If I'm understanding correctly, two were in the apartment, the landlord threw you out, and now wants to sue you for rent that the one remaining behind may have incurred.
In any case, regardless as to details, if both your names were on the least, you are most likely both liable.
You may consult with an attorney on this one, but it may be better to first discuss things with the former landlord and see what can be worked out. Paying may be cheaper than legally fighting, as unjust as that may sound.
On the other hand, there are worse things in life than one landlord attempting to give you one credit ding. And it's doubtful he'll hire an attorney to drag you into court. And if he did, you'd have opportunity to explain your side to a judge - but again, if you are on the lease, the judge may make you pay all that, plus his legal fees.
So be careful.
Actually it was the other way around. It moved from Jamestown to Williamsburg and then to Richmond. Richmond was the capital in the civil war so it stayed there.
There might be occasions when other people besides the tenant are living at the property and the landlord no longer wishes them to be there. The other people may either be living with the tenant or living there after the tenant has abandoned the property.To deal with these situations, the Residential Tenancies Act provides for a landlord to issue a Notice to Vacate to evict people other than tenants. A landlord can also request a court to issue an order for possession of premises. A Notice to Vacate can be used in two situations:where a tenant has abandoned rented premises and another person who was not a tenant continues to live in the property, orwhere another person is living with the tenant.A landlord can also apply to court for an order of possession if the Notice to Vacate is not complied with.
The landlord can only seek possession during a fixed term of a tenancy (for example the first six months of a shorthold tenancy) on the grounds shown in italic type. Mandatory grounds - for which the landlord must have advised the tenant in writing before the tenancy began that s/he might be seeking possession: * Your landlord used to live in the house and wants it back (at least two months notice must be given) * The house has been repossessed and the mortgage company need to sell the house with vacant possession (at least two months notice must be given) * Your house is needed for a minister of religion and you were given notice of this when you moved in (at least two months notice must be given) * The tenancy is for a fixed term of not more than eight months and within a year before you moved in the house was let as a holiday home (at least two weeks notice must be given) * The tenancy is for a fixed term of not more than 12 months and within a year of moving in the house was let to students by the place where they were studying and you were given written notice of this before you moved in (at least two weeks notice must be given).
Under some cercumstances, yes. Even if you never moved in your landlord held your apartment for you, keeping other people from renting it. Unless it was a circumstance beyond your control, if you abandon the apartment then the landlord, in most cases, can keep your deposit.
Generally, no. The possession of someone else's property for a debt is a "pledge" or "security agreement" that goes well beyond the mere obligation to pay rent. In other words, the tenant must AGREE to allow the landlord to have a security interest in the tenant's property. However, if the landlord has accrued moving and storage fees for the tenant's property, the landlord often has an automatic "lien" on the property for payment of those expenses, but not the overdue rent. When the landlord perfects the lien, holds a public auction and sells the tenant's property, the landlord can usually only keep the amount of profit (if any) that covers the expenses, unless there is also a court order that the tenant owes other rent, penalties, fees, interest, costs, etc.
hi just thought I would expand on the question. My landlord was investigated by the office of fair trading and the report said that they should not Be charging for the gas service among other things. The report was dated sept 2004 I moved into the property in March 2004. What I would like to know is does my landlord have to change my tenancy agreement even though it was signed before the oft report
You can sue the landlord for slander.
No...however, you must have the transaction/agreement in writing somewhere I believe but you can take it to court. Message me for any other questions.
A usable quantity for simple possession but there is a threshold amount for other charges such as possession for sale.
It is unseemly that a landlord can charge a tenant for other than the items listed in the lease. You can pay them and take your landlord to landlord-tenant court for reimbursement, or you can approach a landlord-tenant advocacy to find the answer that you want.
A tenant has an interest in land. His interest entitles him to 'exclusive possession' of the land for the period of his tenancy. He can assert this right against other third parties, or against the Landlord. The interest is a ' property interest' which can be disposed of or dealt with by assignment or sub-letting. This is what makes a tenancy different to other users of the land.
The Mormons then started building temples and houses churches etc. Some moved on to other places but most stayed. They just started life over. They farmed, built, and worked.