someone from illegally entering her property lest she be held responsible. That's why I see it as a pretty dangerous precedent to hold anyone civilly responsible because "you didn't try hard enough to protect yourself from having a crime committed against you". why wouldn't I be consistent? honest question. I really would like to know the answer, because you've said that a few times now. I will have to answer the rest of your post later, I'm on my phone right now and in quoting you, I seem to have lost your content in what I see right now. I will answer you, though. if it helps at all - I am not a lawyer in any state, and have never lived in CT. I have no claim to know CTs laws for things of this nature. I am just speculating based on my own experience as a trustee for a very stable condo (townhouses) association in MA.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,558
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 25, 2019 16:58:34 GMT -5
If the landlord had changed the locks and the ex-tenant still managed to break in and flood the unit would everyone still consider the landlord at fault for someone else's crime? Or now we have moved on that he should have turned off the water to the property to properly protect himself and others? I'm not sure where the line in the sand *should* be, but I worked with a number of guys at my first professional job that were landlords. unless the place was turning over in a weekend or week, they turned everything off (weather dependendent, we are New England) while the places were vacant.
|
|
Bunnysmom
New Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2017 21:54:51 GMT -5
Posts: 9
|
Post by Bunnysmom on Apr 25, 2019 17:37:13 GMT -5
The ex-tenant is probably the only person who is responsible. The ex-tenant had no right to the property at the time of the damage from what i understand. So basically no different than breaking and entering except he happened to have a key (which doesn’t grant him right to access). If someone leaves their door open, does that mean it is okay to go in a rob them or damage the property? Of course not. This is no different.
This is similar to having insurance for uninsured motorists. At the end of the day, you should always have insurance to protect your interests/assets in case the other party is an a$$hole.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,740
|
Post by raeoflyte on Apr 25, 2019 18:15:44 GMT -5
If the landlord had changed the locks and the ex-tenant still managed to break in and flood the unit would everyone still consider the landlord at fault for someone else's crime? Or now we have moved on that he should have turned off the water to the property to properly protect himself and others? I'm not sure where the line in the sand *should* be, but I worked with a number of guys at my first professional job that were landlords. unless the place was turning over in a weekend or week, they turned everything off (weather dependendent, we are New England) while the places were vacant. This isn't weather dependent though. We're not talking I don't want to pay to heat a vacant house, so I don't want pipes to freeze so I'm winterizing the house.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 25, 2019 18:29:59 GMT -5
A lawyer will likely cost more than paying for the repairs.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 25, 2019 18:43:56 GMT -5
Here's my reasoning for thinking the landlord is at least partly responsible. He rented the condo for the last 5 years, all the while reaping the benefits of his investment. When the tenant became late with the rent, he proceeded to evict.
The tenant retaliated by flooding the condo, causing damages to my home at the same time. Now the landlord is going to turn around and rent the place again. It worries me that he's a mean bastard, prone to yelling and insulting. I wouldn't be surprised if the next tenant also decides a revenge is appropriate. So each and every time the landlord makes a mistake and chooses a deadbeat tenant, I may be in the hook for thousands of dollars in repairs to my home. All the while he keeps profiting from his investment. Yes, I know, I need to have insurance. But my insurance is either going to not pay for damages, or raise my premiums through the roof. All the while the landlord keeps making a profit.
It doesn't make sense to me that he's not responsible at all. Besides that, he didn't change the locks, he didn't collect the key, he didn't even come around to check on the status of this until I reported the incident. He left plenty of opportunity for the tenant to do what he did. The tenant moved out Friday afternoon and this happened on Monday.
Not to mention that there are electric cables involved, that's why I don't have heat right now. It could have been a fire, I could have been injured, my cat could have died. It didn't happen but it was possible.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think, or what other posters believe. The only thing that matters is the letter of the law. It's frustrating that I can't talk to an attorney. I understand nobody wants this case given the low amounts and the very remote possibility of ever collecting, but I'm trying to make a consultation. Heck, I'm willing to pay for it, I'm not expecting a free consultation given the case. If nobody gets back to me this week I'll go to small claims court on Monday and ask them if it would be appropriate to file a claim against the landlord or the HOA. Filing is $95 and I'm not wasting time and money going after the tenant.
At least my contractor is working on finishing the water damage today. I guess he'll tell me the total cost before he leaves. He's been working at it for hours and has two other people working with him. This won't be cheap. We still have to look into the heat issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:31:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2019 18:59:29 GMT -5
Here's my reasoning for thinking the landlord is at least partly responsible. He rented the condo for the last 5 years, all the while reaping the benefits of his investment. When the tenant became late with the rent, he proceeded to evict. The tenant retaliated by flooding the condo, causing damages to my home at the same time. Now the landlord is going to turn around and rent the place again. It worries me that he's a mean bastard, prone to yelling and insulting. I wouldn't be surprised if the next tenant also decides a revenge is appropriate. So each and every time the landlord makes a mistake and chooses a deadbeat tenant, I may be in the hook for thousands of dollars in repairs to my home. All the while he keeps profiting from his investment. Yes, I know, I need to have insurance. But my insurance is either going to not pay for damages, or raise my premiums through the roof. All the while the landlord keeps making a profit. It doesn't make sense to me that he's not responsible at all. Besides that, he didn't change the locks, he didn't collect the key, he didn't even come around to check on the status of this until I reported the incident. He left plenty of opportunity for the tenant to do what he did. The tenant moved out Friday afternoon and this happened on Monday. Not to mention that there are electric cables involved, that's why I don't have heat right now. It could have been a fire, I could have been injured, my cat could have died. It didn't happen but it was possible. Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think, or what other posters believe. The only thing that matters is the letter of the law. It's frustrating that I can't talk to an attorney. I understand nobody wants this case given the low amounts and the very remote possibility of ever collecting, but I'm trying to make a consultation. Heck, I'm willing to pay for it, I'm not expecting a free consultation given the case. If nobody gets back to me this week I'll go to small claims court on Monday and ask them if it would be appropriate to file a claim against the landlord or the HOA. Filing is $95 and I'm not wasting time and money going after the tenant. At least my contractor is working on finishing the water damage today. I guess he'll tell me the total cost before he leaves. He's been working at it for hours and has two other people working with him. This won't be cheap. We still have to look into the heat issue. I don't know if this will help how you feel or make it worse, but . . . If you did have insurance and they were asked to cover it, you would probably be out the full cost. You would have a deductible. Mine is $2k. If you file a claim, your premiums would probably go up. I have learned the hard way that insurance is for catastrophic events. The insurance company might go after the landlord's insurance if they determined he was at fault. Or they might not. If they determine the tenant is wholly at fault, you are probably out of luck. I've been hit by uninsured motorists and had to pay the deductible. If the insurance company decides to sue and recovers their damages, they will refund your deductible. But it is almost entirely their decision, and they don't often do it for what they consider small amounts. So homeowner's insurance might not have helped much in this situation. But what if a fire started in your unit and spread to the neighbors? I don't know if they would hold you responsible, but if they did, are you ok with having to cover their damages as well as your own? Sure, you could file bankruptcy, but that's a really bad choice for an accountant. Get some homeowner's insurance. Please.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 25, 2019 19:41:21 GMT -5
Hi, Susana,
Yes, I need insurance for the condo. I have to renew the auto insurance in June, so I am going to bundle it.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 25, 2019 19:46:11 GMT -5
My contractor just left.
He charged me $200 more, so $800 total, and I gave $60 tip to share with his two workers.
He'll come back on June 1st to look at the electrical damage.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,196
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Apr 25, 2019 19:53:18 GMT -5
My contractor just left. He charged me $200 more, so $800 total, and I gave $60 tip to share with his two workers. He'll come back on June 1st to look at the electrical damage. For $800, I would stop giving this all of your emotional time and pay the bill. And get insurance ASAP. The place could catch fire tomorrow.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 25, 2019 20:40:39 GMT -5
I still don't know the extent of the electrical damage.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 20:46:12 GMT -5
Interesting thought. I appreciate the consistency, though I kind of wonder what your reaction would be if "civilly responsible" ended up being a lot bigger than a little water damage (i.e. someone dies or is seriously injured) and whether the person posting is in a specific position would impact things. It's awfully difficult for me to imagine a woman posting that a former significant other that she broke up with entered her home without permission using either a key or an unlocked door/window, committed some horrible crimes, and in the process really hurt some other folks (a new significant other, kids sleeping over with her child, etc)...and I came on here suggesting that the woman should be held civilly responsible for someone else's death/injury because she failed to secure her property. It's hard not to imagine a lot of "you're just blaming the victim" talk coming from suggesting she needed to do things to keep someone from illegally entering her property lest she be held responsible. That's why I see it as a pretty dangerous precedent to hold anyone civilly responsible because "you didn't try hard enough to protect yourself from having a crime committed against you". why wouldn't I be consistent? honest question. I really would like to know the answer, because you've said that a few times now. I will have to answer the rest of your post later, I'm on my phone right now and in quoting you, I seem to have lost your content in what I see right now. I will answer you, though. if it helps at all - I am not a lawyer in any state, and have never lived in CT. I have no claim to know CTs laws for things of this nature. I am just speculating based on my own experience as a trustee for a very stable condo (townhouses) association in MA. No reason YOU wouldn't be consistent, but there's a lot of inconsistency in this thread in general on beliefs like "well this person is responsible here, but if a similar situation happened I wouldn't think that if it were me". I respect consistency of logic, even if I think it's an incorrect opinion to take. You can take it as "I appreciate that you have thought it through enough to have a consistent thought process"...even though I probably don't agree with you.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 20:48:10 GMT -5
My contractor just left. He charged me $200 more, so $800 total, and I gave $60 tip to share with his two workers. He'll come back on June 1st to look at the electrical damage. Ummm, what electrical damage does anyone THINK there might be? June 1st seems like an awfully long time to wait to check for electrical damage due to water issues. Or is the electrical damage something else unrelated to the water? I mean just in general, electrical issues are typically something you'd want resolved more quickly than "looking" at it over a month later.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,599
|
Post by CCL on Apr 25, 2019 21:00:20 GMT -5
Hi, Susana, Yes, I need insurance for the condo. I have to renew the auto insurance in June, so I am going to bundle it. Don't wait til June. Get the homeowner insurance right away.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 25, 2019 21:05:12 GMT -5
My contractor just left. He charged me $200 more, so $800 total, and I gave $60 tip to share with his two workers. He'll come back on June 1st to look at the electrical damage. Ummm, what electrical damage does anyone THINK there might be? June 1st seems like an awfully long time to wait to check for electrical damage due to water issues. Or is the electrical damage something else unrelated to the water? I mean just in general, electrical issues are typically something you'd want resolved more quickly than "looking" at it over a month later. My heat stopped working just after the water damage.
|
|
Bunnysmom
New Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2017 21:54:51 GMT -5
Posts: 9
|
Post by Bunnysmom on Apr 25, 2019 21:42:23 GMT -5
You say you care only about the letter of the law but you go on and on about how mean the landlord is. Being mean or renting his place to an a-hole or being one is not against the law. Unfortunately you don’t seem to have much of a choice. This could happen again with the same outcome. The landlord can’t control what the ex-tenant decides to do. The only thing you can do is protect yourself by getting insurance or moving.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 21:48:08 GMT -5
Ummm, what electrical damage does anyone THINK there might be? June 1st seems like an awfully long time to wait to check for electrical damage due to water issues. Or is the electrical damage something else unrelated to the water? I mean just in general, electrical issues are typically something you'd want resolved more quickly than "looking" at it over a month later. My heat stopped working just after the water damage. Ok, so let's say it stopped working because something shorted out. You're ok with water and electricity together for the next 5 weeks? I'd let mold go for 5 weeks before I let a potential electrical problem go for 5 weeks.
|
|
Peace77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 1:42:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,929
|
Post by Peace77 on Apr 25, 2019 22:25:48 GMT -5
Ava,
You can't file in small claims court until you have the total amount of your costs. If your contractor isn't coming back until June, you have to wait until afterwards to file.
Your condo insurance can be added NOW. The policy can be pro-rated for the time until June.. Please contact your agent today.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 26, 2019 6:52:32 GMT -5
Ava- I know you don't want free legal help, but you may try consulting CT Legal Services. They may (if they can see you) be able to give you some quicker legal advice because they are not as affected by the dollar amount involved as market attorneys are. Of course they are also likely to be very busy. If they are able to see you then you could give them a donation to their organization for their time. Thanks for the information I looked it up. It's a great resource, but it's geared towards very low income people. Even if they would work with me, I would feel horrible wasting their time with my problem, which is really minor compared to what others are going through. I've wrote down the website. Maybe some day I can pass the information along to someone who desperately needs it and doesn't know where to get help.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Apr 26, 2019 6:55:47 GMT -5
Well, I called my insurance. I got a message that their hours are from 9 am to midnight. I will call later and see if I can get condo insurance bundled with the car insurance I already have. But I don't want just any coverage that would give me a false sense of security. I want to discuss coverage in detail, so I can get what I really need. I went downstairs and looked at the garage roof. It's nice and dry again. The contractor and his workers did a great job, and they cleaned everything. It actually looks cleaner than before the accident.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,558
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 26, 2019 8:55:23 GMT -5
I'm not sure where the line in the sand *should* be, but I worked with a number of guys at my first professional job that were landlords. unless the place was turning over in a weekend or week, they turned everything off (weather dependendent, we are New England) while the places were vacant. This isn't weather dependent though. We're not talking I don't want to pay to heat a vacant house, so I don't want pipes to freeze so I'm winterizing the house. I understand that, and in this case, my colleagues would have turned off the utilities if they weren't putting new tenants in immediately. sorry if that wasn't clear by my post.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,196
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Apr 26, 2019 8:55:51 GMT -5
You say you care only about the letter of the law but you go on and on about how mean the landlord is. Being mean or renting his place to an a-hole or being one is not against the law. Unfortunately you don’t seem to have much of a choice. This could happen again with the same outcome. The landlord can’t control what the ex-tenant decides to do. The only thing you can do is protect yourself by getting insurance or moving. It doesn't have to be a tenant either. There could be an a$$hole owner living next door. No control over that. Good idea to actually talk to an agent. As far as I'm concerned, it's the only way to buy insurance and understand what you are getting.
|
|