• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Legal advice - Previous apartment sent me $1000 bill for damage caused by movers...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SSSnail said:
No, he can place an injunction on them now with their letter of intent to collect from him for damages that he may not even be responsible for. Do you even know what that does?
Click to expand...

You assume he meets the requirements of getting a preliminary injunction. Do you even know what those are?

And I don't really know what you are getting at. Because any injunction leads to a lawsuit. In this case one seeking a declaratory judgment.
 
Last edited:
Wreckem said:
You assume he meets the requirements of getting a preliminary injunction. Do you even know what those are?

And I don't really know what you are getting at. Because any injunction leads to a lawsuit. In this case one seeking a declaratory judgment.
Click to expand...

No, not a clue, can you tell me?

I think that's in Season 4, episode 3 of Law and Order.
 
Varies slightly by jurisdiction but generally

Substantial likelihood of success on the merits
Face irreparable harm/injury if injunction not granted
The balance of the harm weighs in favor of that seeking injunction
Injunction serves a public interest
 
Wreckem said:
Derp.

Testimony that the damage was not there prior to his moving company using the loading dock. Testimony stating the damage was discovered sometime after his moving company left. Testimony that no one else used the loading dock during this time frame. That is all admissible testimony. If its backed up by business records even better.

Again, why are you people thinking direct evidence(eye witness/video tape) of the damage being done is a prerequisite for meeting an extremely low burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Op calls his movers

"Mover 1, did you damage the loading dock?"
No

"Mover 2, did you damage the loading dock?"
No

:colbert:
 
Last edited:
Wreckem said:
Varies slightly by jurisdiction but generally

Substantial likelihood of success on the merits
Face irreparable harm/injury if injunction not granted
The balance of the harm weighs in favor of that seeking injunction
Injunction serves a public interest
Click to expand...
Good, good, that's what wikipedia tells you, verbatim. Now, apply those to his situation.

I think you should catch up with the rest of Law and Order.
 
SSSnail read your private messages.


Anyone that thinks the OP should go into small claims unrepresented because it is slam dunk without any evidence(specifically no direct evidence because no video) really should stop talking.



I am done arguing in this thread. I never intended to start arguing. I was merely trying to point out 1. the burden is low. 2. said bruden does NOT require direct evidence 3. we have executed plenty of people with zero direct evidence or physical evidence. 4. Going into small claims unrepresented is a terrible idea.
 
Last edited:
Wreckem said:
SSSnail read your private messages.


Anyone that thinks the OP should go into small claims unrepresented because it is slam dunk without any evidence(specifically no direct evidence because no video) really should stop talking.



I am done arguing in this thread. I never intended to start arguing. I was merely trying to point out 1. the burden is low. 2. said bruden does NOT require direct evidence 3. we have executed plenty of people with zero direct evidence or physical evidence. 4. Going into small claims unrepresented is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

You are entirely wrong I'm right you just can't admit to it. Face it, I'll always be right.
 
Back to the OP and unrelated to winning/losing because in reality losing wouldn't matter. I'll let the other fine legal eagles figure out the why.

But OP you can expect to pay at least $1000 for representation and more if it actually went to trial. Whether you get legal expenses if you win depends on a variety of factors. Well two really, does a statute authorize it in this situation or does your lease have legal expenses clause. Basically you may or may not spend more money fighting the $1000 dollars than actually paying the $1000. It depends. No one on here can say one way or the other. It is why neither the landlord or the moving company are going to cave. They aren't going to take you seriously until they are contacted by an attorney that represents you.

If you lose, well I'll let the other fine legal eagles tell you about what would happen if you lose in a properly filed(for this case) lawsuit. I was arguing about you possibly losing earlier because its possible. It is always possible, more so if you go in unrepresented. The questions everyone should ask, especially you legal eagles, does it matter if the OP loses if the case is filed correctly and all parties are involved in the suit?

OP, sorry for being passive aggressive. It is not you, it is them.
 
Last edited:
JEDIYoda said:
You came to the right place@!!! One of the requirements to post on these forums is that everybody must have a Law degree!!

This is the very reason that I would seek out legal advice on these forums before contacting the movers or my attorney!!

Nothing beats free legal advice!!
Click to expand...

All you guys promoting Israel seem to be our Power Trolls now.

Yeah, you are right forums are worthless and everyone knows nothing here about situations like this.

To the OP.

First, if you know they messed up and damaged something you or them should make it right.

Outside of that, if the complex has no proof you are probably not going to have to pay anything. Small claims court, however; doesn't work like Federal where "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Due Process" exists same way with Traffic court.
 
OP, is fighting this even worth it? You're in a different state now, right? Here are your options:

1. If you do fight, then try the small claims court route where it'll cost you at least court fees (plus time off and travel expenses).

2. Or try to settle it.

3. Bend over and pay the $1000.
 
alkemyst said:
All you guys promoting Israel seem to be our Power Trolls now.

Yeah, you are right forums are worthless and everyone knows nothing here about situations like this.

To the OP.

First, if you know they messed up and damaged something you or them should make it right.

Outside of that, if the complex has no proof you are probably not going to have to pay anything. Small claims court, however; doesn't work like Federal where "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Due Process" exists same way with Traffic court.
Click to expand...

Couple things.

First, beyond a reasonable doubt is the criminal standard in federal and state criminal courts. JP Courts(or a states equivalent) handle criminal and civil(including small claims).

Second, due process comes in different flavors, for which each flavor is applied differently in different circumstances. For example, due process in an administrative law matter is not the same due process as a criminal trial. Due process does not necessarily require a trial. What due process you get depends on what kind of situation/court/tribunal/administrative hearing you are in. Only certain types of cases are you entitled to a trial(as you and I know them) as due process.

Due process in a civil forfeiture case, which is what I believe you are referring by your comment, is also different, because a civil forfeiture case is not against a person. It is against a piece of property which is why the cases are styled, United States vs. 52" lcd television or State vs. 8-liner machine. Or say State of Texas vs. YFZ Ranch. While there is abuse of civil forfeiture, the overwhelming majority of cases are not instances of abuse. Most cases of abuse are eventually rectified at a pretty high cost to the state/feds.
 
Last edited:
Wait, wait a minute, something I completely missed - how does the landlord send him to collection if it's not debt?

Once we can figure that out, then we can sort out the next steps that the landlord can take...
 
FelixDeCat said:
Send them a bill for $1000 for pain and suffering caused by their nonsensical demand.


If they dont pay in 30 days, send them a notice that you are placing a lien on the building for $1000.
Click to expand...

I'm about to send wreckem a bill for emotional anguish (unlike the landlord in this thread, I have proofs here and in PMs :'(), and if he doesn't pay I'll send him to collection? Profit? :awe:
 
Wreckem said:
Again, why are you people thinking direct evidence(eye witness/video tape) of the damage being done is a prerequisite for meeting an extremely low burden of proof.
Click to expand...

My point was that when someone DID have video evidence, and then destroyed it, I would think that puts a lot of doubt on their story.
 
The burden of proof is on them and since they destroyed any video tape evidence they had, they're SOL.
My 2 cents
 
SSSnail said:
Got proof of that? That no one else used it? When did you last inspect the dock? Do you have a set procedure for inspecting the dock? Can you produce that? Also, when did you notice the dock was damage? To what extend? What gives you cause that only the movers could have done this? ... I can go on, but I don't give a shit about you trying to play lawyer.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's my problem with the plaintiff, usually when there is damage involved people/Co's go to some bother to document the damage and when it happened. These people are just telling op "there was damage, you did it, pay". fuck you would be my answer, they had an obligation to photograph the said damage, keep a copy of the security tape so OP could forward it to the movers who would then be on the hook to re-pay OP, they chose not to waste the whole 5 minutes that would have taken, (90% of phones have a camera) so screw them.
 
Wreckum, you're missing a big piece of circumstantial evidence:

It's not that the scene wasn't video taped. The scene WAS videotaped, but the videotape was destroyed. "If you had videotape of the damage occurring, why did you destroy the tape? What purpose does a videotape serve if you can determine who caused the damage from when you state the damage occurred?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top