What can go wrong? Update in #149

[texasmama]

We just had to evict squatters from dh's grandmother's house. These were not even the original renters. No rent was paid for eight months, the people were not legal tenants, they broke into the backyard shed and stole all the tools and lawnmower, and they trashed and smoked in the house. It still took months to get them out. And the owners have to move the stuff out, not the sheriffs. My dh and MIL had to move gross stuff out while these people cursed them and threatened to come back and burn it down. People who never paid a cent and had no right to be there. The law was still on their side.

 

Change the locks, consult an attorney familiar with the laws involved and pray it is not too late.

 

Post dated checks are illegal, I believe.

[Tsuga]

Oh man that is so not the worst case scenario. Though, that would also suck. At least the rooms are re-rentable.

[38carrots]

I'm changing locks tomorrow morning. If their possessions are there already (ETA: then obviously, I won't be changing the locks), then we'll have to figure out what to do. DH is relatively on board, doesn't think that it is too "wrong" of us to change the locks if they don't respond to the email. I really, after all those years being married, had no clue he was a people's pleaser. And very stubborn (which I knew, of course! ha-ha). Thanks for the support. Wish us luck.

Edited February 10, 2016 by 38carrots

[idnib]

Yeah, I get it. I'm glad DH is at least doing *something* about it, albeit slowly. It's progress already. He does have friends in the police department, so I think he feels he can show up with police easily enough.

 

It's not a matter of force and just showing up with the police. Once they move in, it will probably take a judge to remove them. And unless you are well-versed in the law, which it seems you are not, this will require you to hire an attorney for court. The police will only remove people based on judges' orders, which the judge will only issue after you have done your part to serve various notices on the door or by registered mail (depends on state) not because the owner shows up with his police buddies. There's a process, and even people who are without a lease and are destroying property are allowed access to that process.

Edited February 10, 2016 by idnib

[Carol in Cal.]

Actually, if their possessions are already there, changing the locks is quite iffy.

[idnib]

Actually, if their possessions are already there, changing the locks is quite iffy.

 

Absolutely. Courts really look down on people who have locked people's stuff from them.

[zoobie]

Actually, if their possessions are already there, changing the locks is quite iffy.

I don't believe you can at that point. This is a bad law school hypothetical.

[OneStepAtATime]

Don't change the locks if their possessions are already there, unless you can confirm you are on solid legal ground.  IF they have already moved things in, that changes the landscape and I would consult an attorney who specialized in this in your state.  Hopefully, they have not moved anything in yet.  

 

As for post dated checks, legality, etc., as mentioned up thread, this depends on the state.  The below regards California law, just as an example:

 

 

California's Bad Check Laws

While it may be a crime for a tenant to write a check when there are insufficient funds in his account to cover the check, California's worthless check laws may not cover a landlord if a postdated check was accepted. According to California's bad check law, writing a check with the intent to commit fraud or knowingly writing a check when there are insufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check are both illegal. However, if the tenant writes the check with the intent to have funds in the account on the date that the check is postdated for, there is no intent to commit fraud or pass a worthless check and therefore no illegal activity has technically taken place. Accepting a check that is postdated may provide the tenant with a legal defense that negates criminal intent even if the check doesn't clear.

Risks for the Landlord

As a landlord, collecting a check that has been postdated could be dangerous. The tenant may know that he or she will not have the money in time, the check could have a stop-payment placed on it, or the check may bounce. Waiting to cash a check that has been postdated provides the tenant with time to make other living arrangements, move out or otherwise abort the lease agreement.

 

[Guest]

Pretty sure this only applies if they've actually moved in/taken possession. She isn't flushing them out, she's not allowing them to take possession until the agreed upon (in the lease) date. But I agree, you can't change locks on a tenant if they are currently living there no matter how much they screw you over in a lot of states.

 

Unless they were very savvy and moved in as soon as they were done talking to OP's DH.

 

OTOH, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. But if they have a piece of paper that says they can move in on x date, and she changes the locks before then and before they are in there, I don't think they (the tenants) would have a case against her.

I'm quoting this post again because it is the most logical lead-in. I did a little bit of research on this today. On the website known as Rent Prep, there is a question posed about the tenant attempting to break the Lease after they have signed, but before the term of lease begins. The answer (granted, I have no idea who this blogger/author is) says that the Lease is a legally binding contract the minute it is signed; it is in effect as a contract even before the tenant moves in. The tenant cannot break the Lease before they moved in because they changed their mind, have to move to Quebec, discovered roaches, or foolishly signed sight unseen and now decided they don't like the place. In every case, they are still legally responsible to the terms of the Lease, or the terms under which breaking the Lease can be done.

 

Therefore, it is logical to me that it goes the other way as well: the Landlord is in a binding legal contract with them the moment he signs the Lease, even if the move-in date is two weeks away. So, the LL can also not break the Lease because someone better came along, or because now they did a background check and the renter looks like a bad gamble. This also seems to me that changing the locks would come under the same tenant's rights law that it would if they were already living there.

 

I guess I would go with my original advice, which is hope and pray they pay by Feb 15 and if they don't, start eviction proceedings.

[Tap]

I'm changing locks tomorrow morning. If their possessions are there already, then we'll have to figure out what to do. DH is relatively on board, doesn't think that it is too "wrong" of us to change the locks if they don't respond to the email. I really, after all those years being married, had no clue he was a people's pleaser. And very stubborn (which I knew, of course! ha-ha). Thanks for the support. Wish us luck.

IF ANY of their possessions are there, then do not change the locks.  At that point you have waited too long to go that route.

 

You will just have to hope for the best.

[Pen]

Are you able to change locks and/or go there tonight?

[barnwife]

IF ANY of their possessions are there, then do not change the locks.  At that point you have waited too long to go that route.

 

You will just have to hope for the best.

I am glad the OP plans to take action in the morning. 

 

However, this post by Tap bears repeating. 

 

In actuality, I hope the OP is at the rental tonight and finds no possessions there. I'd sleep in front of the door to make sure no one snuck in tonight and change locks in the morning. I'd do everything I can to contact the (potential) renters and clarify things (get cash, confirm when they can move in, etc...).

[justasque]

I think it would also be wise to read up on the procedure to follow if the tenants do not come up with the rent, either initially or at any future point.  Since eviction proceedings tend to have a number of steps that must be followed, and time allowances at each step, it is wise to begin them as soon as the rent is late, as a preemptive measure that can be stopped if and when the rent is produced.  You don't want to be in crisis mode if/when something goes awry; better to be prepared.

 

OP, even if this goes well, you and your dh do need to get up to speed on the landlord business.  I know our local community college has inexpensive classes on this kind of thing; perhaps yours does too.  And I'm sure there are landlord boards just as there are homeschooling boards like this one; reddit comes to mind as a good place to start.  Your state might also have resources.   

[Pen]

Don't landlords often change locks between tenants?  If so, and if new tenants have not yet moved in and are not supposed to have done before a particular date according to the lease, then it might fit with a between tenant lock change that the husband was confused about just as he was confused and forgetful about a lot of the details.    ????  It may depend on state and local laws.

 

 

 

I would also tend to agree though that if the tenants have already moved in, even a little, that changing the locks would be a violation of tenant rights in places I have been.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Pen

[38carrots]

 

Don't change the locks if their possessions are already there, unless you can confirm you are on solid legal ground.  IF they have already moved things in, that changes the landscape and I would consult an attorney who specialized in this in your state.  Hopefully, they have not moved anything in yet.  

 

As for post dated checks, legality, etc., as mentioned up thread, this depends on the state.  The below regards California law, just as an example:

 

 

California's Bad Check Laws

While it may be a crime for a tenant to write a check when there are insufficient funds in his account to cover the check, California's worthless check laws may not cover a landlord if a postdated check was accepted. According to California's bad check law, writing a check with the intent to commit fraud or knowingly writing a check when there are insufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check are both illegal. However, if the tenant writes the check with the intent to have funds in the account on the date that the check is postdated for, there is no intent to commit fraud or pass a worthless check and therefore no illegal activity has technically taken place. Accepting a check that is postdated may provide the tenant with a legal defense that negates criminal intent even if the check doesn't clear.

Risks for the Landlord

As a landlord, collecting a check that has been postdated could be dangerous. The tenant may know that he or she will not have the money in time, the check could have a stop-payment placed on it, or the check may bounce. Waiting to cash a check that has been postdated provides the tenant with time to make other living arrangements, move out or otherwise abort the lease agreement.

 

 

Yes, totally agreed that I won't be changing the locks if the posessions are already there. I clarified my post. What I meant to say was that if the possessions are already there, we'll be thinking what our next step should be.

 

[Tree Frog]

We just had to evict squatters from dh's grandmother's house. These were not even the original renters. No rent was paid for eight months, the people were not legal tenants, they broke into the backyard shed and stole all the tools and lawnmower, and they trashed and smoked in the house. It still took months to get them out. And the owners have to move the stuff out, not the sheriffs. My dh and MIL had to move gross stuff out while these people cursed them and threatened to come back and burn it down. People who never paid a cent and had no right to be there. The law was still on their side.

 

Change the locks, consult an attorney familiar with the laws involved and pray it is not too late.

 

Post dated checks are illegal, I believe.

 

I don't know where the OP lives, but when we lived in Canada, we had to provide our landlord with a year of post dated checks. It felt very strange to write them all out and trust the landlord not to cash them before they were due!

[OneStepAtATime]

Good luck OP. I am still sending good thoughts right now.

[Guest]

I don't know where the OP lives, but when we lived in Canada, we had to provide our landlord with a year of post dated checks. It felt very strange to write them all out and trust the landlord not to cash them before they were due!

Yeah, in Maryland, we have some tenants who always pay their rent this way. I think it would be illegal for us, the LL, to attempt to cash them before they were due.

 

The renter who always pays this way is my favorite tenant. :) he has never been late ever and is never a problem in any way. Post-dated checks is kind of old school in practice (Direct Deposit is my other favorite arrangement), but AFAIK, it is not illegal to pay rent that way (not here at least).

[QueenCat]

He thinks that since the lease is not in effect until Feb 15, the *will* be trespassing. I can't find any info on this.

 

They would be if he had not given them the KEYS!

[TranquilMind]

Please understand something about this.

 

Once they 'take possession' of the property, the whole game changes.

 

And once they move something in, they have 'taken possession'.

 

I really hope that they are as honest as you hope, but this sounds VERY bad.

 

Unverifiable and unstable income, no real references, no money (NO MONEY!), and wanting everything in their favor completely--these are very bad signs. These people cannot keep their word or they would have given you money. And your husband cannot say no or he would have said, "We will need to have that first check in certified funds before we turn over the property to you. And, no, you can't move in early. please understand that that would raise liability issues for both of us. If you would like to start the rental agreement on 2/15 instead of 3/1, we can write it that way, but of course I will still need those certified funds at that time. Let me know what you'd like to do!"

 

Nothing is necessarily going to make these people start keeping their word, nor give your husband the kind of spine that being a good landlord requires.

 

Change the locks. Now.

This.

[DesertBlossom]

This is a total highjack... maybe I should start a new thread. But why on earth are there laws like this that practically encourage squatting? It just seems so wrong.

Edited February 10, 2016 by DesertBlossom

[barnwife]

 

Therefore, it is logical to me that it goes the other way as well: the Landlord is in a binding legal contract with them the moment he signs the Lease, even if the move-in date is two weeks away. So, the LL can also not break the Lease because someone better came along, or because now they did a background check and the renter looks like a bad gamble. This also seems to me that changing the locks would come under the same tenant's rights law that it would if they were already living there.

 

I guess I would go with my original advice, which is hope and pray they pay by Feb 15 and if they don't, start eviction proceedings.

 

 

Exactly, the landlord can't break the lease, and won't because the they have the assets.  The tenant is "responsible" for lots of things, but in practice is almost never responsible because they have no assets.  Being a lawyer, and a prosecutor as well, is even more "assets", there's no way a lawyer can risk breaking the law in such a stupid way, he has to keep his word, honor the lease, and file for eviction if needed.  

 

I don't know your state law and that's huge.  And there is a chance that they will pay and be acceptable renters.

 

MrBarnwife

[TechWife]

This is a total highjack... maybe I should start a new thread. But why on earth are there laws like this that practically encourage squatting? It just seems so wrong.

 

The laws are there to protect tenants from being evicted "without cause." Landlords can't evict people because they found someone who will pay them more rent, or they don't like the color of their skin, or because they set the rent too low, or because the tenant has a child, or because they want to move into the property themselves, etc.. 

 

Just like there is a long history of bad tenants, there is a long history of bad landlords. 

[DesertBlossom]

The laws are there to protect tenants from being evicted "without cause." Landlords can't evict people because they found someone who will pay them more rent, or they don't like the color of their skin, or because they set the rent too low, or because the tenant has a child, or because they want to move into the property themselves, etc..

 

Just like there is a long history of bad tenants, there is a long history of bad landlords.

But there's got to be a middle ground somewhere. I can't see why it's a process that has to take months and thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you've got tenants who won't pay or who are damaging property, it seems like the laws still benefit the tenants.

[PrairieSong]

This is a total highjack... maybe I should start a new thread. But why on earth are there laws like this that practically encourage squatting? It just seems so wrong.

  

The laws are there to protect tenants from being evicted "without cause." Landlords can't evict people because they found someone who will pay them more rent, or they don't like the color of their skin, or because they set the rent too low, or because the tenant has a child, or because they want to move into the property themselves, etc.. 

 

Just like there is a long history of bad tenants, there is a long history of bad landlords.

 

There are bad landlords, but a landlord should be able to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. Not for the reasons you listed. In our state we must put a three day eviction notice on their door to pay or quit the premises. If they file papers at the courthouse, they get to stay another week or so until the court date. Then, if they haven't paid rent, the judge will order them to move out. Sometimes he will give them a week or two, but in my case he ordered them out by the next day. Court officers met me at the property to make sure they were gone. In another case, the tenant filed papers but then didn't show up in court, which is common. We got the property back right away and changed the locks. He had abandoned it anyway but had left personal property.

 

It shouldn't take six months or a YEAR..good grief..to evict someone for not paying rent.

[TechWife]

NM - I decided I was just repeating what others have said and it's not necessary! 

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by TechWife

[TechWife]

  

There are bad landlords, but a landlord should be able to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. Not for the reasons you listed. In our state we must put a three day eviction notice on their door to pay or quit the premises. If they file papers at the courthouse, they get to stay another week or so until the court date. Then, if they haven't paid rent, the judge will order them to move out. Sometimes he will give them a week or two, but in my case he ordered them out by the next day. Court officers met me at the property to make sure they were gone. In another case, the tenant filed papers but then didn't show up in court, which is common. We got the property back right away and changed the locks. He had abandoned it anyway but had left personal property.

 

It shouldn't take six months or a YEAR..good grief..to evict someone for not paying rent.

 

I agree with you entirely. I've heard of some cases where eviction can take 3-6 months! It's crazy slow. 

 

But, the OP asked why there were laws that allowed this, and I answered the question. The landlords have to prove that they are evicting the person for cause - non payment of rent. The process of doing this is way too slow. 

[TechWife]

But there's got to be a middle ground somewhere. I can't see why it's a process that has to take months and thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you've got tenants who won't pay or who are damaging property, it seems like the laws still benefit the tenants.

 

I didn't say it was done well, I just answered the question. Certainly, the process can be streamlined in many ways. 

[Reefgazer]

I would not ever have done that. 

I don't know where the OP lives, but when we lived in Canada, we had to provide our landlord with a year of post dated checks. It felt very strange to write them all out and trust the landlord not to cash them before they were due!

 

[Tree Frog]

I would not ever have done that. 

 

We definitely weren't comfortable with it at first, but we could find very few houses for rent and everyone we spoke with (Canadian citizens/Canadian military and US military) said that was the way things were done. Turned out very well.

[nd293]

If references were okay, it's probably going to be fine. People don't generally turn into non-paying flakes overnight, KWIM?

I would assume that every tenant has acceptable looking references. Which means ... people lie. Our last set of neighbours were put in the house by a rental agent (i.e. a professional). We knew on the first day the they were bad news. In fact, they were significantly worse than that (selling drugs). I assume someone gave good references just to get rid of them. And, people like that, giving a bad reference might have bad consequences.

 

I'd definitely be very cautious with tenants, after seeing what we've seen in the past 18 months.

[Guest]

But there's got to be a middle ground somewhere. I can't see why it's a process that has to take months and thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you've got tenants who won't pay or who are damaging property, it seems like the laws still benefit the tenants.

It doesn't take thousands of dollars in legal fees to evict a tenant. You file a paper with the court, a paper that thousands of LLs fill out every month. The tenant gets a posted Summons. At this point, most people will fix the payment problem. If they don't, you go to court on the hearing date. If you have done the correct steps and have the paper trail to prove it - certified mail, perhaps text and phone call records - the judgement can be entered against the tenant and they can be moved by the sheriff by force if they don't just go away. I don't think I have ever heard of a LL securing a lawyer to evict a tenant.

 

The one really bad scenario is, as Creekland said, when the tenant trashes everything because they are terrible people. But most people are not terrible people. Most people just want a safe and decent place they can call home. Most people don't ever want to go through the stress and misery of eviction proceedings. Not to mention, it is hard to rent ever again if you have an eviction on your record.

 

It is not impossible that Peaceful's renters are decent people. There are decent people who don't have a lot of extra money on hand. I have interacted with tenants who are not decent people and who just endlessly lie and hide, and I have interacted with tenants who are decent people who hit a rough patch once a year or less. You can usually quickly get a feel for which you are dealing with, but it is hard to guess at the beginning. What happens in the next week will give a lot of clues, but IMO, there is not much Peaceful and DH could do now, except perhaps tell them it was a mistake and they don't want them moving in until the 15th, and it is imperitive that they get a cash or as-cash deposit and rent immediately. If, after the 15th, they get lies and hiding every day, go to court, pay the $15 or whatever it is to file for eviction Failure to Pay Rent and play it out. And call this a hard learning experience in what not to do.

[creekland]

This is a total highjack... maybe I should start a new thread. But why on earth are there laws like this that practically encourage squatting? It just seems so wrong.

 

Some of us landlords have wondered this as well.  Techwife brought up some decent examples, but what's really needed is a board of normal humans one can present their case to within a day or two and get a quick judgment followed by quick action.

 

In our state, that doesn't happen.  We have to give official notice giving them time before filing in court, wait until a court date after filing, and even give them another 30 days after getting the judgment.  The judgment can give them more time too - esp if kids are involved.  If the judgment includes our getting money from it (back rent, damages) we also have to get that ourselves (ie we don't get it from the court - we just get the judgment saying we are entitled to the money).  We can file for it legally, but if they don't have assets (most don't), we're out of luck.

 

Fortunately, we've only had to evict one tenant and it went pretty easily.  He didn't trash our house either.  Our tenant from hell left voluntarily - saving us court fees at least.  It means an eviction won't show up on his background check though.  Considering he moved into another apartment, he's obviously using others for references too.  We've certainly never been called about him (either one actually).

[creekland]

Here's the very basics on eviction in PA:

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-evictions-work-pennsylvania.html

 

ETA:  Evictions cost most  not due to paying to file (I think it was $45, but it's been a few years and that amount gets awarded to the landlord in the judgment, but we still never get it back.), but due to the time it takes when we're still not getting rent.  Three months for eviction is three months less rent.

 

It's less costly when the tenant just agrees to leave - unless they trash the house like ours did.  They'd have trashed it if we'd filed for eviction too I'm sure.  We were just the big bad rich landlord in their eyes - even though we (nicely) let them get away with paying less rent for 9 months and no rent for 3 months - not evicting them due to waiting for their settlement check and kids to finish a school year.  We were still the big bad rich landlords who deserved having our place destroyed as repayment.  

 

We saw nothing at all from the settlement check they received, which was less than what he wanted and they had already spent the money on big ticket shopping trips - new car, 2 large screen TVs, a large salt water fishtank, jewelry and clothes from Nordstrom, etc.   I don't think they even got enough money to pay for those items considering I saw credit card bills left in the house unopened and the magistrate was looking for them (to arrest them) when we were fixing up the house afterward.  We might have accidentally let the magistrate know where they moved to... being the big bad rich landlords that we are.

 

But I can see where they could be evicted from their new place by now and looking for some other clueless soul to abuse.

 

Anyone with rentals around southern PA or MD could pm me for their name.  Without an official judgment I don't want to post it publicly. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by creekland

[Amira]

Like others have mentioned, there are plenty of horror stories about landlords too.  Both sides need protection and there are very good reasons why the tenants have plenty of opportunity to present their side in case the landlord is not meeting her legal responsibilities.  If it seems the law has swung too far in protecting the tenant, it's worth learning about the history of the creation of those laws and to remember that even renters need some level of housing security.  

 

Mortgage lenders have to go through a long process too to repossess a home for nonpayment.  It's worth protecting people in their homes as much as possible.

[TammyS]

DH says that them moving their possessions in is not the same as them moving in. Is this correct?

 

It's not correct.  And another sign that you two shouldn't be doing this.  You should KNOW the law in regards to your business, especially when your business has to do with property that others will be taking possession of.

[MomatHWTK]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/eviction

[bettyandbob]

Your dh is a public prosecutor? If he volunteers with the bar association doing landlord tenant cases he will learn all the law you need. My brother takes one of these a year pro bono-- its very important to him. He does see cases where landlords are bad as well as problems with pro bono clients ( the tenants). He says he sees more problematic landlords than tenants, but that is probably a reflection of a case that gets to the level where he is involved.

[Guest]

I just have to agree with the person above who said you can not afford to be landlords. You said you can't afford to change the locks. What are you going to do when the water heater leaks? You can't leave a tenant with no hot water and ruined carpets. You need a serious cash reserve to be a landlord which is why we took a $10k loss on a house when everyone told us to rent it out. I do not regret that decision one bit! For your sake, I hope you can get these people out and put this home on the market.

[Guest]

Beating a dead horse here, I know, but you guys really need to sell. Not one landlord I know allows pets. You were a good renter with a pet. Many are not. No pets! And these are not good renters! They have zero money and only half a job between them and that is based on her sister's word. It sounds like you are desperate for a tenant so you took the first one. Sell this house!

[TammyS]

Beating a dead horse here, I know, but you guys really need to sell. Not one landlord I know allows pets. You were a good renter with a pet. Many are not. No pets! And these are not good renters! They have zero money and only half a job between them and that is based on her sister's word. It sounds like you are desperate for a tenant so you took the first one. Sell this house!

 

Some do, but they either:

 

A. Regret allowing pets

 

or

 

B. Require an additional deposit ($250 is common) and an additional pet fee (my mother is paying $25 per month for her two cats and an additional $25 per month for her 2lb yorkie, this is on top of the pet deposit).

[Sarah CB]

I don't know where the OP lives, but when we lived in Canada, we had to provide our landlord with a year of post dated checks. It felt very strange to write them all out and trust the landlord not to cash them before they were due!

 

The fact that the cheque was post dated would make it impossible for the landlord to cash it before the rent was due...

[Sarah CB]

I would not ever have done that. 

 

Sorry?  Why not?  If you moved out early you could call your bank and have the cheques cancelled.  Plus, post dated cheques means post dated - they can't be cashed before the date on the cheque.  If I write out a cheque for July 1, 2016, the person I give it to can't decide to go cash it in April - the bank wouldn't do it.  And if they did cash it, it would be the bank's mistake and I'd have recourse that way.

 

I don't understand what the problem is???

[lollie010]

I really, after all those years being married, had no clue he was a people's pleaser. And very stubborn (which I knew, of course! ha-ha). Thanks for the support. Wish us luck.

My sympathies to your husband. I am a people pleasing attorney. It's a hard life! Hoping it all works out.

[Guest]

Does the date on a check actually mean anything? I thought I heard that it was there for record keeping and a check could be cashed at any time?

[38carrots]

Update.

 

Okay, they (doh!) already moved in their belongings. The woman called DH at work (from work) and DH reports that she sounds calm, normal, professional, etc, and said that they will give postdated checks on the 15th (yes, legal here) and we can cash them on the 19th. Yes, they live pay check to pay check, and with the move are in a tight spot. Which we can completely relate and understand.

 

So at this point we are waiting for the 19th. I appreciate everyone's support. Nothing to be done at this point. I just need to breathe, no point freaking out now. What's done is done.

 

ETA: what has always worried me about this is that we wrote "price negotiable for long term tenants" and our price was listed as high-ish for the area. We were expecting to go down $100-200. They never asked for any rent reduction. This is the worst red flag to me. That they don't intend to pay.

 

Okay, I won't allow to overthink this anymore. ha-ha

Edited February 10, 2016 by 38carrots

[Guest]

Sorry? Why not? If you moved out early you could call your bank and have the cheques cancelled. Plus, post dated cheques means post dated - they can't be cashed before the date on the cheque. If I write out a cheque for July 1, 2016, the person I give it to can't decide to go cash it in April - the bank wouldn't do it. And if they did cash it, it would be the bank's mistake and I'd have recourse that way.

 

I don't understand what the problem is???

I'm not sure this is true.

[creekland]

Beating a dead horse here, I know, but you guys really need to sell. Not one landlord I know allows pets. 

 

We do - and no regrets either.  We've found many of our greatest tenants because we allow pets.  We charge a one time $100 fee (for extra cleaning), but nothing extra monthly.

 

There hasn't been a single time a pet has messed up one of our places for more than that $100 fee.

[TammyS]

The fact that the cheque was post dated would make it impossible for the landlord to cash it before the rent was due...

 

Not quite that simple.

 

http://consumerist.com/2015/06/03/does-postdating-a-check-prevent-anyone-from-depositing-it-early/

[creekland]

Update.

 

Okay, they (doh!) already moved in their belongings. The woman called DH at work (from work) and DH reports that she sounds calm, normal, professional, etc, and said that they will give postdated checks on the 15th (yes, legal here) and we can cash them on the 19th. Yes, they live pay check to pay check, and with the move are in a tight spot. Which we can completely relate and understand.

 

So at this point we are waiting for the 19th. I appreciate everyone's support. Nothing to be done at this point. I just need to breathe, no point freaking out now. What's done is done.

 

Keep a close eye on the place.  When you can cash their checks, go to the bank they are drawn on and ask if there's enough money to cover it first.  They'll tell you yes or no. If no, you can save yourself the bad check fee your bank would charge you.  If yes, cash it there, on the spot, or the answer could switch while you do a deposit at your bank.

 

You could also ask to be paid in cash - returning their check.  We've had tenants who have had to pay us in cash due to a tight cash flow on their end and our not wanting to deal with it every month.

 

Hopefully it will work out for you and them.  Time will tell.