I am facing a possibility of being sued by my landlord for fire water damage from fire sprinklers. I am guessing for around 30-35K. I had a lawyer send them a letter denying my negligence and statign that he will aggressively defend any action taken to hold me responsible. Here is my situation: I live in North Carolina, wage garnishments are illegal. I already took advice from some of the posters here, and moved my funds out of my acct. I do not own any real estate they can attach. I believe i am pretty much judgment proof. Should i ask my lawyer to use this information to convey to them that suing me would be pretty much worthless and try to settle for few thousand dollars? Does anyone know whether this type of judgments obtianed by landlords are usually sold to CAs? and is it better to deal with a landlord or a CA? Do CA's buy such debts regardless of taking into consideration the possibility of recovering? Because if a CA buys this debt for 50% (15K) then I guess it would become little harder for me to negotiate any ideas, suggestions? thanks
Well, the fire started in my apt from a lamp that heated up my shirt and ignited, which caused a sprinkler system to discharge water and damage four units below me. So they claiming at this point that i was negligent. But fire incident is rather vague citing ignitiion factor to be "MISUESE of equipment or OTHER (the word "other" tells me its not quite obvious) , and most likley they will not have easy time proving it, but i want to avoud the court by all means and settle for a very small amount peacefully. My lawyer did mention something about damages need to be reasonably foreeseen for there to be negligence, but as i said, i would rather tell them that there is nothing they can take and to settle peacefully offer them few thousand dollars (Thus avoiding complications and attorneys fees and judgment after all) Having said this, do CA's buy debt after judgment or they can buy it even before landlord sues me?? And if a landlord can EASILY sell the judgment for 50% (17K for example), then i suppose they would not want to settle this with me for anything less than 50%....
just curious- wouldnt this be an insurance issue? for example the landlords insurance would be the one suing you after they fixed the water damage? just curious how this works. thanks, bugman
They are claiming that they have a 100K deductible, which i suspect at this point. And if that is true, then I guess this will serve as a lesson for them to get a better insurance with lower deductible. I am surprised as to why an apartment complex with 430 apartments would be willing to absorb a 100K damage every time a tenant accidentally causes something.
A $100k deductible? What's up with that? I rent a loft in an old landmark building. The renting company requires me to carry renter's insurance. The renter's insurance only covers my personal belongings in case of theft, fire, flood, etc. The building itself has insurance on the entire structure - similar to a homeowner's policy. It sounds as though you have a sticky situation here, and that your landlord is trying to pull one over on you. I would definitely get a second legal opinion. Maybe check your state's laws regarding who is responsible for what in a landlord/tenant relationship. In any event, I don't think you should be held responsible! And that "negligence" issue is gonna be really tough for your landlord to prove in court!
The lease does say that tenant will be held liable for any damages caused negligently. In the lease it does say that tenant agrees to secure renters insurance, but noone verified it. Within 5 days of the incident, i got a letter from the landlord to vacate within 30 days, the reason provided that I am a possible danger to other residents and it is in the best interest of the property. I did move out peacefully. And a lawyer, insurance and negligence expert, wrote them a letter saying that I did not violate any terms of the lease to be subject to termination and I am not responsible for the damage since the fire was not started due to my negligence or ommission or intentional act. They have not replied to the laywer yet. And the repais are being done. The manager of the property mentioned to me that their deductible is 100K on insurance and they won't/cant use it (COULD BE A LIE, or some kind of a strategy)
I don't think you have anything to worry about. You're doing the right thing by getting a lawyer involved very early on. As I mentioned, negligence is tough, if not impossible, to prove. Your landlord could spend $100k on legal fees alone on that one. And then, of course, you could countersue for the fact that you were asked to leave without good reason. That alone is worth $$$. And should it ever go to trial, juries don't like landlords. Note that I'm not a lawyer, but that's just my take on the whole situation.
Is it possible to request a JURY BY TRIAL? in what cases am i entitled to jury by trial and if I win the case, do they have to compensate my lawyers fees as well?
This is something that your lawyer would best answer. It all depends on what your landlord comes back with. If they're going after you for $35k, then I think it would be prudent to MAKE THEM PROVE NEGLIGENCE on your part. You, of course, would launch a countersuit. It would be a long, drawn out mess, and it could take years before it ever goes to trial. My guess would be that your landlord wouldn't want to go down that road, since their case is a weak one. In the unlikely event of a trial by jury, your lawyer's fees would be included in the award, should you win the case. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so be sure to consult with yours.
Yes, my intention is to settle this for a minimal amount and go on with my life, and wanted to communnicate to them somehow that suing me would not be very beneficial for them, since they wont be able to get much more than a judgment paper... thanks for the replies
Re: Re: Possibility of being sued for 35K But why even think of settling financially when you don't have to? If anything, tell them that you won't sue them for kicking you out illegally in return for holding you harmless for any damages. In other words, it's a wash!
Re: Re: Possibility of being sued for 35K Well, the maximum i could get from the for terminating my lease would be actual damages which probably are my moving expenses and some other minor expenses I incurred, unless I could sue for punitive damages... The reason i would want to settle is because if it goes to court, most likely i will spend at least as much as I am willing to settle for, if not more. If it is tough for them to prove negligence, even if they prove partial negligence, that partial of 35K could still be a good chunk of money My lawyer did mention he does have good relationship with fire departmens in my city, whatever he meant by that I dont know, maybe a phone call or two would mean that no fire man will even appear to court to testify to anything, but the fire incident report is based on speculation as to what happened.... the incident is not as clear as leaving a frying pan on fire or leaving a hot iron on a carpet.... It is very debatable as to how that lamp caused a shirt to ignite... this is what I am hoping is in my favor
Re: Re: Possibility of being sued for 35K My best advice is wait and see what the landlord comes back with. We could go on and on speculating about "what ifs". In fact, while we're at it, why not just go after the lamp or lightbulb manufacturer, since it was their device that started the fire in the first place!!! (Unfortunately, people file frivolous lawsuits all the time - remember the McDonalds lawsuit in NYC, where the customer sued the chain for "making them fat"???) You can see where I'm going with this. In the meantime, relax, and wait and see what happens!
Re: Re: Possibility of being sued for 35K Hey thanks for your replies. I did mention this to a lawyer, he suggested it would be a long shot, and I would have to prove that this particular lamp has ever been recalled.... I guess I will wait and see how this develops. My understanding is that they need to prove that I left the light on and put the clothes on top of it But what is beyond me is how can a reputable apartment complex have a 100K deductible on an insurance. My take is they never imagined that ONE SINGLE SPRINKLER in 10 minutes could flood 4 floors... You guys should have seen this whole thing. THey brought out a company they tore up all the walls and ceilings and place dover 100 fans and dehumidifiers that ran for 7 DAYS STRAIGHT!!! Nothing got burned, my two shirts only !!!
Re: Re: Possibility of being sued for 35K And should it ever go to trial, juries don't like landlords. tr1252 ==================== Just like the tenants who think it's OK to screw the landlord.
