Landlord to my latest client: 4-day old check means eviction!!
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by begoodorelse (66.207.255.28) on March 14, 2004 at 00:49:48:
Just when I thought I'd seen the depths of collection stupidity, even your intrepid scribe must stand dumbfounded in the presence of aggravated boneheadedness like this-- My client is an Army officer who wrote a rent check on 28 February and slipped it into the mail slot at the rental office, as the lease expressly provides, on either 01 or 02 March early in the morning before anyone was there, since that's when he leaves for work, and deployed to the field (i.e., went to play Army) for a few days. He gets back Friday 12 March and there's a demand to pay full rent plus late fee (only $34, but it's the principle) with CERTIFIED funds or money order or eviction proceedings (perhaps they mean "summary ejectment", for those of us who actually get around to reading the law books) would begin. The problem? Why, they claim he didn't turn in the check until 03 March, and their COMPANY POLICY is that NO CHECK OLDER THAN 72 HOURS will be accepted. They also claim that this policy change, for which there is no provision in the lease, was posted over the mailboxes and attached to each door. My client never got an individual notice and nobody ever saw a posted notice. Five other people he or I asked never got notice. One person did say they got it because her husband was home at the time. Never mind that banks will happily take a check that old, and far older. Never mind that such shenanigans royally tick off people. Never mind that everybody I've told about this has said "whaaaaaaat?" They called him yesterday afternoon and said they were filing as of 0830 Monday morning! Never mind that banks and post offices won't be open until then and my client can't get certified funds. Never mind that they won't win. So, in my trademark suave and debonair manner, I called them up and said they CAN take that check. And they WILL. Or else. "Our company policy is ..." That is a good check regardless of what their company policy is. You will take it. "I don't think you're a real lawyer. A real lawyer would't be as mean as you." (pause to roll on floor laughing, change Depends too--obviously that individual has not dealt with enough lawyers) "Besides, my boss has been in real estate for 28 years and what she does MUST be legal or she wouldn't do it." (pause to inhale some albuterol to abort laughter-induced asthma attack) She said they had to have certified funds for rent and late fee, even though she admitted to receiving the check before the 5th when the late fee actually accrues. Eventually she got tired of dealing with logic, facts, good sense, etc. and hung up on me. My plan at this point is to draft a complaint for violation of the NCUDTPA, which applies the same sanctions to actual creditors as the NCDCA does to CAs, and Pearl Harbor them with it, plus get a temporary injunction against ejectment, and put the rent payments into the court registry for the duration. My version of the Golden Rule goes, do unto others BEFORE they do unto you. In my opinion, they're threatening action not permitted by law and falsely accusing my client of not paying the debt. I have the check he gave them, on which they circled and lined through the date, then refused to take it. So I may not be the greatest real estate lawyer ever, but I do know a thing or two about debt collection. BANZAI!!!!!!
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
