[arhoutsch]

My wife, son and I lived in an apartment for 2 years. We fell on hard times in December of 2006 into February of 2007. Our landlord (understandably) took us to court for 3 months unpaid rent in March of 2007. He sued us for $1500 as our rent was $500/mo. When we got to court, the landlord told the judge that he had lowered our rent from $500 to $475/mo (there was a small squabble over how 3 months at $475/mo does not equal $1500 but the judge just passed over the issue). The judge rendered a verdict in our favor as I had just gotten my income tax return and had the $1500. However during the court hearing, the landlord tried to get the judge to include March as unpaid. The judge told him that because he had failed to amend his requested amount from $1500 to $1975 (the people in this area are apparently mathematically challenged) that March's rent was included in the $1500. The judge told us to pay the man and as long as we paid our rent current from that point forward we could stay as long as we liked.
We paid the landlord the $1500 (we have receipts) and got a copy of the judgment in the mail stating that we had paid the rent in full. The judgment also listed that we had paid $1000 in security deposit.
A month later in April the landlord tried taking us back for court saying we had not paid March's rent. We hired a lawyer who got the case dismissed as the landlord did not show up on time for the hearing.
We paid April's rent which the landlord did not cash the check for until the day the case was dismissed in court.
After the case was dismissed we decided we'd had enough of dealing with this man (he was a slumlord who had let the building fall into disrepair to the point where the code enforcement people were called in and he was cited on multiple counts) and found a new apartment to move into. At the beginning of May we sent the landlord our 30 day notice, paid the first month's rent and security to the new apartment, and started moving our belongings out.
Unbeknownst to us, on or about May 15th the landlord sold the apartment building to new owners. We found out that the building was sold and the sale was finalized around May 15th from a fellow tenant that we were social with. We got in touch with the new owners of the building and let them know we were in the process of moving out but had sent the old landlord a 30 day notice of intent to vacate the premises.
The new owners told us that the old owner never told them we lived there, let alone were moving out, and in the next sentence told us that the old owner told them not to give us our security deposit back because we owed two months in unpaid rent. We told the new owners that this was not true and that as the new owners we expected the security deposit to be refunded by them as the new owners when we were finished moving all of our belongings out. The new owners said they will consult with their legal people but they do not believe they are required to give us the security deposit. We just recently (June 15th) finished moving all of our belongings out of the apartment and are now being told by the new owners that there were no deposits rolled over in the sale and we need to go after the old landlord for the deposit.
I have been told that because we moved after the finalization of the sale that the new owners are responsible for refunding the deposit.
Who should we be looking to for getting our security deposit back?
We are confused and just want our $1000 back since we left the apartment in very good condition.
Any advice(especially good legal advice!) would be greatly appreciated!

[LisaB4657]

Sue both of them. The judge will sort it out. Make sure you bring copies of the previous judgments when you go to court.

[ScottGem]

As Lisa says you should sue both of them, but you should file a single suit naming both as co-defendents.

Under normal conditions the previous owner is required to pass any deposits held to the new owners. So you really should be getting it from the new owners and they need to turn around and sue the old owner.

But name them both and let the judge sort it out.

[funphillyfluffy]

My wife, son and I lived in an apartment for 2 years. We fell on hard times in December of 2006 into February of 2007. Our landlord (understandably) took us to court for 3 months unpaid rent in March of 2007. He sued us for $1500 as our rent was $500/mo. When we got to court, the landlord told the judge that he had lowered our rent from $500 to $475/mo (there was a small squabble over how 3 months at $475/mo does not equal $1500 but the judge just passed over the issue). The judge rendered a verdict in our favor as I had just gotten my income tax return and had the $1500. However during the court hearing, the landlord tried to get the judge to include March as unpaid. The judge told him that because he had failed to amend his requested amount from $1500 to $1975 (the people in this area are apparently mathematically challenged) that March's rent was included in the $1500. The judge told us to pay the man and as long as we paid our rent current from that point forward we could stay as long as we liked.
We paid the landlord the $1500 (we have receipts) and got a copy of the judgment in the mail stating that we had paid the rent in full. The judgment also listed that we had paid $1000 in security deposit.
A month later in April the landlord tried taking us back for court saying we had not paid March's rent. We hired a lawyer who got the case dismissed as the landlord did not show up on time for the hearing.
We paid April's rent which the landlord did not cash the check for until the day the case was dismissed in court.
After the case was dismissed we decided we'd had enough of dealing with this man (he was a slumlord who had let the building fall into disrepair to the point where the code enforcement people were called in and he was cited on multiple counts) and found a new apartment to move into. At the beginning of May we sent the landlord our 30 day notice, paid the first month's rent and security to the new apartment, and started moving our belongings out.
Unbeknownst to us, on or about May 15th the landlord sold the apartment building to new owners. We found out that the building was sold and the sale was finalized around May 15th from a fellow tenant that we were social with. We got in touch with the new owners of the building and let them know we were in the process of moving out but had sent the old landlord a 30 day notice of intent to vacate the premises.
The new owners told us that the old owner never told them we lived there, let alone were moving out, and in the next sentence told us that the old owner told them not to give us our security deposit back because we owed two months in unpaid rent. We told the new owners that this was not true and that as the new owners we expected the security deposit to be refunded by them as the new owners when we were finished moving all of our belongings out. The new owners said they will consult with their legal people but they do not believe they are required to give us the security deposit. We just recently (June 15th) finished moving all of our belongings out of the apartment and are now being told by the new owners that there were no deposits rolled over in the sale and we need to go after the old landlord for the deposit.
I have been told that because we moved after the finalization of the sale that the new owners are responsible for refunding the deposit.
Who should we be looking to for getting our security deposit back?
We are confused and just want our $1000 back since we left the apartment in very good condition.
Any advice(especially good legal advice!) would be greatly appreciated!

What state are you in? What was the date notice was given? 30 or 60 days? Security deposits are to be turned over to new owners on the date of the sale. What date was the actual termination of your lease. It is required to receive an itemized list of how you deposit was applied, by whoever was in ownership of the deposit---if it was not conveyed during the sale you must go after the previous owner--have receipts, new lease w/move-in date, and proof of the apartment being left in good condition dated photos would be your best chance for recovery.

[arhoutsch]

To answer all questions: I live in PA. It was a sticky thing with the lease. We were originally going to move out April 1st as we had plans to move to Philly however I got a job locally that paid well so we decided to stay local. The first time we went to court with the old landlord the judge told us that the current lease stated an ending date of April 1st however according to a clause in the lease after the lease ended we were on a month to month basis from that point forward.
We provided a thirty day notice to vacate on April 30, 2007 and have a copy of that letter as well as copies of all correspondence (we wised up and saved copies of everything because of having to go to court).
As far as we are aware the finalized date of sale was May 15th, 2007.
We have photos of the apartment taken right after we moved in two years ago and we can go back and take photos of the apartment as it is right now (we haven't given the new owners the keys yet because they haven't called to tell us they are in town to get them) to show that the condition of the apartment is 99% as it was when we moved in. There is some normal wear and tear but we left the place in better condition than it was in when we moved in.
I think if we hear from the new owners again and they tell us that they are not responsible we will be taking them both to court as co-defendents (awesome suggestion, thank you!).
All of your advice and suggestions are very helpful and I thank you all for it and any further advice you all have!

[ScottGem]

Well here is a sticky point. If you gave notice that you were vacating as of 4/30 and the new owners didn't close until 5/15, then you have no legal relationship to them. Your lease ended before they took possession. Therefore, the old owner didn't need to tell them about you or give them your deposit. So it would appear that your only recourse is against the old owner. I would definitely get pictures of the apt as you left it.

I would then turn the key over to the old landlord or his representative, again you have no legal relationship to the new owners.

At this point I would send a certified letter to the old landlord. Enclose the keys with that letter. In the letter state that:

Since we terminated our lease as of April 30, 2007, in pursuant to section 250.512 of the PA Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, you were required to return our security deposit by May 30, 2007 or provide a list of damages that the deposit was used to repair. Under paragraph (b) of that section, failure to provide such a list within 30 days of the termination of the lease forfiets your right to withhold and part of the security deposit for damages. Further, under paragraph (c) of that section, failure to do requires you to pay double the amount of the deposit including any interest earned on the money.

Therefore, we will expect to recieve your payment of $2000 plus interest within one week of receipt of this letter. Failure to comply will result in our taking legal action to recover what is due us.

You can find the full text of that section of the law here:
NOTICE TO QUIT

Note: I would not expect him to comply so you will probably have to sue him. If you do you will win, however, you will then have to collect from him.

[LisaB4657]

Scott, the way I read the post the OP gave the 30 day notice on April 30th, meaning that the vacate date would be May 30th. So the new landlord should be responsible for returning the security deposit, which isn't required until June 30th.

So if my reading is correct then the OP can't file a lawsuit until July 1.

To the OP:

TAKE PICTURES IMMEDIATELY!

[ScottGem]

Hi Lisa,
After rereading that is certainly a valid interpretation. The key is clearly who owned the unit at the time the lease was terminated.

[froggy7]

I'm a bit confused by the judge's actions. The landlord sued for three months rent, then asked for a fourth month to be considered unpaid. The judge appears to have said that the original request for 3 months rent includes the 4th month as well. Can they do that? If I read that right, the landlord is out a month's rent that he is legally entitled to, so the new owner may have a bit of a case. Don't know where the second unpaid month came from.

[ScottGem]

I'm a bit confused by the judge's actions. The landlord sued for three months rent, then asked for a fourth month to be considered unpaid. The judge appears to have said that the original request for 3 months rent includes the 4th month as well. Can they do that? If I read that right, the landlord is out a month's rent that he is legally entitled to, so the new owner may have a bit of a case. Don't know where the second unpaid month came from.

Judges can do a lot of things that don't make sense. I would suspect that the judge acted as he did as a way of punishing the landlord for some bad behavior in court. Yes it appears the old landlord was deprived of a month's rent, but since the judge ruled that way it is legal (unless appealed).

However, it has absolutely no bearing on the new owners. The new owners are only entitled to rents from the date of closing or whenever it was stipulated in the closing agreements.