When I moved into an apartment the then-manager said the electricity would be "taken care of." We didn't know what that meant, but we never got a bill so we concluded it meant the complex was paying for it. 10 months later, the utility company suddenly discovered it hadn't been getting paid for electricity use in this unit (duh - that still floors me) so they gave the current manager a bill for several months. Apparently they can only bill US for the past 4 months or so, hence they sent the bill for the previous months to the management. Management is now demanding that we reimburse them. Another rental manager has told me that we do not have to pay it, that since it was the management's mistake, they have to eat the cost. Is this correct, and if so, can somebody give me chapter and verse on this subject?

Afterthought - I'm in western Washington, near the Seattle area. That's probably relevant, duu-uu-uh.

What state? Do you have anything in writing about who is responsible for paying utilities?

Is there a written lease, and I am sorry if I find it hard to believe that you did not ask about the electric for 10 months, the rental price should have been obvious if electric was included or not And it is always the users liability to call and have their own electric hooked up.

You can fight the law suit when the apartment people sue you ( and perhaps try to evict you) when you don't pay.
But the fact is you actually owe someone for 10 months of electric that you used.
** never heard of any 4 month rule.

But if you can get by only paying 4 months for 10 months of electric jump on it

The lease is vague, and the rent is high enough that it was reasonable to conclude the electric was included in it. There won't be any eviction, as we're moving out within the month already. According to the other rental manager I spoke with, in Washington at least it's the landlord's responsibility to change the utilities over; it was the same when we used to manage an apartment complex in Colorado. It would seem the statutes differ from state to state, which is why I belatedly included the fact that I'm in Washington.

Here's the thing. Even though it was management's fault, YOU still had use of the electricity. So the likelihood of you winning a law suit over this is small. I would suggest that you try to negotiate a settlement with the management company. Either that you pay the four months over time or settle for sharing the costs.

Hello d:

Scott is correct. Whether the account should have been changed and who's responsibility is was to do it, is NOT the issue. The issue is who used the electricity and who should pay for it.

I don't know about this 4 month rule either (I live in Seattle), but I'd jump on it. You're being given 6 month of free electricity. If they sue you, you'll pay it ALL.

excon

I intend to pay the 4 months; that's not the question. The energy company will be sending me a bill for that part, at which time I'll make arrangements. The question revolves around the other part, because apparently some regulation prevents them from billing me for it. Instead they billed the apartment complex, and according to the manager that's how it works here. But the manager is wanting me to reimburse the complex for that part of it, and another manager is telling me I don't have to. For various reasons (not just because it gets me off the hook), I'm inclined to believe that second manager a lot more than I am the other one. I'm just looking for verification, preferably a direct reference in the regulations or whatever, of what I'm being told. I have no problem making an arrangement with the utility company for the 4 months, I intend to stay on good terms with them.

Hello again, d:

Cool. I missed the part about your incompetent managers wanting to be reimbursed...

If it were me, instead of using the off the wall grounds of, "he was supposed to put it in my name", I'd use the legal grounds of estoppel. In a nutshell, it means that a wrong which has gone on for some length of time, and NOT stopped, has been deemed by the party who COULD have stopped it, NOT to be wrong. Think about that for a minute.

A secondary defense would be that the complex has a legal duty to mitigate your damages, and SHOULD have been aware, had they been paying attention, that they were piling up, yet did NOTHING to relieve you.

Those are BOTH legal issues that I believe would cause you to WIN any lawsuit they might contemplate filing against you, or you against them, for that matter. I'd write them a certified letter stating the above, and your refusal to pay. Certainly, they're going to try to keep your deposit. You might have to sue them.

Let me know.

excon

Hello again, d:

Cool. I missed the part about your incompetent managers wanting to be reimbursed...

If it were me, instead of using the off the wall grounds of, "he was supposed to put it in my name", I'd use the legal grounds of estoppel. In a nutshell, it means that a wrong which has gone on for some length of time, and NOT stopped, has been deemed by the party who COULD have stopped it, NOT to be wrong. Think about that for a minute.

A secondary defense would be that the complex has a legal duty to mitigate your damages, and SHOULD have been aware, had they been paying attention, that they were piling up, yet did NOTHING to relieve you.

Those are BOTH legal issues that I believe would cause you to WIN any lawsuit they might contemplate filing against you, or you against them, for that matter. I'd write them a certified letter stating the above, and your refusal to pay. Certainly, they're going to try to keep your deposit. You might have to sue them.

Lemme know.

excon

Hi Ex,
That's precisely what I was looking for. Thanks! I have no doubt they're going to try and keep my deposit, and I honestly don't care about that if they do. It's $$$ I haven't seen and hence won't miss if they keep it; when they do, I might try to wring their whatchamacallits a little, but that's about as far as I'll pursue it.

Again, thanks for the info. You made my day!

I would not be surprised if there was a public service regulation that prohibited a utility for back billing for more than 4 months. So it's the utility's fault they didn't realize the bill wasn't being paid. But that doesn't change the fact that you got to use the electricity and can be held responsible for the 4 months.

I would not be surprised if there was a public service regulation that prohibited a utility for back billing for more than 4 months. So it's the utility's fault they didn't realize the bill wasn't being paid. But that doesn't change the fact that you got to use the electricity and can be held responsible for the 4 months.

Agreed, and as I said, I intend to take care of the 4 months. My dispute is over the other part that the apartment management wants me to reimburse them for.

Ex,
Here's a draft of a letter to the management. For public-view purposes like this I have substituted X for the apartment company, and Y for the utility company. Did I leave anything out? I chose to hold your second factor in reserve in case I need to pile another principle on later.



We have now had an opportunity to seek legal counsel about this matter. As you yourself acknowledged, this oversight was an error on the part of X, not on our part. We acted in good faith, and were simply told when we moved in that the electricity would be “taken care of.” What that meant was not explained.
According to the laws and regulations that apply here, that portion of the bill that Y has billed to X is X’s responsibility, not ours. We will work directly with Y about the remainder, but we are under no legal obligation to reimburse X for the part that they have been billed. This is particularly true since, on grounds of estoppel, X should have known about this error and corrected it in a timely manner. The fact that it was allowed to go on for so extensive a period indicates tacit approval of the situation on X’s part, and hence acceptance of responsibility for the costs incurred. There are other regulations that also apply, and they add up to this: the pre-November bills are to be paid by X, and there is nothing in the law or statutes that requires us to reimburse X for any amount.
We therefore respectfully decline to reimburse X or any of its representatives, subsidiaries or others for these costs.

Now, I'm confused. My understanding was that the utility only billed the management company for 4 months once the utility discovered the error. I can certainly see a utility being restricted from billing for more than 4 months of arrears. I cannot see the management company being so restricted. So it shouldn't matter WHO was billed, the total bill should only be 4 months.

Now, I'm confused. My understanding was that the utility only billed the management company for 4 months once the utility discovered the error. I can certainly see a utility being restricted from billing for more than 4 months of arrears. I cannot see the management company being so restricted. So it shouldn't matter WHO was billed, the total bill should only be 4 months.

They billed the management company for the entire 10 months. When the management told them who we were and how to contact us, the utility said they would be billing us for the 4 months but the management was responsible for the rest of it. I just reports 'em, I doesn't explains 'em.

One of the things about this whole mess that just boggles my mind is the fact that it took the utility company almost a full year to realize these bills weren't getting paid! What kind of operation do they have there??

Grr, this board really needs a way to edit posts to accommodate sloppy-fingered people like me...

Scott, that's one thing that was bothering me; should the management be able to refuse to pay as well? Seems to me there's at least as much culpability here for the utility company as for anybody else, so maybe they should have to eat that 6 months' worth?

You're still new here, after you have some more posts under your belt you will be able to edit your posts, at least for a time.

I would contact the utility directly and find out what regulation they are citing that prevents them from billing you more than 4 months, but allows them to bill the mgmt company for the rest.

You're still new here, after you have some more posts under your belt you will be able to edit your posts, at least for a time.

I would contact the utility directly and find out what regulation they are citing that prevents them from billing you more than 4 months, but allows them to bill the mgmt company for the rest.

Good idea. I'll have to give that some thought over the weekend.

Good idea. I'll have to give that some thought over the weekend.

I was also toying with the idea of suggesting that the management look into the laws & regulations as well, to see if the utility is legitimately allowed to bill THEM. Thoughts?

Nobody has any more thoughts on this topic? I'm especially interested in opinions as to whether I should try to make the manager into an ally with a view to telling the utility company to eat the bill.

New development: the manager who tried to foist this on us was apparently fired a few days ago, so the place is between managers. Our lease is up and we're getting out of here by the end of April, so if they can stay in a state of cluster-**** until then...

New development: the manager who tried to foist this on us was apparently fired a few days ago, so the place is between managers. Our lease is up and we're getting out of here by the end of April, so if they can stay in a state of cluster-**** until then.........

'T'would appear I spoke too soon; that manager was still there today, and still threatening. Confusion reigns...

'T'would appear I spoke too soon; that manager was still there today, and still threatening. Confusion reigns...

In any case, one person on this forum told me in a PM that they think I'm on the right track; what do the rest of you think? I tried talking to the interim manager about being allies in this thing, but she wasn't listening at all and sounded like your average bean counter. How far should I try to carry this whole idea?

And here's a sort of ancillary question. Our manager's name was Brenda, and her assistant was Natalia. I got to know Natalia by sight, but only periodically caught glimpses of Brenda. Well, when all this hit the fan, I started getting calls from someone named Sarah, claiming to represent the apartment complex. I didn't know of any Sarah, had no idea who she might be, and thought that it was Brenda who had hit us with this thing. I only found out today that it was this Sarah, not Brenda, who I guess had been fired a week or so earlier. Sarah never once identified herself in conversation or any other way, so we really didn't know who we were talking to (she's a district manager of some sort, btw). For all I knew, the mysterious Sarah on the phone was trying to scam me in some way.

Can I do anything with that to help get this thing off my back?

First, this site frowns on people answering questions via PM. Anyone doing so is going against the guidelines of this site. When someone answers via PM, there is no peer review to verify the answer. Additionally, the idea of a public forum is so that browsers may benefit by seeing the problems of others and learning from the solutions offered. So I would be skeptical about anyone PMing you with answers.

That being said, until you understand what really happened between the electric company and the landlords, you are operating in the dark. Have you talked to the utility yet?

So why not encourage publicly? There is no reason why such a post could not have been made publicly. Again the guidelines of this site are clear on the issue.

Yes PM is not for that use, and the person doing so could be subject to review for such action. People have been as far as banned for answering questions by PM.
This is for the protection of those posting.

So yes it is more seroius than you seem to agree. And telling you that you are on the right track is a answer, and obviously from someone that does not care about following the rules. If they don't want to follow rules, why do you feel they have the slightest knowledge of legal matters

Hello again:

Dudes! It was ME. He PM'd me and I told him he was on the right track. I don't ANSWER via PM. Instead, I'll often times say innocuous stuff. That's what this was.

excon

Ok excon, you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you on public forums.

You know better than to confess with out proper legal representation.

(LOL)

OK he PM you first, that does sound more like it.

Yes, I instigated the PM-ification. I hadn't heard anything from excon so I PM'ed saying I'd be interested in that person's opinion. My bad, I repent in ackcloth and sashes. Now, I really am in a bit of a pickle here, so any chance we could get back to the topic at hand? (insert big grin here to show I'm not trying to be snide)

And, again I ask, whether you have gotten any info from the utility.

P.S. Most of us have notifications set to alert us when someone replies to a thread we have subscribed to (by responding in that thread). So if we don't add a response its probably because we had nothing to say.

Haven't been able to contact the utility yet; they roll up the sidewalks on the weekend around here. I'll try again tomorrow.

Meanwhile, what about the question of the person who didn't identify herself? Many thanks!

Has absolutely nothing to do with it. As long as the management company is standing behind their request, doesn't matter which employee contacted you.

Has absolutely nothing to do with it. As long as the management company is standing behind their request, doesn't matter which employee contacted you.

Oh well, it was worth a shot.

OK, I just talked to the utility. Here's the gist of it.

-they only back-bill for three months. This isn't a regulation, it's their internal policy.

-the management only recently contacted them about this, and as a result established our move-in date vis-à-vis the utility company as December 5, 2009.

-they informed the management that they could only back-bill us for the three months, and anything else before that was between the management and us, unless we explicitly assume responsibility for the entire bill. I explicitly refused at that point.

-on the phone, the utility representative told me that the management's ability to come after us for the rest depends on the terms of our lease and any other factors that might come into play. The utility has nothing to do with any of that and will not get involved.

So there it is. Excon gave me a couple of rules to go on, estoppel and mitigation of damages; are there others I can use? Or will these be enough?

The manager sort of accosted me the other day, and said that we'll be hearing from their lawyers so that means we have to pay. I almost laughed out loud at that statement, but I digress. I sent the certified letter as excon said, and cited the estoppel rule as reason enough for us to legally refuse to reimburse them. I decided to hold the mitigation thing in reserve in case I need to blindside them a little later. But she did say one other interesting thing: she claimed she offered us payment arrangements. She did no such thing; she said "I need this money and I need it right now, get back to me by tomorrow morning with it." Obviously I can't prove that, but it gives an idea the sort of person I'm dealing with.

So, is there anything else I should know before the fur begins to fly? And is there anything else I should do?

Thanks! I really appreciate all this.

There is one thing that is unclear here. Who has been paying all along? If the utility wasn't billing anyone and no one paid then the management company isn't out any money. That was my understanding. However, if the mgmt company was being billed and paid the bill, then you are going to have to fork over the amount. What the utility is saying is they can only bill YOU directly for three months back dated from the date the account was transferred to your name. This is somewhat different then what I understood the situation to be.

I'm assuming now that the utility was billing the mgmt company all along AND they were paying the bill. As I think I said in an earlier response, you used the electricity so a court will, in all likelihood, hold you responsible. However, I don't believe you will be forced to pay in a lump sum.

So I would offer a settlement to the mgmt company. See if they will accept half to make it go away.

No, nobody has been paying it. That's why the bill is so big. Because the management didn't notify the utility company that there was any change of tenancy, the utility has been sending bills to the previous tenant at who knows what address, for all this time. It took them close to a year to figure out that they weren't getting paid, and then they sent a lump-sum bill to the management AFTER that time. That happened a week or so ago, and that's when we found out about all this. The manager told me that the utility would be billing me for the last few months (three, as it turns out) and had billed them for the rest. At that point she hadn't paid them anything. That's why I was suggesting that she and I should be allies in this thing and try to make the utility company eat the bill. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Ok, so the utility believes they can bill the mgmt company for all but the last three months but only bill you for those three months. Not sure if that makes a lot of sense. But I still maintain that since you were using the electricity you can be held responsible for the cost.

On the other hand, I agree that the smart thing would have been for you and the management company to band together and make the utility be held responsible for their mistake.

So your next step now is to contact the local agency that oversees public utilities and see what help they can provide.

I'm thinking that, under the principles I've been given here so far, the utility can ASK management for the remainder, but can't necessarily DEMAND it. But that's one of the many things I'm trying to sort out here.

It seems to me that those same rules that excon gave me to toss at the management should apply to the utility, I just need to get someone to listen at management. Right now the person who's been after me about this is more worried about her bruised ego than she is about sorting this out.

I wonder how I go about figuring out who oversees the utility company. Time to go a-digging...

excon, I don't suppose you know off the top of your head, since you're in this area?

Further developments:

The interim manager presented me with a letter from their lawyers demanding payment by this Friday (3 days from now). Besides the part of the lease I already referenced, they also cited an addendum that says in part:

"in the event you fail to timely establish utilities and services...we may charge you for any utilities and services billed to us with respect to your apartment..."

That's the portion of the paragraph that they quoted in the letter. Based on that, it does in fact appear that we're screwed. Still, I wrote the following back. As before, X is the apartment complex and/or their parent company, Y is the utility, and Z is us:


I am in receipt of your letter regarding the Y bill for electricity. When we moved in here, the manager at the time told us the electricity would be “taken care of.” She did not say what that meant; she implied that she or some other representative of X would perform the task of changing the utility over into our name. Clearly, neither she nor any other representative of X did so. When we did not receive any bills for electricity, we reasonably concluded that, when she said it would be “taken care of” that meant it was included in the rent we were paying. It was not until two managers and nearly a year later that we were ever informed otherwise. We even asked about it on one occasion, and were told not to worry about it.

Inasmuch as the management indicated that they would “take care of” whatever needed to be done, there was no failure on our part and hence paragraph 4 of the addendum to our lease does not apply. The failure was on X's part, not ours, and the lease makes no mention of that eventuality. We therefore maintain that

1. Under the rule of estoppel, X should have been aware of this situation and taken steps to correct it. They did not, and their lack of action constitutes an implicit approval of the situation and therefore responsibility for the cost incurred for the electricity.

2. X is under a legal obligation to mitigate damages such as this, and should have been aware of the situation and done so. They did nothing, and hence make themselves liable to do so with regard to this excessively high utility bill.

But there is more to it than that. Y itself took nearly a full year to realize that they weren't getting paid. Under those same principles, especially the estoppel one, they should be held accountable for this error and have to absorb the cost themselves. It is unfortunate that X has already paid them, because Y needs to be held accountable for such poor accounting. Hence, it is my belief that X, and we, Z, should be allies in this matter and should work together to make Y eat this bill.

I realize we are under some serious time constraints here, so if you have any questions or other need to contact me, please feel free to phone me at...

We actually did ask about the electricity several months ago, and that actually is what we were told by an assistant manager. Unfortunately, we have no way to prove it.

Today, once heads were a little cooler, I tried again to talk to this interim manager, who is actually a district manager filling in until they get a real one, about being allies against the utility company. Her reply was classic bean-counter: it wasn't my checkbook, so I wasn't comfortable refusing to pay it and risk damaging someone else's credit. In other words, it was over my head so I kicked it upstairs without so much as a by-your-leave or any other indication that perhaps they should look into it more deeply, and they rubber-stamped it and paid it since nobody suggested otherwise. This is the kind of response we have gotten from her all along. I'm hoping the lawyer is a little more open to suggestion; we'll see.

The other interesting thing is, if we don't comply with this three-day deadline, they'll give us a 10-Day Notice To Comply Or Vacate. That takes us up to within 10 days of when we were planning to move out anyway! So this is really getting interesting.

Thoughts and comments are appreciated.

Hello again, d:

Then you'll just have to fight it out in court. Maybe the judge will go for estoppel. If they don't sue you when you leave, you should file suit for your deposit. They'll countersue, and the battle is enjoined.

excon

Further developments:
Besides the part of the lease I already referenced, they also cited an addendum that says in part:

"in the event you fail to timely establish utilities and services...we may charge you for any utilities and services billed to us with respect to your apartment..."


Did you sign the lease with that addendum in it? If so, then I doubt if you have a case. With that addendum, you should have inquired immediately if you were not billed. So that clause will, in all likelihood, put the onus back on you.

Scott,
Yes, we did. That's why I tried the finagle about who actually promised to make the change, even though I know it's probably a tad lame.

Excon,
I'm willing to let the deposit go if it will get this off my back. From what I've seen of this outfit, they would bend over backward to keep as much of it as they could anyway, and I figured going into this lease that the deposit $$ was probably throw-away money. My attitude right now is, if they don't sue, I won't. Whaddaya think?

If you signed that lease with that clause, you are on very thin ice. What is in writing always trumps a verbal commitment. I really don't see any way that a court won't hold you responsible for the utility bill.

I agree, if they don't sue, you don't.

How about if they can't decide what the amount is? The interim manager hand-delivered a letter from their lawyer yesterday - quite literally pounded on the door and brought a maintenance guy along, apparently thinking we might get violent or something - that said the amount was $621.56. We walked down to the office a little later and, making sure we were as polite as humanly possible, requested a copy of the utility bill in detail. I picked it up from them a little while ago. It includes a copy of that same letter, except that the amount in this copy is $587.08. I went through the bill and added up the charges for the months in question and got an answer that doesn't match either of these figures.

Is there anything in that little mess that I can use to our advantage?

No, If you are sued, you both present your calculations to the court and the court will pick one.

If you propose to without going to court, then you have to show your figures and negotiate the actual payment.

I talked with the management's lawyer today. She told me that the following paragraph in the lease precludes the estoppel idea. What do you guys think? Here it is:


MISCELLANEOUS. Neither we nor any of our representatives have made any oral promises, representations, or agreements. This Lease Contract is the entire agreement between you and us. Our representatives (including management personnel, employees, and agents) have no authority to waive, amend, or terminate this Lease Contract or any part of it, unless in writing, and no authority to make promises, representations, or agreements that impose security duties or other obligations on us or our representatives unless in writing. No action or omission of our representative will be considered a waiver of any subsequent violation, default, or time or place of performance. Our not enforcing or belatedly enforcing written-notice requirements, rental due dates, acceleration, liens, or other rights isn't a waiver under any circumstances. Except when notice or demand is required by statute, you waive any notice and demand for performance from us if you default. Written notice to or from our managers constitutes notice to or from us. Any person giving a notice under this Lease Contract should retain a copy of the memo, letter or fax that was given. Fax signatures are binding. All notices must be signed. Notices may not be given by email.

Exercising one remedy won't constitute an election or waiver of other remedies. Unless prohibited by law or the respective insurance policies, insurance subrogation is waived by all parties. All remedies are cumulative. No employee, agent, or management company is personally liable for any of our contractual, statutory, or other obligations merely by virtue of acting on our behalf. This Lease Contract binds subsequent owners. Neither an invalid clause nor the omission of initials on any page invalidates this Lease Contract. All notices and documents may be in English and, at our option, in any language that you read or speak. All provisions regarding our non-liability and non-duty apply to our employees, agents, and management companies. This Lease Contract is subordinate or superior to existing and future recorded mortgages, at lender's option. All lease obligations must be performed in the county where the apartment is located.

WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL. To minimize legal expenses and, to the extent allowed by law, you and we agree that a trial of any lawsuit based on statute common law, and/or related to this Lease Contract shall be to a judge and not a jury.

I'm not totally sure what part she's talking about; the legalese gets a little thick at this point. But I think it's the stuff in the first paragraph. Is she correct?

Pretty much!

Oh well. I guess I know what's happened; in fact, I can use one of my favorite Sidney Sheldon lines. This guy has just scammed some big shots, but he did it in a way that was absolutely legal. A lawyer tells one of the guys (I paraphrase):

"In the legal parlance of one of my colleagues, you've been royally screwed."

I will definitely read the next lease I'm presented very, veeeery carefully.

Hello again, d:

If you hadn't given me a reddie, I'd help you beat them, still. But, you did. Now, if you want my help, you've got to do some groveling, and you might have to send money. I don't know. It depends on how well you grovel.

excon

Hello again, d:

If you hadn't given me a reddie, I'd help you beat them, still. But, you did. Now, if you want my help, you've got to do some groveling, and you might have to send money. I dunno. It depends on how well you grovel.

excon

*bows down, licks boots* *smiles real big* Did I ever tell you you have very nice eyes? *kneel and plead* what else you want?

I'm still figuring out how this site works, and couldn't find anything in the TOS that explained the agree/disagree thing. Major apologies!! Is there a way to retract it?

One thing their lawyer did suggest to me was talking to an outfit called something like the Housing Justice Protection. I'm going to try to do that tomorrow, time permitting.

I talked with the management's lawyer today. She told me that the following paragraph in the lease precludes the estoppel idea. What do you guys think? Is she correctHello d:

Yeah... I had this page of ALL green going on, and then you had to come along and spoil it. Dude! Well, it's not the first reddie I've gotten, and it won't be the last. At least you didn't do it maliciously.

The lady lawyer is correct, in that, she defended her client, and got you to run away. That's her job and she did it well. Whether she's correct on the LAW or not, remains to be determined. That would be, of course, IF you have the balls to take them to court for your deposit. They'll counter sue for the bill and it'll be game on.

In my view, you have NOTHING to lose by suing them and EVERYTHING to gain.

excon

PS> This is what she says your agreement means, "Our not enforcing or belatedly enforcing written-notice requirements, rental due dates, acceleration, liens, or other rights isn't a waiver under any circumstances."

The LAW, however, says something else. You'll find that law under estoppel

Ex,
I didn't even know what a "reddie" or a "greenie" was until you pointed out my error; what little information I've been able to find on that system is buried so deep it took me nearly an hour to find out what it's all about. It would be good if there was a simple explanation of the rep system for new folks like me to find BEFORE we make a mistake like I did. Anyway...

I'm interested in checking out the law you're talking about; still, as I said before, I always consider such deposits throw-aways, and if I can get out of this losing nothing more than that, I'll be satisfied. But the estoppel thing really has me curious. Where might I start looking for more info?

Thanks! (both for the info and for forgiveness... )

I'm interested in checking out the law you're talking about; still, as I said before, I always consider such deposits throw-aways, Hello again, d:

I'm going to forward your post to the people who can DO something about it.

In terms of your situation, you need to understand some stuff. At THIS point in time, the LAW has LITTLE to DO with it. THIS is the time for INTIMIDATION. So far, it's YOU whose been intimidated. Certainly, if they know you're going to lay down for your deposit, they KNOW you're going to lay down for this bill.

Now, I don't know how the law is going to square with the language in their contract. YOU don't either, and you've admitted as much... And, I promise you, if you read up on estoppel, you're going to be even MORE confused.. Does the lady attorney KNOW what she said is the LAW?? NO, she doesn't. Is a judge who you're going to be in front of know the law? Maybe and maybe not. That's why they have appeals.

Part and parcel of the intimidation process, is making the apartment complex THINK that their very expensive attorney is going to cost them a lot more than the few hundred they're owed. The only was they are going to consider such an idea is if they know you're going to fight them every step of the way - and you don't have an expensive attorney on retainer...

So, don't throw away one nickel of the money that you're entitled to.

excon

Okay, I'm with you so far. I suppose I should set out my basic philosophy of such things.

For me, it's not so much about winning as about doing what's most expedient for my family. If I can get the deposit back, well and good. If I can twist some nasty people's whatchamacallits in the process, even better. But I'm 56 years old, my wife of 30 years has just had surgery and is still in a lot of pain, and I'm sitting here trying to evaluate the best use of my time and energy as it regards this whole thing.

The other thing is, several years ago I had an epiphany of sorts: it's just money. In the Grand Scheme Of Things, frankly not that important. I view money like I view a lot of other things: it's a tool, a means to an end. That end is my family. As I said, I've been married to the same woman for 30 years, and have been privileged to raise three incredible kids. My goal in most everything I do is not only to serve them as best I can, but to build memories for myself and for them while we can. Money, jobs, all that stuff, are tools for doing those things. And when it comes to money, I sort of hold it very loosely, because there's always a way to get more. (I credit Bernie Rhodenbarr with this last insight, which is probably more than a little kinky.)

At the same time, if I can get the deposit back without gobbling up too much of the time and energy that I have left on this earth, that's good, too. So my goal here is to balance one versus the other, and try to decide which approach is best going to serve my primary goal in life.

I hope that clears up my view. Frankly, because of that approach, I'm not intimidated in the least. Because in the long run, these people can't hurt me. And letting that deposit go would be a non-event for me. Getting it back would allow me to get some new scuba equipment :D so I'm open to that idea.

Will I be hearing from whoever you forwarded the post to, then? I'm also wondering what I should do in the meantime. The lease is up the end of April, and I'm probably going to give notice today. I was more or less planning to go suggest that they wait for the deposit once we move out, but decline to commit anything along those lines to writing. Offer it by innuendo, so to speak. But here's what the lawyer letter said: we have until the end of today to pay up, and if we don't, the "landlord" will issue a 10 day notice to comply or vacate which could lead to eviction. Now, I know that eviction is a long, involved process and we could really jerk them around during that time. But I'm thinking I probably don't want something like that on our record, so what do you think of my little stalling tactic?

Hello again, d:

Couple things. I'm only talking about writing a few letters. To me, it's worth a couple hours to save a couple grand. I'm not into making trouble just for the sake of making trouble.

I think I mentioned a strategy for your departure earlier.. Nonetheless, screw their eviction threat. You'll be gone LONG before a hearing can be held making that procedure moot. You'll probably be filing in that same court for your deposit back, or you'll be countersuing them. In any case, the eviction will NEVER happen.

excon

PS> Nahh. If they fix the FAQ or whatever to make the reddie/greenie thing more understandable, that's going to happen or not. I'm sure they're not going to let ME know, and I'm sure they're not going to let YOU know.

Nope. I'm stuck with the reddie forever.

Another glaring omission on my part. The refundable part of my deposit is only $400. That's why I'm not going ballistic about the idea of losing it. And the electric bill thing is $587. If I could get them to settle for the deposit and get this stupid thing over with, I'd be satisfied.

So, because of the absurdly-long process of the eviction thing, you think I should just let them dangle? I do need to give proper move-out notice, but should I discuss this thing at all when I do? Or just hand them a sealed envelope with the "we're moving out at the end of our lease" letter and leave?

I wonder if the programmers and powers-that-be could be convinced to add a little "What's this?" link to the agree/disagree box? That would make life much simpler for dodos like me.

The "D" is for Dave, by the way.

I think I mentioned a strategy for your departure earlier.. Hello again, d:

Apparently, I didn't. You've done enough talking about THIS situation for the time being. They KNOW you're not satisfied.. But, before you take it to the next level, deal with your move out. Yes, give them written notice, sent CERTIFIED. Clean the place immaculately. Arrange for a walkthrough with your landlord by certified mail, and when you meet them there, take pictures. When you vacate, send a demand letter to the landlord regarding your deposit. In Washington, he has 14 days to return it OR an explanation of why it wasn't returned.

Only then will you know who owes who what. IF they sue you for this bill before you actually vacate, that's the court where you'll countersue for your deposit. Make sure all your rent is paid, so that the issue is strictly the electric bill and NOT rent. The eviction court is as good as any court to have your complaints heard.

Not knowing how much time is left on your lease, I can't say one hearing would occur before another. Certainly, if you ARE sued for eviction, you'll have a chance to explain to the judge in your answer that you're already leaving, and you're asking for a continuance until the security deposit issue becomes clear. You'll get it.

excon

If you are evicted you will be charged the court filing fees and the attorney's fees for their attorney to show up. Keep that in mind that this could amount to several hundred dollars.

Also, if they do serve you with the eviction there will be a hearing scheduled which can be either 1 week or 2 weeks away depending on how backed up the court docket is. Then when you are in front of the Judge he may decide to have you ejected immediately or give you 10 days in which to leave the premises.

In any event, an eviction is NOT a long, drawn out process as you think it is. It is a relatively quick court proceeding that can take about a month to happen.

You're confusing a loan foreclosure on a house which can take months and months to happen. An eviction can be pretty quick since they can accelerate it due to you not paying the electric bill. If they went down to the courthouse Monday, they could technically file the eviction suit.

Also, if they do serve you with the eviction there will be a hearing scheduled which can be either 1 week or 2 weeks away depending on how backed up the court docket is. Then when you are in front of the Judge he may decide to have you ejected immediately or give you 10 days in which to leave the premises.Hello twink:

As usual, we don't disagree - much...

Whenever the hearing is, the OP will have filed his answer, and it's a good a time as any to have the issue adjudicated. Should the OP lose, and he certainly might, he'll have the opportunity to pay, and the eviction will be dismissed. Although the court COULD assess attorney's fees, in this instance, I doubt they would. Those would only be assessed if the OP's claim was frivolous, and I don't believe it is.

On the other hand, the judge could throw him out on his ear. There ain't no guarantees when you put these folks in charge of your life.

excon

Uh, he could have the opportunity to pay only if the landlord accepts his payment which in some instances the landlord actually refused to accept payment and the party gets evicted. Some landlords can be real sh*ts if they want to be. (I've seen some do this).

OP said:

But here's what the lawyer letter said: we have until the end of today to pay up, and if we don't, the "landlord" will issue a 10 day notice to comply or vacate which could lead to eviction.

Basically the landlord is going to turn this over to his pricey lawyer to handle regardless of the cost as the cost can be passed on to the tenant. He's already done this by having the lawyer send you the letter informing you of the landlord's intentions.

I'm surprised that since you've used the electric and only had to pay for 4 months of your use that you'd even want to consider "jerking" them around more. You've already gotten several months free electricity and you said you're willing to throw away your $400 deposit money.

Won't it cost you more to move out, get another apartment, put down another deposit (and possibly an electricity deposit as well) than to pay the $500+ electricity bill and stay at your present place?

Sounds like you just want to dodge your responsibility in order to fund your new scuba gear project. You're going to spend more money in the long run than you would if you just paid the money. You're not "jerking" anyone around but yourself in this scenerio regardless of how many times I read and re-read your posts.

The timetable as it sits now:

Today is supposed to be the deadline to pay up or risk the 10-day notice thing, which is not an eviction notice.

Lease is up April 30. We've already arranged a new place and will begin moving into it April 15, or a tad under 3 weeks from now.

What I'm thinking: simply ask for more time, with implications and evasive references to the deposit. IOW, stall. In that regard, I can BS with the best of them. Later on, if necessary, I can be as big a jerk as the circumstances require, but for now I'd be happy just to get them to hold off until we're on our way out of here.

Thoughts?

Twinkie, you have thoroughly misread almost everything I wrote. We had already arranged another place to live before any of this came up, because this place is just too small for us (plus the maintenance and such is a cluster-****). Moving out has nothing at all to do with this situation. And in case you missed the little smiley thing, the scuba comment was a J-O-K-E. And I've already made arrangements with the electric company to fold the 3 months into the new place and work out a payment plan. None of that stuff enters into it.

If you've already made arrangements with the electric company to pay 3 months what about the 4th month? Also, have you informed your landlord that YOU are going to be paying the electric company yourself and leaving them out of this?

Ok, so you will be getting the 10 day pay up or vacate notice shortly. If you don't get it today more than likely you'll get it Monday. It's almost April anyway. If you don't pay for April's rent and you leave on the 15th your landlord probably will file the eviction and ding you for April's rent.

You don't have to allude to any deposit when dealing with them as they will be keeping it anyway thinking they're entitled to it.

More than likely you will be moving out by the time they've gone down to file the eviction suit anyway.

The 4-month thing was apparently a mistake on the landlord's part, because when I talked to the electric company they said they would only bill me for 3 months. That portion of it isn't part of what the landlord is asking for, just the part that they actually got billed for. Right now I'm trying to decide if I should go down there and ask for more time in order to stave off the 10-day notice. Thoughts?

I tried to go talk to them, but the person causing all the trouble wasn't there, of course. I spoke with the assistant, who is a very nice person, and she logged my appearance and my request for more time. I also contacted the lawyer again and suggested that she could help me get more time. Since the lawyer pointed me to some places that could help, I figure she should help me stall. And now that it's the weekend, of course, nothing's going to happen.

Twinkie, I fully intend to pay the April rent. We'll BEGIN moving on the 15th, but since all we have is two minivans and a Jeep Cherokee to move with, we can use the extra breathing space between the 15th and the end of the month. Plus, I don't want to give them any excuse to try and besmirch my name, especially for non-payment of rent.

We now pause while the entire place rolls up the sidewalks for the weekend...

Well, I tried to talk to this woman again, and it's frankly impossible. She now says she can take the electric bill out of my April rent payment and then declare me delinquent on the rent if she wants to. I find that hard to believe?? Supposedly her lawyer told me this, but that's not true because this is the first I've heard of such an idea. Can she really do that?

So either nobody knows or nobody cares?

So either nobody knows or nobody cares?Hello again, d:

I told you what to do. You want to do something else. Maybe you know better.

excon

Hello again, d:

I told you what to do. You wanna do something else. Maybe you know better.

excon

No, you were right. I should have given up trying to talk to her and all I did was give myself a headache. But my question is, can she do that little maneuver with my rent payment?

The likelihood is yes. If there are outstanding fees open, they could apply your payment to those fees.

But my question is, can she do that little maneuver with my rent payment?Hello again, d:

The very nature of your question indicates that YOU, are the one being intimidated here. How she allocates your rent payment only matters if you LET her allocate your rent that way. Had you followed my advice, you would already KNOW that this dispute is going wind up in front of a judge, and that's where your legal questions will finally be answered.

Look, the bottom line here is this. IF you win on the estoppel issue, you won't OWE the bill. IF you don't, you WILL. What you paid in rent, and/or how ever the deposit issue works out, you will owe them money, or they'll owe you money. It's simple math. It doesn't matter HOW your landlord decides to "allocate" this money.

excon

Ex,
I'm not so much intimidated as baffled. I haven't seen anything in the lease that suggests such an idea, and she flat-out lied to me when she claimed the lawyer told me this stuff. Basically, this woman has the ethics of a cat in heat. She kept trying to get me to commit to applying the deposit to this electric bill and I kept hedging, refusing to say as much. I said I would be open to entertaining the idea, and that was as far as I would go. But I have no doubt that she is telling the lawyer I agreed to it.

I couldn't care less about the money. Frankly, I consider money a necessary evil, and refuse to let it dominate any aspect of my life when there are plenty of things that are so much more important. At this point I'm just curious about this idea, because it kind of blindsided me.

OTOH, you said "How she allocates your rent payment only matters if you LET her allocate your rent that way." How would I go about NOT letting her do so? Or is that something that would be sorted out in court later, regardless of what she does right now?

Bear in mind I'm a total ignoramus when it comes to this legal crap.

How would I go about NOT letting her do so? Hello d:


You sue her.

I don't buy your "I don't care about the money BS. If that was so, you'da paid the bill. Instead you've been hocking us about for for a couple weeks. And, if you DON'T care about the money, you SHOULD, if only to keep score.

excon

Hello d:


You sue her.

I don't buy your "I don't care about the money BS. If that was so, you'da paid the bill. Instead you've been hocking us about for for a couple weeks. And, if you DON'T care about the money, you SHOULD, if only to keep score.

excon

As far as just paying the bill, it was a choice of doing that or having a deposit to put on the new place. Since we had already chosen the new place and put down a partial deposit, I opted for the latter. In addition, if it's really something I DON'T owe, I'm not into throwing my funds down a well, either.

When I say I don't care about money, I mean in the Grand Scheme Of Things. It doesn't dominate my life, and as long as there's enough coming in to get along I'm happy. If there isn't, well, as Lawrence Block's character Bernie Rhodenbarr said, there are always ways to get more. Hence, in the long run - or even the short run - this person can't really hurt me. She can be a nuisance, but that's about all. She keeps trying to threaten me with collection, as if that's the worst thing in the world. I've been there and it's no big deal. When she tries to throw that at me, it's all I can do to keep from laughing out loud.

As far as the whole question of this stuff goes, I'm more interested in them taking responsibility for their own screw-up. Legal wranglings aside, it would just be nice to see a corporate clone like this one say "Yes, we goofed. We'll fix it." That's more than a bit naïve, I know, but that's the main reason I'm doing this. The other reason is just to keep them off my back until we get moved, so I can concentrate on that.

So, if I'm reading you right, you're saying that if she does do that, we immediately sue her? Do I have that right?

you're saying that if she does do that, we immediately sue her? Do I have that right?Hello again, d:

I'm sure I told you exactly what to do earlier. I'm sure it included something like going through the move out process, demanding your deposit, WAITING until THAT issue is resolved, and THEN file suit.

excon

Hello again, d:

I'm sure I told you exactly what to do earlier. I'm sure it included something like going through the move out process, demanding your deposit, WAITING until THAT issue is resolved, and THEN file suit.

excon

Also bear in mind that it doesn't take much to confuse me... :confused:

One more little quick question, just for clarification. You said "give them written notice, sent CERTIFIED."

They have their own fancy-pants form, which I got from the assistant manager a few days ago. My intention is to turn it in to her (not to the witchy-woman), have her sign and date it, and then get a copy. Will that suffice, or should I still send a certified letter in addition?

Will that suffice, or should I still send a certified letter in addition?Hello again, d:

How come you always want to do something OTHER than what I told you??

excon

I told you, it doesn't take much to confuse me... so ignore their form and send a letter, or send the form certified?

ignore their form and send a letterHello again, d:

Do THAT. You know that you can go read this thread in its entirety any time you become confused.

excon

Hello again, d:

Do THAT. You know that you can go read this thread in its entirety any time you become confused.

excon

Look, I know I'm a nuisance. Everybody needs to be good at something, that's mine. I've read this thread over several times. Some of those answers are a little... oblique. Or over my head. Or whatever. Bear in mind that I'm in completely unfamiliar territory here, so if I ask driving directions to the john, it's because I don't know one road from another and need things as specific as possible and as simple as possible. I might as well be on Venus for all I understand of what's going on here, because I've never been in a situation even remotely like this before and don't understand the subtleties. For example, I asked about their form because I don't know if there's some law out there in this bunged-up state that requires me to use it if they supply it. That's why I asked, and there's nothing in the previous parts of the thread that address that sort of question.


Today I've spent my daughter's 20th birthday getting ulcers over this crap. She deserves better than that. So while I understand the attitude and know I deserve it, I respectfully request as much patience as you can muster, because I'm doing the best I can here.

For example, I asked about their form because I don't know if there's some law out there in this bunged-up state that requires me to use it if they supply it.Hello again, d:

Look. You either believe that I'm giving you straight legal information or you don't. I never mentioned their stinkin form because their stinkin form is NOT required by law. Send the letter, and use the form for toilet paper. STOP LISTENING TO THEM. DON'T TALK TO THEM. LISTEN TO ME! DO WHAT I SAY! NOTHING MORE - NOTHING LESS!

excon

Hello again, d:

Look. You either believe that I'm giving you straight legal information or you don't. I never mentioned their stinkin form because their stinkin form is NOT required by law. Send the letter, and use the form for toilet paper. STOP LISTENING TO THEM. DON'T TALK TO THEM. LISTEN TO ME! DO WHAT I SAY! NOTHING MORE - NOTHING LESS!

excon

Okay. One more bonehead question: "certified" - with return receipt, I assume, so I have their signature?

with return receipt, I assume, so I have their signature?Hello again, d:

Yes.

excon

I got it right! That's one in a row!

The likelihood is yes. If there are outstanding fees open, they could apply your payment to those fees.

Follow-up: I was thinking that when I pay the rent, I write something like "April rent, water, sewer & trash, paid in full" on the check, then get a receipt that says "April rent etc." or some such like that, so that if they try to do that I could wave it in their faces and say "You accepted this as the April rent, so apply it to the April rent." Any chance a move like that would get me anywhere, or would it just be blowing smoke?

DO WHAT I SAY! NOTHING MORE - NOTHING LESS!

excon

Hello again, d:

What HE said.

excon

Hello again, d:

What HE said.

excon

Yeah, I get it. But I still have to pay the April rent, so I'm trying to sort out the most effective way to do that.

The letter has been sent; I kept it short and sweet and precisely in line with what the lease requires (I checked). While I'm waiting, here's another thought. Excon wrote:


A secondary defense would be that the complex has a legal duty to mitigate your damages, and SHOULD have been aware, had they been paying attention, that they were piling up, yet did NOTHING to relieve you.

Could you expand on this idea? How does it differ from the estoppel idea?

Thanks!

I just spoke with an attorney at the Housing Justice Project. She hammered away at "pay the April rent" which I already intend to do, so there wasn't much help there. But she did tell me to write on the check in capital letters "April 2010 Rent" and make a copy of it, and get a receipt. That way, if that district manager decides to "allocate" part of it to the electric bill stuff, I have a defense if she then tries to accuse me of not paying the rent.

Unfortunately, they're an outfit that deals more or less with eviction issues, so she wasn't willing to talk to me about the estoppel matter or the other thing. Excon, I'd still like some expansion/clarification/demystification (remember the dunderhead you're talking to) about the mitigation thing you mentioned?

Meanwhile, everything is on track for moving into the new place. There are no words to describe how much I'm going to enjoy leaving this place behind.

So I paid the April rent with what it's for written clearly on the check, and got a receipt from the office assistant. She told me they got my letter and it's all entered and everything so we're good to go.

Ex, I'd still like to hear more about that mitigation thing?

Okay, we're clear out of the place, cleaned it beyond spotless, I patched the few nail holes in the wall, you name it, then took photos and video to verify the condition of the place. I need to schedule a walk-through with the assistant manager and turn the keys in, that's all. I'm still looking for further info about the legal angles that are available to me.

Quick question: as I said, the place is empty, I took lots of photos and video. The interim manager who's giving me all the trouble wants to do a walk-through with us so she can tell us everything we did wrong and tell us how much she's going to charge us. I'm not inclined to accommodate her, mostly because I don't want to be in the same room with her even for a moment. What do you guys think? I'm inclined to just return the keys, perhaps even by an intermediary, and not talk to her any more. Yes? No? Walk-through? No walk-through? Thanks!

Walk through yes! Otherwise you give them free rein to charge you for repairs.

Walk through yes! Otherwise you give them free rein to charge you for repairs.

Even with profuse photos and video? My inclination, at least in my current sleep-deprived state, is to let them know I have extensive photos and video (and hence can easily catch this person in any lies she tries to come up with) to prove the condition of the place, then see what kinds of lies she concocts and use the photos to disprove them.

The truth is, I'm tired of this whole business and my ulcer is giving me hell. I just want to be away from these people. I'm trying to cover my anatomy as best I can, but if I get in the same room with this person again I might conceivably end up in jail.

Anybody else have thoughts on this? Not that I don't respect you, Scott, but I'd like a cross-section of opinions before I act, and today is about all the time I have to garner them.

Afterthought: the purported reason why she wants to make me wait is because a new manager is coming in and she wants to use my former place as training ground for what to look for after a move-out. I have some problems with that, too.

Hello again, Dave:

If you lose, you'll look back and wonder what you missed. Pretend it's then, and we're talking - "Dude, you missed the walkthrough".

excon

Hello again, Dave:

If you lose, you'll look back and wonder what you missed. Pretend it's then, and we're talking - "Dude, you missed the walkthrough".

excon

Guess it's got to be done. Thanks, all.

Guess it's gotta be done. Thanks, all.

Another apparently possible scenario: she's stalling.

The lease runs out Friday, so the walk-through has to be done before then. I tried to do it on Monday and she put me off, saying we could do it Thursday, name the time. I called yesterday and the assistant said she would have to talk to the honcho about the time I suggested, and said she would call me back. So far I've heard nothing. If this woman stalls to the point where time runs out and we can't do a walk-through, where does that leave me?

I have a neighbor there who's a friend; I'm considering having her walk through the place with me and shooting some video of it, so I have independent confirmation that we left the place in good shape. What do you guys think?

I have a neighbor there who's a friend; I'm considering having her walk through the place with me and shooting some video of it, so I have independent confirmation that we left the place in good shape. What do you guys think?Hello again, d:

I thought your pictures DID that. What you needed was a photo of a newspaper with the date showing to prove when they were taken. THAT'S independent confirmation.

If they don't accommodate you on the walkthrough, write them another letter documenting the conversations you had about their refusal. Send it certified. On May 15, when you haven't received your deposit back, you file suit.

excon

Hello again, d:

I thought your pictures DID that. What you needed was a photo of a newspaper with the date showing to prove when they were taken. THAT'S independent confirmation.

Okay. They're digital photos; does the time/date stamp on the file help, or is that irrelevant?


If they don't accommodate you on the walkthrough, write them another letter documenting the conversations you had about their refusal. Send it certified. On May 15, when you haven't received your deposit back, you file suit.

OK.

Okay. They're digital photos; does the time/date stamp on the file help, or is that irrelevant?Hello again, d:

It's NOT irrelevant. It's just not as good as the date on a newspaper in your photograph. It'll probably be OK. I'm just a hard nosed guy who doesn't want to leave anything to chance in these matters, and that's how I advise my clients to be. Besides, they had their chance to handle it nicely.

excon

Hello again, d:

It's NOT irrelevant. It's just not as good as the date on a newspaper in your photograph. It'll probably be ok. I'm just a hard nosed guy who doesn't want to leave anything to chance in these matters, and that's how I advise my clients to be. Besides, they had their chance to handle it nicely.

excon

Good enough. I'll buy a paper and take some more pix. Thanks!

Good enough. I'll buy a paper and take some more pix. Thanks!

They didn't show (big surprise). We took video of the place and used the newspaper trick to show the date. I did another walk-through with commentary, showing that the place is immaculate; there are a couple of mini-blinds with a few ends broken off and I documented those, just to prove I'm being flagrantly honest. My next step is to put the keys in an envelope, seal it and date it, and drop it in the rent slot this evening (the earliest I can do so). I'm also composing the letter detailing our attempts to have a walk-through and their blatant stalling.

Quick follow-up question about the letter: I was considering cc'ing it to the lawyer. Would that be good, bad, or indifferent?

Quick follow-up question about the letter: I was considering cc'ing it to the lawyer. Would that be good, bad, or indifferent?Hello again, d:

No need to give him a heads up. The letter is for your OWN purposes.

excon

Hello again, d:

No need to give him a heads up. The letter is for your OWN purposes.

excon

That saves me the cost of a second certified stamp. Thanks.

Turned the keys in last night after hours. I have video of putting them in an envelope with an explanatory note, sealing the envelope and writing yesterday's date across the seal to prevent tampering, showing the envelope on both sides outside the office and dropping it in the night drop slot.

I suppose what happens next should be interesting to me, but having finally gotten clear away from that place, I really don't give a poop.

Well, the other shoe has finally dropped. This chick is definitely on a personal vendetta, and she's trying to go for the throat. I told them we had extensive photos, video and the like to verify the condition of the place, but today I got a bill. Not only did she include the utility charge, she slapped over $1000 extra onto it for carpet replacement. So she wants $1124.74 from us on top of the $600 deposit. Nice person. Really.

I have the numbers of a couple of advocacy groups; I think it's time to call them. I can't do this alone.

Hello again, d:

Wassa matta? We're not a good enough advocacy group for you? Look, nothing happened here that I/you didn't anticipate happening. It's real simple, you go to the courthouse and file a small claims lawsuit for your deposit, and any money you're out because of the other bill thing, if any. I can't remember if there is, and I didn't go back. She'll countersue for what she thinks you owe her, and the judge will decide.

Ain't no big deal. You don't need your hand held.

excon

Hello again, d:

Wassa matta? We're not a good enough advocacy group for ya? Look, nothing happened here that I/you didn't anticipate happening. It's real simple, you go to the courthouse and file a small claims lawsuit for your deposit, and any money you're out because of the other bill thing, if any. I can't remember if there is, and I didn't go back. She'll countersue for what she thinks you owe her, and the judge will decide.

Ain't no big deal. You don't need your hand held.

excon

I know all that. I'd like to get out of this without having to with court, partly because I don't have the time. But it's probably not going to happen.

Still, I'm going to try a letter first. There's a new manager over there who might accidentally be reasonable. One never knows. Not dissing your advice or ignoring it, but I've got to try it this way before going to court.

Okay, I had one of those "duu-uu-uh" moments as I read back through the later parts of this thread. The big reason I want to avoid court is proximity: it's 600 miles from my place in Boise to where they are. I can't believe I forgot to mention that... sorry.

knock yourself out, but you'll come crawling back... Just you watch...

Actually, I never crawled away.