Check out some similar questions!

treyball3 · Jun 22, 2007, 07:49 AM

In Nebraska, the landlord is required to give back the security deposit (or an itemized list) within 14 days. Does that mean 14 days after the lease ends? Or do you have to send a letter, and then after they receive the letter its 14 days? My wife lived in an apartment and the lease ended May 20th, and we haven't seen the security deposit yet. Nor has her roommate.

Thanks

ScottGem · Jun 22, 2007, 07:51 AM

It should be 14 days after the lease was terminated or the landlord regained possession. When did she turn over the keys?

LisaB4657 · Jun 22, 2007, 07:51 AM

It's 14 days from the time the tenant turns over possession of the apartment to the landlord. Most of the time that is determined by when the tenant returns the keys.

treyball3 · Jun 22, 2007, 07:58 AM

She turned over keys prior to the 20th. The bad thing is she didn't take pictures or anything because her roommate still had a lot of stuff to get out of the apartment. I just found this though...

Nebraska Revised Statutes

"Upon termination of the tenancy, property or money held by the landlord as prepaid rent and security may be applied to the payment of rent and the amount of damages which the landlord has suffered by reason of the tenant's noncompliance with the rental agreement or section 76-1421. The balance, if any, and a written itemization shall be delivered or mailed to the tenant within fourteen days after demand and designation of the location where payment may be made or mailed."

Does that mean she had to have given them written notice right away? She did give them the forwarding address right away, but no written demand for the money.

ScottGem · Jun 22, 2007, 08:00 AM

Did the roommate get it maybe? Were both names on the lease?

From the statute you quoted it would appear that she would have to demand an accounting and that's when the 14 days starts.

treyball3 · Jun 22, 2007, 08:04 AM

The roommate didn't get it either, no. The landlords became very shady the last 6-8 weeks of the lease. My wife and her roommate even paid for the whole month of May and were later told they had to be out by the 20th. They didn't get proper 30 day notice either. And they were told they would get rent back for the 11 days in May they paid for and didn't live there. It was kind of one of those things, "I don't want to deal with it" as it wasn't a whole lot of money, but it would sure be nice to get that money back at this point.

LisaB4657 · Jun 22, 2007, 08:05 AM

According to the Nebraska Landlord/Tenant handbook (Landlord_Tenant Handbook) the landlord must return the deposit within 14 days after the tenant requests it in writing and provides an address. So I suggest that your wife or her roommate sends a letter immediately (by certified mail) requesting that the deposit be returned and providing an address to send it to.

treyball3 · Jun 22, 2007, 08:12 AM

OK, that's what I thought. I just ran across something this morning that made it seem it was 14 days after the termination of the lease. Thanks guys!

ScottGem · Jun 22, 2007, 08:15 AM

Ask for the 11 days back as well.

excon · Jun 22, 2007, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by treyball3

The balance, if any, and a written itemization shall be delivered or mailed to the tenant within fourteen days after demand

Hello trey:

I was about to suggest that demand has to be made first, but you found it.

I think it's a shame that some state legislatures require a demand letter first. Wouldn't you think these legislators KNOW that a tenant wants his deposit back without having to say so in writing??

Of course, if you're of a class who are mostly landlords, then I can see why you would make it a legal requirement. I'm curious, however. If you're from that class, does it make you proud that you maintain your status by ripping off tenants??

I think it does, and I think you ought to me ashamed of yourselves!!

excon

LisaB4657 · Jun 22, 2007, 08:24 AM

I'm guessing that the Nebraska legislature did it that way because they know that a huge number of tenants skip out on paying the rent for the last month, letting the landlord take it from the deposit.

excon · Jun 22, 2007, 08:35 AM

Hello again, Lisa:

Nope. I'm not buying it. Certainly the law could be written so that a landlord could apply the deposit to outstanding rent BEFORE he returned it. Indeed, that's how states that don't rip off tenants do it.

Therefore, the ONLY reason for that requirement that I can see, is to enrich landlords at the expense of their legally naïve tenants.

excon

treyball3 · Jun 22, 2007, 10:03 AM

I don't want to get into the whole situation, cause it would take 3 pages to tell about. But these landlords AND their lawyer seem to be preying on the legally naïve. I've been reading just about every post on this board for at least 2 months now and have gotten some pretty good knowledge about real estate and tenant law. The landlords even sent a letter that I'm pretty sure had illegal items in it as far as move out date, and money and whatnot. They made it sound like their lawyer had either written it or approved of it. I told my wife that the letter was not legal and that we should do something about it. But she just wanted to move, get married and not deal with it anymore. Anyway, the point is that they definitely seem to know tenants are naïve.

excon · Jun 22, 2007, 10:24 AM

Hello again, trey:

You make my point for me.

YOU aren't a naïve tenant. YOU made sure that you weren't. That's why you're going to get your money back.

However, My problem is with the law, not those who take advantage of it.

Indeed, I've found a few laws that I've taken advantage of my damn self. Why wouldn't I? You should too - and you are. So too, should your landlord.

If you were a landlord in your state, and the law said that you had to wait till you received a letter before you sent the deposit back, would you send your deposits back anyway, even if you didn't get a letter? I'll bet you wouldn't - and you shouldn't.

The law should make the playing field even - not favor one side over the other. Laws like the one we're discussing favors landlords, and I don't like it one bit.

excon

ScottGem · Jun 22, 2007, 10:51 AM

I have to agree with excon here. The way this law is worded is very pro-landlord and anti-tenant. To require the landlord to send an accounting costs the landlrod the price of a stamp and a few minutes of their time. By forcing the tenant to request the accounting, you are using the same type of thinking used by the opt out school of marketing.

I just put in an order with Amazon, there was a link where I could get free 2 Day shipping if I accepted a 30 day trial of Amazon prime. When I checked the link the deal was that after the 30 days, unless I cancelled I would be charged $79.99 for a year's membership. I immediately clicked No Thanks. Companies have made BILLIONS because people are inherently lazy and forget to follow up and cancel on time.

P.S. Rather than further hijack this thread, if anyone wants to further discuss this opt out vs opt in issue I suggest starting a new thread in the Marketing Forum (under Business & Careers).

Pinky Toe · Jun 25, 2007, 11:22 AM

Amen, excon!

My court date is in a few weeks. I am suing my former landlord for not returning my security deposit and other monies he owes me since vacating over 3 months ago. I had my "demand letter" written by my attorney and the guy still ignored my request. And he also failed to provide any list of damages.
I don't understand why landlords allow things to go this far? My former landlord has only made it worse for himself seeing that now I can sue him for double. I wonder if he thought his intimidation tatics would cause me to back down and let things slide. It only pissed me off. Where are the business ethics? It's not fair to tenants who act in good faith.

ScottGem · Jun 25, 2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Pinky Toe

My former landlord has only made it worse for himself seeing that now I can sue him for double. I wonder if he thought his intimidation tatics would cause me to back down and let things slide.

Suing is only one part. I suspect this landlord knows he will lose in court, but doesn't think you will be able to collect because he's got his assets hidden.

treyball3 · Jun 25, 2007, 12:00 PM

Hey Pinky, That's kind of how my wife's situation was/is. The landlords were trying to screw her around so much that it really pissed me off. I told her we need to take a stand against them and put them in there place even though it wasn't that much money. She just wanted it to go away and be done with it. I'm sure that's the kind of attitude that some landlords count on to be able to keep the security deposits. We sent our certified (RRR) letter on Saturday. We're waiting to see what will happen...

Pinky Toe · Jun 26, 2007, 07:35 AM

Good Luck treyball! My landlord ignored my "demand letter" that I had written from my attorney. If I ever received a letter threatening a law suit from a lawyer I would probably piddle myself in fear. I guess some guys don't care. I find it insulting. I have since spoken to several former tenants and it looks as if my landlord has a track record of trying to avoid return of the security deposit. Now it's become more of principle for me than about the money. Crooked landlords need to be stopped. I don't know if my suit would stop him from preying on future tenants, but at least I'll know I put him in his place. That's enough justice for me. You and your wife should proceed with as your state allows. It's beyond stressful and time consuming, but there is a pay off in the end. The worst part is the wait.

Scott Gem, yes, trying to collect has been a concern for me. I wouldn't be surprised if the landlord doesn't even show up to court since he know he may loose. Now, I know where he works. I believe he is the owner of the real estate office where he has his tenants mail their rent and conduct lease signings. At the very least I know that is his employer. I also have a list of the several banks he has used to cash my checks. Would I still need more information beyond banks and employment? I know he is not financially hurting as he lives in one of the most affluent cities in my state and owns several properties. Basically the guy is rich.

ScottGem · Jun 26, 2007, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Pinky Toe

Scott Gem, yes, trying to collect has been a concern for me. I wouldn't be surprised if the landlord doesn't even show up to court since he know he may loose. Now, I know where he works. I believe he is the owner of the real estate office where he has his tenants mail their rent and conduct lease signings. At the very least I know that is his employer. I also have a list of the several banks he has used to cash my checks. Would I still need more information beyond banks and employment? I know he is not financially hurting as he lives in one of the most affluent cities in my state and owns several properties. Basically the guy is rich.

The richer they are they poorer they can appear to be. You say he is used several banks to cash your checks. That there is a clue. Generally, one doesn't do that. So the day after you win a judgement (at the latest) those accounts will be closed. Even though he may be the owner or an employee of that office, he probably doesn't get a salary that you can garnish. His income is probably so tied up and convoluted he may not know how much he has. And that's going to make it harder for you to attach it.