My roommate and I were just evicted for being 2 months behind on rent. I did not even know we were behind. I have paid my roommate cash for my half every month on the 3rd of each month, and I am not on the lease nor are any utilities in my name. The landlord, however insists there is president in Idaho to sue me, the non-leased tenant, in small claims court for use of services. Can he? How may I protect myself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blaahtoyou

... How may I protect myself?

---

Sorry, but I don't know if there is such precedent in Idaho.

Do you know whether your room-mate paid the money received from you to the landlord? If perhaps he/she didn't, sue the room-mate now before he/she disappears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blaahtoyou

How may I protect myself?

---

Hello b:

Sue your roommate. He cheated you.

excon

If the landlord can prove you occupied the premises he may be able to sue you. On the other hand, you can sue your roommate since he was your landlord.

I'm good friends with now ex-roommates' mother and am having her notarize a statement in my favor in case I do end up going to court. I currently am in possession of said ex roommate's furniture and will hold on to it as long as possible and try to convince him to give me written permission to sell to settle his debts to me. If I do end up having to give him his stuff back and then taking him to small claims court, how is that enforced? What makes him pay me? This guy is pretty much a slacker and I'm sure he would rather spend a few weeks in jail than pay me the cash he owes me.

First a notarized document does nothing for you. Notarization just means that your signature was verified, it has not force of law.

Second, Collecting is on of the catch-22s of suing someone. Many people win their suits but never collect anything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blaahtoyou

I'm good friends with now ex-roommates' mother and am having her notarize a statement in my favor in case I do end up going to court.

---

What excon said. Plus, if you go to court, the notarized statement won't be good enough. The defendant still has the right to confront his accusers, so you will need her to testify in person. You can subpoena her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blaahtoyou

If I do end up having to give him his stuff back and then taking him to small claims court, how is that enforced? What makes him pay me? This guy is pretty much a slacker and I'm sure he would rather spend a few weeks in jail than pay me the cash he owes me.

---

If you prevail, and get a judgment, you can enforce that judgment by executing on, and selling, his stuff. If you have the stuff handy, it would be more convenient.

Yes your friends mother can not do anything to help you, a letter you sign that is notorised means nothing in court. That is unless your friend who you paid rent to, signs it, saying you paid him and he just refused to pay the landlord. That statement may help you.

But yes, landlord may be able to sue you as a partner to the rental, as a sub renter who was getting the benefit of the apartment. You would then have to sue the friend,

Anyone can sue anyone even if there is no precedence in Idaho. Can he win a suit againist you and collect is a horse of a different color. You had no agreement with him to pay so you did not damage him but the courts may end up figuring this out. I see folks talking about you suing your roommate and I wondered if you could tell us your damages caused by that person.

My damages, aside from having to move on very short notice, mostly amount to having to take 2 days off from work and renting a u-haul to move with. That, plus I want what I would have paid for 1 months rent while living with him. This last part would be for having to move out mid month. So all told, lets say 600$.

Courts will not likely consider that damages since the same thing would happen if you moved at a later date.

You can sue anybody for anything; the landlord has no contract with you so I have no idea what the basis of his suit against you might be.

- it's precedent, not president.