Wheres my rent check!?! Updated Daily!

[SunnyD]

3/16 Update

LL: TJ, in this case anyone who has your name and address can open a bank account in your name, someone could grab a piece of mail out of your mailbox and do so. I am not going to go back and forth anymore. I will pay for the $110 plan which will protect against any damages. I will bring a check for that and oil when we meet to sign this form.

Me: I am done discussing this issue with you. Let me know when you would like to pick up your rent check for April. Your part of the oil bill is due no later then 4/2/2012.

Patriot Act says "Nope." Without a valid and matching SSN as well as actual government ID, you can't open an account anymore even if you are who you say you are.

 

[Lifted]

The problem is the person needs the check writer to initiate the paperwork because he cannot do so since he is not the check writer nor the depositor.

That's what the police are for. Ever heard of filling a report with the police? The police then open an investigation, determine if the check was stolen, retrieve the funds, prosecute the thief, and on and on.

Why you think the OP and the bank need to get involved to determine who the landlord endorsed the check to and then had a change of heart, or who his wife gave it to, or who stole it from her after it was signed, etc., is a complete waste of everyone's time.

Do you believe in personal responsibility? From all of your posts in this thread one can only infer you lean on everyone in your personal life, and everyone you do business with, to fix problems you've created in order to make your life as easy as possible. Time to grow up.

The LL signed the check, and the LL lost it. Time for LL to call the police and file a report if something of his was stolen. OP is DONE with the matter, and neither the police nor a judge would, should, or could expect any more from anyone.

 

[alkemyst]

That's what the police are for. Ever heard of filling a report with the police? The police then open an investigation, determine if the check was stolen, retrieve the funds, prosecute the thief, and on and on.

Why you think the OP and the bank need to get involved to determine who the landlord endorsed the check to and then had a change of heart, or who his wife gave it to, or who stole it from her after it was signed, etc., is a complete waste of everyone's time.

Do you believe in personal responsibility? From all of your posts in this thread one can only infer you lean on everyone in your personal life, and everyone you do business with, to fix problems you've created in order to make your life as easy as possible. Time to grow up.

The LL signed the check, and the LL lost it. Time for LL to call the police and file a report if something of his was stolen. OP is DONE with the matter, and neither the police nor a judge would, should, or could expect any more from anyone.

It's not stolen though. It's in the wrong account. The police are going to tell him to refer to the bank on this.

WTF are you talking personal responsibility? Who do I lean on? I have self-made myself and have handled everything in my life down working three jobs as a teen when my parent's were willing to pay for everything.

I don't think you know much about the world and especially how things work.

 

[Anonemous]

This is more entertaining then Judge Judy.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It's not stolen though. It's in the wrong account. The police are going to tell him to refer to the bank on this.

WTF are you talking personal responsibility? Who do I lean on? I have self-made myself and have handled everything in my life down working three jobs as a teen when my parent's were willing to pay for everything.

I don't think you know much about the world and especially how things work.

If it is not in the LL HSBC account and also in a different bank Chase - it was stolen. from the LL.

If it was in the same bank - then it could be an accounting error.
Different bank - theft/fraud - UNLESS there is a legal acceptable tie back to the LL from what ever account it was deposited into.

As long as the LL endorsed the check and it cleared Tango (Citi Bank), then Tango is off the hook. He also has contacted Chase about the matter to get the ball rolling as a favor for the LL.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The problem is the person needs the check writer to initiate the paperwork because he cannot do so since he is not the check writer nor the depositor.

The landlord is claiming it has to be a bank error.

I am sure you believe that if one million dollars ended up in your checking and you moved it to 'cash' it's yours forever.

Alky your so full of shit. If the landlord believes its a bank error, then he needs to take it up with the bank and say "why did you cash this check or deposit it in another account, when my acct# and "deposit only" are clearly part of my endorsement?"

If that is the case the LL has a legitimate beef with the bank, but that has nothing to do with the OP. And saying the LL can't do anything because the check wasn't deposited in his account is pure bullshit. He was a party to the transaction and was the Payee on the check, he has as much power or more than the OP to demand the bank to investigate.

The OP has gone far over and above any legal requirements and has absolutely no legal obligation in this situation.

And the way it appears the bank is treating the LL there is likely more to this story that the LL doesn't want the OP to know. Because with his endorsement and acct # on the check they CANT just tell him, "we can't tell you where the money went" he has a legal right to that information and any bank will honor that, and he doesn't need the OP's signature to iniciate a fraud investigation.

If I were a betting man I would bet it goes something like the LL's wife or another family member nabbed the check owns the Chase account where the money landed and the bank is telling the LL "Hey you endorsed the check and it was deposited in you wife/relatives account, end of story" and the LL can't get the wife/relative to give him back the money so he's trying to get the OP to get it back for him.

The only thing that matters to the OP is the LL admits to receiving and endorsing the check, and the check cleared the bank, end of story.
Anything else is between the LL and the bank.

 

[sonambulo]

I am sure you believe that if one million dollars ended up in your checking and you moved it to 'cash' it's yours forever.

False equivalence.

 

[momeNt]

So LL's branch manager "good friend" put their job on the line to clear a check to the wrong account of a person they (LL and branch manager) both knew to try and scam either the AT renter or a bank fraud department out of $2,500? That's pretty ridiculous and risky, hope this plan blows up in LL, branch manager, and friend with similar account number face.

 

[etrigan420]

The problem is the person needs the check writer to initiate the paperwork because he cannot do so since he is not the check writer nor the depositor.

Maybe, maybe not. I honestly don't know. I would think that if the LL is the "Payee" of the check then he would at least be legally allowed to see or know to whom the check was actually paid to.

Either way, how is this the check writers problem? (<---answer that. This is the crux of your argument, right? That TJ still has some liability with regards to a check that he wrote and that the payee admits to receiving?)

The landlord is claiming it has to be a bank error.

Then it is between LL and the banks.

I am sure you believe that if one million dollars ended up in your checking and you moved it to 'cash' it's yours forever.

I'm not even sure what the fuck you just said...let alone how it's relevant to the situation at hand.

 

[iRONic]

Everyone needs a little insanity in their life!

Negative, Ghost Rider.

 

[abaez]

Either way, how is this the check writers problem? (<---answer that. This is the crux of your argument, right? That TJ still has some liability with regards to a check that he wrote and that the payee admits to receiving?)

What would have happened if the OP had maybe accidentally dropped the check when he mailed it or something and someone had picked it up and deposited it? It's the OP's problem right?

Well in his case it's somewhat similar - the landlord still doesn't have his money (owed to him via a contract). The landlord signing on the back and the check ending up being deposited somewhere else may or may not be the LL's fault (nevermind all of the sneaky shit/lies he said), but in the end, if the money did not end up in an account owned by LL, OP still owes LL money (which the OP will probably have to get back from the bank if he can in any case).

Don't get me wrong the LL is a shitbag and a liar, but I don't think it's as black and white as saying "Landlord endorsed back of check I am free and in the clear of any responsibility."

 

[Ns1]

What would have happened if the OP had maybe accidentally dropped the check when he mailed it or something and someone had picked it up and deposited it? It's the OP's problem right?

Well in his case it's somewhat similar - the landlord still doesn't have his money (owed to him via a contract). The landlord signing on the back and the check ending up being deposited somewhere else may or may not be the LL's fault (nevermind all of the sneaky shit/lies he said), but in the end, if the money did not end up in an account owned by LL, OP still owes LL money (which the OP will probably have to get back from the bank if he can in any case).

Don't get me wrong the LL is a shitbag and a liar, but I don't think it's as black and white as saying "Landlord endorsed back of check I am free and in the clear of any responsibility."

In one instance the OP loses it, in the other instance the LL loses it. They are not the same.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What would have happened if the OP had maybe accidentally dropped the check when he mailed it or something and someone had picked it up and deposited it? It's the OP's problem right?

Well in his case it's somewhat similar - the landlord still doesn't have his money (owed to him via a contract). The landlord signing on the back and the check ending up being deposited somewhere else may or may not be the LL's fault (nevermind all of the sneaky shit/lies he said), but in the end, if the money did not end up in an account owned by LL, OP still owes LL money (which the OP will probably have to get back from the bank if he can in any case).

Don't get me wrong the LL is a shitbag and a liar, but I don't think it's as black and white as saying "Landlord endorsed back of check I am free and in the clear of any responsibility."

Tango responsibility ended when he had the check cleared and he provided the LL with proof that it did clear along with the bank that had the check deposited into.

It is now up to the LL to go to Chase and state that that is not his account; and the bank should not have deposited the check for a third party that did not have the authority to endorse the check for a Chase deposit. Then Chase has to show the LL who the deposit went to and reverse it. (Assuming that the deposit at Chase was not legit)

 

[waggy]

What would have happened if the OP had maybe accidentally dropped the check when he mailed it or something and someone had picked it up and deposited it? It's the OP's problem right?

Well in his case it's somewhat similar - the landlord still doesn't have his money (owed to him via a contract). The landlord signing on the back and the check ending up being deposited somewhere else may or may not be the LL's fault (nevermind all of the sneaky shit/lies he said), but in the end, if the money did not end up in an account owned by LL, OP still owes LL money (which the OP will probably have to get back from the bank if he can in any case).

Don't get me wrong the LL is a shitbag and a liar, but I don't think it's as black and white as saying "Landlord endorsed back of check I am free and in the clear of any responsibility."

NOT even close to the same. IF the OP had lost it he would have to eat it.

But what happened is he gave it to the LL. the LL endorsed it and wrote for deposit only. Anything that happened after the LL got the check is the LL's problem.

 

[Lifted]

It's not stolen though. It's in the wrong account.

Quoted for posterity.

The internet does not forget.

 

[JD50]

What would have happened if the OP had maybe accidentally dropped the check when he mailed it or something and someone had picked it up and deposited it? It's the OP's problem right?

Well in his case it's somewhat similar - the landlord still doesn't have his money (owed to him via a contract). The landlord signing on the back and the check ending up being deposited somewhere else may or may not be the LL's fault (nevermind all of the sneaky shit/lies he said), but in the end, if the money did not end up in an account owned by LL, OP still owes LL money (which the OP will probably have to get back from the bank if he can in any case).

Don't get me wrong the LL is a shitbag and a liar, but I don't think it's as black and white as saying "Landlord endorsed back of check I am free and in the clear of any responsibility."

If by similar you mean the complete opposite, then I agree.

 

[abaez]

I don't think you guys understand. Let's say the LL sues the OP for the rent:

LL: You owe me $2500 rent.
OP: I sent the check and it cleared with your account number and endorsement on the back.
LL: Here's my statement for March for that account. Notice that there is no deposit for $2500. You still owe me $2500 rent.
OP: Well it looks like it got deposited at a different bank into an account that isn't on the check.
LL: I don't give a shit and that's not my account, you still owe me $2500.

If you don't think a good lawyer can argue that for the LL you are probably mistaken.

 

[Ns1]

I don't think you guys understand. Let's say the LL sues the OP for the rent:

LL: You owe me $2500 rent.
OP: I sent the check and it cleared with your account number and endorsement on the back.
LL: Here's my statement for March for that account. Notice that there is no deposit for $2500. You still owe me $2500 rent.
OP: Well it looks like it got deposited at a different bank into an account that isn't on the check.
LL: I don't give a shit and that's not my account, you still owe me $2500.

If you don't think a good lawyer can argue that for the LL you are probably mistaken.

Except the part where LL acknowledges receipt of check and endorsement, of which OP has documented proof of.

What you are currently saying is exactly what the LL is trying to do at present.

 

[abaez]

Except the part where LL acknowledges receipt of check and endorsement, of which OP has documented proof of.

What you are currently saying is exactly what the LL is trying to do at present.

Well then I guess we'll have to see where this ends up.

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't think you guys understand. Let's say the LL sues the OP for the rent:

LL: You owe me $2500 rent.
OP: I sent the check and it cleared with your account number and endorsement on the back.
LL: Here's my statement for March for that account. Notice that there is no deposit for $2500. You still owe me $2500 rent.
OP: Well it looks like it got deposited at a different bank into an account that isn't on the check.
LL: I don't give a shit and that's not my account, you still owe me $2500.

If you don't think a good lawyer can argue that for the LL you are probably mistaken.

What NS1 said and then the OP also can show the cancelled check images (and how they match between the two months). Tough shit for the landlord.

 

[JD50]

I don't think you guys understand. Let's say the LL sues the OP for the rent:

LL: You owe me $2500 rent.
OP: I sent the check and it cleared with your account number and endorsement on the back.
LL: Here's my statement for March for that account. Notice that there is no deposit for $2500. You still owe me $2500 rent.
OP: Well it looks like it got deposited at a different bank into an account that isn't on the check.
LL: I don't give a shit and that's not my account, you still owe me $2500.

If you don't think a good lawyer can argue that for the LL you are probably mistaken.

As 2 others already pointed out, the OP has images of the check with the LL's endorsement and account number on the check, and the LL admitted to receiving the check and trying to deposit it. So no the LL really has no argument there.

 

[etrigan420]

I don't think you guys understand. Let's say the LL sues the OP for the rent:

LL: You owe me $2500 rent.
OP: I sent the check and it cleared with your account number and endorsement on the back.
LL: Here's my statement for March for that account. Notice that there is no deposit for $2500. You still owe me $2500 rent...

I'll stop you there...because it's all that matters.

OP: Huh. Yeah, that *is* weird. Sucks for you man. I handed you a check with the funds available in my account. What you did with it after the fact is not my concern, and i *certainly* can't be held liable for whose account your bank decided to deposit said check.

THIS SHOULD BE BETWEEN LL AND LL'S BANK. End of discussion.

The ONLY way that TJ is going to be involved again is if there is an investigation, and somehow the authorities restore the money back into his (TJ's) account. At that point he'd probably be required to cut LL another check.

 

[TangoJuliet]

It's not stolen though. It's in the wrong account.

I think you are confused. The check was lost or stolen. The LL said his wife was in possession of the check on 2/29. She wasn't able to cash the check so she left it in her car. Where it went from there nobody knows. The LL admitted he does not have any knowledge as to who cashed the check so that would imply that it was lost/stolen.

Whether you believe this story or not is up for debate.

Anyways, I went a couple places yesterday just to cover my butt. Again, I was told that my obligation to the LL was fulfilled once he admitted that he was in possession of the check, signed the back and had his account number on the it.

Where the check went from there is not my responsibility. The LL can file a police report and I will comply with whatever the authorities want me to do which includes filing an affidavit of forgery. As of right now there is no reason for me to waste my time and energy running around places for the LL. He has not been up front and honest this entire time. I will not be pulled into any disputes he may be having with other parties regarding this check unless the police or bank asked me to do so. As of this point neither a bank or police have told me to fill out anything.

Update 3/17

Got this follow up text from the LL last night

LL: Joe I am free tomorrow and sunday to drop off the money for the standard protection plan and half the difference of the oil bill and have the document signed so that your money can be returned into your account and march payment can be properly made. Please let me know if tomorrow or Sunday works for you. The sooner we can put this to rest the better. This situation can be resolved so easily and luckily your money was located.

I did not respond. I really hope he shows up on the property. I'll call the cops and then we can have a report on record that he is in violation of the lease - quiet enjoyment.

 

[DCal430]

The fact remains the OP could fix this if he wanted too, he could have the funds placed back into his account by just telling the bank the check was stolen.

 

[DCal430]

I'll stop you there...because it's all that matters.

OP: Huh. Yeah, that *is* weird. Sucks for you man. I handed you a check with the funds available in my account. What you did with it after the fact is not my concern, and i *certainly* can't be held liable for whose account your bank decided to deposit said check.

THIS SHOULD BE BETWEEN LL AND LL'S BANK. End of discussion.

The ONLY way that TJ is going to be involved again is if there is an investigation, and somehow the authorities restore the money back into his (TJ's) account. At that point he'd probably be required to cut LL another check.

LL bank can't remove the funds from the account the check was deposited in as easily as the OP bank can. The OP bank is the one who deposited the funds into the account and they can easily undo it, if the check was stolen. The FACT remains the OP can EASILY recover the money and write a new check, but so chooses not to.