I signed a lease to move into a new home and moved in. before the lease actually started there was a fire. We went to court and the judge said that I wasn't negligent. She did make me pay for it though. Does my occupancy prior to the lease make me liable or should I appeal the case?

Your occupancy made you liable.

If she said you weren't liable, why did the judge make you pay? Is there more to the story?

Excuse me "said you weren't negligent". Negligence is the basis for tort liability

As soon as you moved in you became an occupant. The start date of the lease is immaterial.

However, if the judge ruled you weren't negligent what reason was given for making you responsible?

Did you have permission to move in early?

Yes what was the base for you have to pay any liability if you were not at fault ?

She said that it was implied that "I wouldn't burn the place down" she ordered me to pay the cost of repairs $6000 and then another $10000 in lawyers fees for the other side's attorneys. My lawyer said we should appeal and even offered to do it for cost but I'm worried I'm going to lose and get hit with even more legal fees

What was determined to be the cause of the fire? Did you get renter's insurance?

The cause of the fire was never determined It was just agreed upon as a kitchen grease fire. In court renters' insurance never came up. There was a clause that said that I would pay for their lawyer fees if I didn't pay rent or breached the contract. There was another clause that said I would return the property to them in the same condition they gave it to me in. I still live there and its fixed. Finally the lease started 16 days after the fire occurred and there was no addendum.

A grease fire is usually the fault of the occupant. If you had renter's insurance they would pay the bill.

Your grease fire info makes it a lot clearer. It was through an act of yours that the damage occurred. Basically that is negligence even though she didn't call it that. If you had nothing to do with the loss, water pipe broke, lightning etc. that's a different story. Did you have renters insurance?

... Did you have renters insurance?

Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears that the answer to that question is obvious. If OP had insurance, the insurance company would be paying to defend the suit (and appeal, if it wanted to), and pay the judgment.

Your grease fire info makes it a lot clearer. It was through an act of yours that the damage occurred. Basically that is negligence even though she didn't call it that. If you had nothing to do with the loss, water pipe broke, lightning etc., that's a different story. Did you have renters insurance?

Have to agree with "AK" - renters insurance would be defending this claim.

Or am I missing something?

The reason I asked about renters insurance was that 1 of her posts said "In court renters' insurance never came up", and never said whether she had or did not have it. This same question was posed by ScottGem but never answered. Some people have no idea what coverages they may have and many people with renters' insurance think it only covers their personal belongings.

The reason I asked about renters insurance was that 1 of her posts said "In court renters' insurance never came up", and never said whether she had or did not have it. This same question was posed by ScottGem but never answered. Some people have no idea what coverages they may have and many people with renters' insurance think it only covers their personal belongings.


That's because many times it DOES only cover contents. Only OP and her insurance agent (or lack thereof) know.