Can my landlord sue me for damages not caused by me after I moved out?

[ealahweemah72]

Hi, Please read all...I will attempt to keep this simple and brief:

I lived on a property in a year lease with my husband. My Husband moved out May of that year, and I was not issued a renewed/altered lease to remove him from it.
After the year lease expired, I still was not given a revised lease, nor signed another lease of any description.

I moved out after 2 months of paying rent without being on a lease, so I did not give the 30 days notice.
My landlord requested I surrender the property back to him and anything of mine left on the premises, stating I had no right over any items. Both myself and my husband signed this letter, and also said he could keep the security deposit due to my moving out abruptly. (I was trying to be nice!)

I hear nothing back for 4 weeks, and TODAY I get a court summons, demanding my husband and I pay him almost $6,000.00 in damages!

This property was not in mint condition when we moved in: It was gross with previous tenants pot residue. I suffered 3 separate floods in the basement before he brought in unlicensed (likely illegal immigrants) to band-aid the problem, I had to re tile part of the basement floor as a result, among other issues.

I do have time stamped photos of two of the floods, and eye witnesses to the state of the place prior, and during my stay there.

Can he rightfully sue me? Can I counter sue him for anything?

[therron57]

its his house, its his job to keep everything under control not u, he cant sue u.

[osryd]

One your lease expires you go on a month to month and basically follow the previous lease. If the previous lease provided for 30 days notice you owe that however that is what the deposit is for.

As long as there were no damages and the deposit pays for 30 days rent and any damages, let him sue. Just be sure to attend court so he does not win by default.

[naseem]

Of course he can sue. Whether he wins or not depends on many things, like the wording of the lease and evidence he may have.

[chadburne48]

The first responder would've been correct had you done everything right. Had you requested he fix the problems when they happened, had you given proper notice and had the house inspected to the owner's satisfaction before you moved out, or immediately afterward then yes, he couldn't possibly win in a lawsuit. But, since none of that happen and all the judge will have to work with is what you and your witnesses may have to say, he will have to balance that against whatever proof the owner brings i/e repair bills, pictures, unpaid months etc. IMO he will likely win this lawsuit as judges tend to put more weight on proof than personal accounts, specially when there is financial gain/reason to lie.

[erwin]

True,i don't think your going to get the deposit back,but no,he's just trying to make some fast cash.
you can counter sue him for the tile if he refused to do anything about the mess,his property,his mess.Hope you get judge judy,she would grab him by the nards.

[patwin87]

Flood damage is not your responsibility, unless it was caused from the top down, as a result of a faucet being left open. Since this was from natural causes (presumably, any damages would be his responsibility - and in fact, leads me to question whether or not this property would have even been legally rentable. It is easy to imagine that flooding could cause a major mold growth, and therefore would not pass a health inspection. Something to think about...it's probably not rentable even now.

Since you have just been in court for divorce, ask your lawyer to review this quickly - you will have a much better handle on what to do, and what you might need. You might even be smart to have them write a letter on their practice letterhead and let him know you HAVE an attorney - he may rethink his case, and realize it could be very unprofitable to take you to court. Well worth a small fee, if they charge you for it.

Six grand is a lot of money - if he is holding you accountable for the flood damage, he's not going to look credible to any judge. If there is damage that he can directly attribute your activity, that is different - are there any pictures you might have that document the previous problems with the place?

It's a bit late in the game to go back and say you should never have accepted a lease with damage, but it is true. On the other hand, you can also argue that he probably has no pictures of the premises at the time you rented it that document the place being in decent shape either - therefore, he would have trouble blaming you for the damage, whatever that may be.

I'd start with making him itemize every piece of damage, and producing an estimate and reason for each bit - and don't tip him off to the flood damage not being your responsibility, because you want him to lead with that, if he is taking you to court. That's one thing the judge will take a dim view of about wasting their time on, and whatever may be next on the list will get far less of their attention after that.

Unless he has documentation to support his claims, he will have trouble getting anything but the deposit - but you will also need to explain why you let him have it in the first place, and make it clear it was for time considerations and not as an acknowledgement of any damage to the premises themselves.

Really, I'd start with your attorney. Your landlord isn't going to want to fight someone who has a lawyer on their side- he probably thinks he can bully you, and make you pay for something he didn't fix in the first place.