People's court. Was she correct?

[nolow]

What is the name of your state?FL

I was watching People's court today, and the had a security deposit issue. The state was Connecticut. Basically, the landlord failed to provide in writing an itemized claim against the security deposit. As per Connecticut law, this results in the landlord being liable for double the amount of the portion of the security deposit that was retained. The judge didn't even want to hear his claim for damages. She said that since he didn't follow Connecticut law, he forfeited any right to file a claim. I was under the impression that failure to comply only results in the forfeiture the a claim against the security deposit, but it does not alleviate liability for damages (i.e. the tenant needs to still pay for damages; it just doesn't come out of the security deposit). I had the same situation happen to me here in Florida. The only penalty here, however, is forfeiture of the landlord's right to impose a claim. They can still pursue a claim against me for any damages. I know the People's court doesn't always follow the law correctly, but I was wondering if anyone can way in on this. In my opinion, a tenant can be held liable for damages whether it is claimed against a security deposit or not.

 

[Zigner]

You DO understand that, while realistic in appearance, People's Court is NOT real court, right? It is arbitration (binding).

 

[xylene]

What is the name of your state?FL

I was watching People's court today, and the had a security deposit issue. The state was Connecticut. Basically, the landlord failed to provide in writing an itemized claim against the security deposit. As per Connecticut law, this results in the landlord being liable for double the amount of the portion of the security deposit that was retained. The judge didn't even want to hear his claim for damages. She said that since he didn't follow Connecticut law, he forfeited any right to file a claim. I was under the impression that failure to comply only results in the forfeiture the a claim against the security deposit, but it does not alleviate liability for damages (i.e. the tenant needs to still pay for damages; it just doesn't come out of the security deposit). I had the same situation happen to me here in Florida. The only penalty here, however, is forfeiture of the landlord's right to impose a claim. They can still pursue a claim against me for any damages. I know the People's court doesn't always follow the law correctly, but I was wondering if anyone can way in on this. In my opinion, a tenant can be held liable for damages whether it is claimed against a security deposit or not.

The People's Court is an entertainment television program.

It is not even a court. It is binding arbitration - for which the litigants have forfeited their legal rights and are PAID to appear.

 

[nolow]

You DO understand that, while realistic in appearance, People's Court is NOT real court, right? It is arbitration (binding).

I knew I was going to get responses like this; that is why I tried to get people to weigh in on the issue and not the fact that it was on People's court. Aside from it being on People's court, how is the law followed in this case?

 

[nolow]

The People's Court is an entertainment television program.

It is not even a court. It is binding arbitration - for which the litigants have forfeited their legal rights and are PAID to appear.

I know and understand. I should have been more clear in my initial post or left out that it was on People's court all together.

 

[Zigner]

We try to avoid wasting time on "hypotheticals". Google the landlord/tenant law for the state you are interested.

 

[ecmst12]

I think if the LL RETURNS the SD within the time limit, then sues for damages afterwards, a judge will be more sympathetic then if the LL does NOT return it on time or provide the accounting on time. THAT is what will ban them from claiming damages - violating the law. Small claims court is always a crap shoot though, so it all depends on where you are and what kind of judge you get.

 

[IrishNodak]

What is the name of your state?FL

In my opinion, a tenant can be held liable for damages whether it is claimed against a security deposit or not.

In my state(Colorado) it is clearly outlined in the statute that a tenant is entitled to triple damages if the itemized list hasn't been sent within 30 days. However, it also says in our statute, that the LL can still sue for damages done by the tenant.

I haven't seen todays PC but I tape it and will see it. Who was the plaintiff? The LL or the tenant? Did the LL file a countersuit for the damages?

 

[nolow]

We try to avoid wasting time on "hypotheticals". Google the landlord/tenant law for the state you are interested.

It is not hypothetical as I had the exact same situation happen to me as stated in my post.

 

[nolow]

In my state(Colorado) it is clearly outlined in the statute that a tenant is entitled to triple damages if the itemized list hasn't been sent within 30 days. However, it also says in our statute, that the LL can still sue for damages done by the tenant.

I haven't seen todays PC but I tape it and will see it. Who was the plaintiff? The LL or the tenant? Did the LL file a countersuit for the damages?

The tenant was the plaintiff. I know the PC is just for entertainment, but I would assume they would try to follow the law as closely as possible. After all, the judge did graduate law school, and the host is also an attorney. I would assume they have attorneys or knowledgeable producers working behind the scenes as well.

 

[Alaska landlord]

What is the name of your state?FL

I was watching People's court today, and the had a security deposit issue. The state was Connecticut. Basically, the landlord failed to provide in writing an itemized claim against the security deposit. As per Connecticut law, this results in the landlord being liable for double the amount of the portion of the security deposit that was retained. The judge didn't even want to hear his claim for damages. She said that since he didn't follow Connecticut law, he forfeited any right to file a claim. I was under the impression that failure to comply only results in the forfeiture the a claim against the security deposit, but it does not alleviate liability for damages (i.e. the tenant needs to still pay for damages; it just doesn't come out of the security deposit). I had the same situation happen to me here in Florida. The only penalty here, however, is forfeiture of the landlord's right to impose a claim. They can still pursue a claim against me for any damages. I know the People's court doesn't always follow the law correctly, but I was wondering if anyone can way in on this. In my opinion, a tenant can be held liable for damages whether it is claimed against a security deposit or not.

Both you and the Judge are correct. You just misunderstood the verdict. When she said that he lost his right to file a claim she meant a claim against the SD. He can still file a claim later against the tenant for the damages to the house or apartment.

 

[Zigner]

It is not hypothetical as I had the exact same situation happen to me as stated in my post.

First, you are in a different state.
Second, are you still in the middle of this?

 

[nolow]

First, you are in a different state.
Second, are you still in the middle of this?

Please read through the post again. You are missing the point of the discussion.

 

[Zigner]

Please read through the post again. You are missing the point of the discussion.

If you are NOT in the middle of this (in your case), then it's a hypothetical. YOU are missing the point. If you ARE still in the middle of this, then I apologize.

 

[nolow]

If you are NOT in the middle of this (in your case), then it's a hypothetical. YOU are missing the point. If you ARE still in the middle of this, then I apologize.

You are not using the word hypothetical correctly. Both the People's court scenario and my personal scenario are not hypothetical situations. Even if I wasn't "in the middle of this," it still wouldn't be hypothetical in my case. I can, however, still seek legal recourse, but I have learned that my interpretation of the law in both cases were correct.