Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
|
Date Posted: 09:12:45 08/30/02 Fri
I have heard about people holding money in escrow until things are done that they have been promised or are basic requirements that are not being met. It's a real pain to do, and it doesn't automatically protect you legally. What it does do is show that you are witholding your rent based on unfulfilled promises, and not just to save some money.
An escrow account is set up through an escrow agent. They hold the money in an account with a contract saying that if the renters conditions are met, the money will be released to the landlord. The agent gets paid, and you need to make sure that you find someone reliable through the D.A.'s office or the the bar association so they don't take the money and run.
The escrow agent is not qualified to make a decision about your legal grounds for escrow. They are much like a notary and an accountant. So- there's also the lawyer's fees.
(This is just my personal research, so don't quote me as an authority.)
Most tenant escrow cases seem to revolve around basics- heat, clean water and locking doors. Things mentioned in the signed lease and basic ammenities covered by tenant law.
If you look at our signed lease, there is a clause at the end saying that if we sign, the tenant is only required to supply what is in the lease, and that oral promises are not legally binding on the landlord. It could easily be argued that the landlord HAS done his best to fulfill everything promised in writing. It might also be argued that since they put "laundry coming soon" in print advertisement (their website) that this was legally binding and you might be able to withhold rent for that- if you can define the word "soon". I think its iffy- but I'm not a lawyer.
Now look at paragraph 8. "All of the sections of this Lease are subject to the provisions of the Warranty of Habitability Law in the form it may have from time to time under this Lease. Nothing in this Lease can be interpreted to mean that You have given up any of your rights under that law. Under that law, Owner agrees that the Apartment and the Building are fit for human habitation and that there will be no conditions which will be detrimental to life, health or safety."
This section sounds promising, certainly we aren't safe. But is the neighborhood considered part of the building? Maybe the sidewalk right outside our door, where there is already a camera, but how about the sidewalk on Broadway? Or around the corner? It would be hard to argue that the Landlord is at fault for the neighborhood. The City would no doubt want to encourage people to build in neighborhoods that need cash, so the idea of a judge ruling against a landlord for where he's developed seems unlikely. Security on the roof might be a workable issue, since its the building itself- but keep in mind that as soon as the issue is resolved, that escrow money goes to the landlord.
You could try collective blackmail, and put everyone's money in escrow until your demands are met- it might take so long to fight the escrow in court (with your expert lawyer team on your side), that they'd have to give in and provide better security. Or they might fight it, win, and you would be required to pay their legal fees.
Or they might lose, go bankrupt, and walk away- leaving the building in a receivership and unlikely to improve. Just some theory, again, I'm not a lawyer.
If you simply don't pay rent, it does take a long while for eviction proceedings. If your credit is already shot and you are that angry that you are willing to risk physical eviction on a day to day basis, it might be for you. But if you paid last month's rent and security, you are still paying for the last two month's anyway, so what's the point?
These were just some ideas based on my trying to find a way out of the lease. I decided that I was legally bound to the lease, so I did not pursue any of these remedies. My opinions, however, are not those of a lawyer.
|
Feedback: 