Real Estate Law gurus

[XingTheRubicon]

OK, my sweet moronic little brother called me earlier today for some legal advice. I reminded him for the 87th time that I can help him with tax law, but family, real estate, or whatever catastrophe law advice he may need, I'm not much help.

Anyhoo, he bought a new house back in October of 2009 and gave his landlord a 30 day notice about 45 days before he moved out. Well, long story short, he mailed the 30 day notice regular mail...and of course, the a-hole landlord now claims he never received it.

My brother informed me yesterday he was served. The bill totaled the equivalent of 40 days rent that he never lived there. So basically, it's a he said/she said on whether he gave notice. Here's the wrinkle: He has 3 witnesses that phyisically saw him write out the 30 day notice. They were the members of the construction crew that was finishing his new house. He had to collaborate with them about when the new house would be ready and they watched him write it out, right after they discussed the matter.

So, to sum up, he has to go to Small Claims Court next week and he's asking me what he needs to bring. I told him to look into certified mail.

Any help would be greatly appreciated...

[AggieTool]

Having witnesses that he wrote it out doesn't prove the land-lord received it.


...just sayin.

[XingTheRubicon]

I'm with ya, and I told him that. Rooting for him...

[soonersis]

I always thought that if you didn't get the mail returned that you could reasonably assume the recipient received the piece of mail. That is also to assume the mail was handled properly by the USPS. But that is assuming and well, you know how the saying goes...

[XingTheRubicon]

oh gawd, here comes Dean

[olevetonahill]

The witnesses WILL help . Its gonna be up to the judge to decide if the Land Lord has proven his case.

By him just saying HE didnt receive it. Its gonna be hard for him to convince the judge he didnt, if yer Bro has his witneses

Good luck

[sooner ngintunr]

Utility records might help. Did he pay last months rent when he moved in? That's pretty much your thirty days right there. Deposit? Did he get it back?

Sounds like this LL is an *******.

[yermom]

did they watch him mail it?

i'd never send something like that USPS. even when you pay for tracking it sucks

[yermom]

Sounds like this LL is an *******.

Leroy hasn't even posted yet

[XingTheRubicon]

did they watch him mail it?

i'd never send something like that USPS. even when you pay for tracking it sucks

Yeah, they saw him stick it in the mailbox.

[olevetonahill]

Yeah, they saw him stick it in the mailbox.

That should do it then
The rules of evidence arnt that tuff in Small Claims

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Leroy hasn't even posted yet He's still an *******. And a double-wide ******* for being a jerk of a landlord.

[tommieharris91]

Yeah, they saw him stick it in the mailbox.

Based on what I remember from Bus Law I, that is enough for the notice to be recieved.

[Leroy Lizard]

Found this


The rule is well settled that if a letter properly directed is proved to have been . . . put into the post-office . . . it is presumed . . . that it reached its destination . . . .


Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193 (1884).

This presumption of mail delivery can have an impact on your business. For example, if you offered to sell something to someone, they can accept that offer and bind you to the contract as soon as they drop that acceptance in a mailbox, whether or not you ever receive it. If you sell that warehouse full of inventory to someone else because you thought the first potential buyer was not interested, you could be in trouble for having entered into binding contracts with two different parties to sell the same warehouse full of inventory.

Even the State of Arizona recently learned a lesson about the "mail delivery rule." In Lee v. State of Arizona (Arizona Supreme Court No. CV070293PR, April 24, 2008), the State thought it had beat a negligence claim by asserting that it never received notice of the claim. The Arizona Supreme Court told the State that it couldn't beat the claim simply by claiming that it never received notice of the claim because of "the commonly recognized fact that the mail almost always works."

The Lee case involved a car wreck with three passenger fatalities and serious injuries to the driver, James Lee. Mr. Lee's car crashed through the guardrail on a highway. Mr. Lee and the representatives of the deceased passengers sued the State of Arizona claiming that the roadway and guardrail were negligently designed, constructed, and maintained. The State of Arizona moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that it never received the notice of claim required by Arizona statute prior to filing suit against the State. The plaintiffs' attorney submitted a "proof of service" signed by someone in his law office under penalty of perjury saying that they had mailed the notice of claim to the Arizona Attorney General by regular United States mail more than a week before the deadline. The trial court threw the case out because the State said it never got the notice. The Court of Appeals agreed saying that the plaintiffs had not shown that "the State actually received their notice." The Arizona Supreme Court, however, said that the State could not get out of the case simply by denying that it received the notice.


http://www.phoenixceocfo.com/content/articles/2008-06/presumption-mail.bv

Even though the landlord may be out of luck, you can see his point. If he never got the notice, he didn't know your brother had moved out and he missed an opportunity to rent the place. He has his own side of the story, after all.

[XingTheRubicon]

Here's one more wrinkle.

The dumb*ss landlord can't add.

I told my brother last night to fax me the papers he was served so I could look at the itemized bill. Well, I get the fax this morning and the landlord has everything totaled up. The only problem is the total amount at the bottom is exactly $1000 too high. (this was a $2500/mo house lease)

He either made a mistake or he deliberately overcharged his claim. The landlord also wrote the incorrect rental address on the paperwork. What an utter jack*ss.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here's one more wrinkle.

The dumb*ss landlord can't add.

I told my brother last night to fax me the papers he was served so I could look at the itemized bill. Well, I get the fax this morning and the landlord has everything totaled up. The only problem is the total amount at the bottom is exactly $1000 too high. (this was a $2500/mo house lease)

He either made a mistake or he deliberately overcharged his claim. The landlord also wrote the incorrect rental address on the paperwork. What an utter jack*ss.

No need to pile on. Just have your brother show up in court and see what the judge decides.

Besides, your brother didn't catch the mistake.

[Okla-homey]

IMHO, as to the notice issue, your brother just paid for a lesson from the "School of Hard Knocks."

See below, especially section 111(e).



Title 41. Landlord and Tenant
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
Section 111 - Termination of Tenancy
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A. Except as otherwise provided in the Oklahoma Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, when the tenancy is month-to-month or tenancy at will, the landlord or tenant may terminate the tenancy provided the landlord or tenant gives a written notice to the other at least thirty (30) days before the date upon which the termination is to become effective. The thirty-day period to terminate shall begin to run from the date notice to terminate is served as provided in subsection E of this section.

B. Except as otherwise provided in the Oklahoma Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, when the tenancy is less than month-to-month, the landlord or tenant may terminate the tenancy provided the landlord or tenant gives to the other a written notice served as provided in subsection E of this section at least seven (7) days before the date upon which the termination is to become effective.

C. Unless earlier terminated under the provisions of the Oklahoma Residential Landlord and Tenant Act or unless otherwise agreed upon, a tenancy for a definite term expires on the ending date thereof without notice.

D. If the tenant remains in possession without the landlord's consent after the expiration of the term of the rental agreement or its termination under the Oklahoma Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord may immediately bring an action for possession and damages. If the tenant's holdover is willful and not in good faith the landlord may also recover an amount not more than twice the average monthly rental, computed and prorated on a daily basis, for each month or portion thereof that said tenant remains in possession. If the landlord consents to the tenant's continued occupancy, a month-to-month tenancy is thus created, unless the parties otherwise agree.

E. The written notice, required by the Oklahoma Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, to terminate any tenancy shall be served on the tenant or landlord personally unless otherwise specified by law. If the tenant cannot be located, service shall be made by delivering the notice to any family member of such tenant over the age of twelve (12) years residing with the tenant. If service cannot be made on the tenant personally or on such family member, notice shall be posted at a conspicuous place on the dwelling unit of the tenant. If the notice is posted, a copy of such notice shall be mailed to the tenant by certified mail. If service cannot be made on the landlord personally, the notice shall be mailed to the landlord by certified mail. For the purpose of this subsection, the word "landlord" shall mean any person authorized to receive service of process and notice pursuant to Section 116 of this title.

Historical Data

[XingTheRubicon]

So the landlord tries to take advantage of the 30 day notice not being registered mail, sues my brother for 40 days that he didn't live there and over charges him $1000 and threatens my brother to "pay it or this judgment will ruin your credit" and your worried about this sack of sh*t's feelings?

Don't hurt yourself LL

[Leroy Lizard]

So the landlord tries to take advantage of the 30 day notice not being registered mail, sues my brother for 40 days that he didn't live there and over charges him $1000 and threatens my brother to "pay it or this judgment will ruin your credit" and your worried about this sack of sh*t's feelings?

Don't hurt yourself LL

Well, I'm not WORRIED about anyone's feelings. (This is me talking, remember?)

Just look at it from the landlord's angle. In his view, your brother is out to screw him out of a month's rent and has concocted a story with his buddies to weasel out of payment.

True or not, there are two sides to every coin.

Your brother does have a case, which I posted above. (And did I get a thank you? Noooooooo!!! And why? Because I'm Leroy Lizard.)

[Okla-homey]

Well, I'm not WORRIED about anyone's feelings. (This is me talking, remember?)

Just look at it from the landlord's angle. In his view, your brother is out to screw him out of a month's rent and has concocted a story with his buddies to weasel out of payment.

True or not, there are two sides to every coin.

Your brother does have a case, which I posted above. (And did I get a thank you? Noooooooo!!! And why? Because I'm Leroy Lizard.)

The problem with your legal analysis is the use of the word "presumed" delivery in the case you cited. Presumptions are easily overcome by contrary facts. If landlord testifies he never got it, then it's a fact question and the burden of proof shifts to the tenant to prove landlord in fact recieved it. IOW, which one of the parties will the trier of fact beleive.

I assume the tenant has no facts to contradict the landlord's version except the fact he will testify he mailed it, and not via certified mail per the applicable statute. In this case, the trier of fact is the judge. For all the above reasons, my money is on the judge going with the landlord.

[Leroy Lizard]

The problem with your legal analysis is the use of the word "presumed" delivery in the case you cited. Presumptions are easily overcome by contrary facts. If landlord testifies he never got it, then it's a fact question and the burden of proof shifts to the tenant to prove landlord in fact recieved it. IOW, which one of the parties will the trier of fact beleive.

Not so sure about that:


For example, if you offered to sell something to someone, they can accept that offer and bind you to the contract as soon as they drop that acceptance in a mailbox, whether or not you ever receive it.

The cases I cited tend to side with the notion that if you drop it in the mail, the other man received it. You just have to convince the judge you dropped it in the mail. It's a civil trial, so it comes down to how believable your story truly is. If he has buddies on his side, that could be sufficient.

If the Supreme Court rules that certified mail is not necessarily required, I don't think Oklahoma can require it.

[Okla-homey]

Not so sure about that:



The cases I cited tend to side with the notion that if you drop it in the mail, the other man received it. You just have to convince the judge you dropped it in the mail. It's a civil trial, so it comes down to how believable your story truly is. If he has buddies on his side, that could be sufficient.

If the Supreme Court rules that certified mail is not necessarily required, I don't think Oklahoma can require it.

The "mailbox rule" as to offer acceptance and contract formation is an entirely different kettle of fish from this here dealio. Trust me.

[Frozen Sooner]

The "mailbox rule" as to offer acceptance and contract formation is an entirely different kettle of fish from this here dealio. Trust me.

He's not going to.

A common-law presumption of delivery does not supersede a statutory requirement of personal service or certified mail. A Supreme Court ruling contrary could only overrule a state statute regarding landlord-tenant if they found the state statute to either be in contravention of federal statute, the US Constitution, or a passage of the Oklahoma Constitution identical to the US Constitution.

The good people of Oklahoma, through the offices of their legislature, have enacted a requirement that any notice given to a landlord be given by personal service unless personal service on the landlord cannot be made. Even were personal service not practicable, the statute still requires certified mail. This trumps the "mailbox rule", even if the mailbox rule applied to this situation. Which it doesn't. As Homey pointed out.

[Frozen Sooner]

The problem with your legal analysis is the use of the word "presumed" delivery in the case you cited. Presumptions are easily overcome by contrary facts. If landlord testifies he never got it, then it's a fact question and the burden of proof shifts to the tenant to prove landlord in fact recieved it. IOW, which one of the parties will the trier of fact beleive.

I assume the tenant has no facts to contradict the landlord's version except the fact he will testify he mailed it, and not via certified mail per the applicable statute. In this case, the trier of fact is the judge. For all the above reasons, my money is on the judge going with the landlord.

He hasn't even managed to show that the landlord couldn't be served personally, forget getting to certified mail.

[olevetonahill]

Havin had to deal with the small claims court during My shop running days Nothing will surprise me.

The last SCC judge I had to deal with on numerous occasions Made LL look shar. That guy could never make a decision On the facts presented.

He always thot he was Solomon, Cut it in 1/2
didnt matter who was right or wrong . he just went down the middle . I hated that fat ****er.

I dont think they are Bound by any rules of Law unless ya want to Appeal the SCC Judge to district court.

[Leroy Lizard]

He's not going to.

No need to get personal about it. The man asked for help, and so I found some info on the web that I thought was pertinent. Since I posted it publicly, I gave everyone in here ample chance to dispute it.

[olevetonahill]

No need to get personal about it. The man asked for help, and so I found some info on the web that I thought was pertinent. Since I posted it publicly, I gave everyone in here ample chance to dispute it.

Which they did time and again . You however want to argue with Lawyers and almost lawyers. But then again thats nothing new with you
You argue with anyone about anything .

[Leroy Lizard]

Which they did time and again.

So what's the problem?

[olevetonahill]

So what's the problem?

You. Plus the fact that you still insist yer right after being proven wrong .:rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

You. Plus the fact that you still insist yer right after being proven wrong .:rolleyes:

When did I insist I was right in the landlord issue? (And I was right on the air crash.)

And when was I PROVEN wrong?

[olevetonahill]

When did I insist I was right in the landlord issue? (And I was right on the air crash.)

And when was I PROVEN wrong?

Now yer arguing with me about YOU being wrong
On the Aircraft deal
Go REread yer OP and then read yer Quoted dealio .
they read different to me .:rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

Now yer arguing with me about YOU being wrong
On the Aircraft deal
Go REread yer OP and then read yer Quoted dealio .
they read different to me .:rolleyes:

No, they pretty much say the same thing.

Besides, I wrote "IIRC." When someone writes "IIRC" it means he isn't talking as an expert, just relaying what he had heard earlier from memory.

Which turned out be pretty much right.

[olevetonahill]

Limptard is this you ?

http://www.brogan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/cartoon-expert.jpg

[Leroy Lizard]

BTW, if I'm the brother's lawyer and he really wants to fight this thing, why not wave the Supreme Court decision in front of the landlord's face? Maybe it will scare him off At the very least, it should force him to run to his own lawyer to counter. (And maybe he won't want to spend the money.)

And in court, at least it's something. I haven't seen much else in here that would help the brother fight the charges.

[TMcGee86]

LL, that case proves nothing. In the face of the statute even if he could prove the Landlord actually received it it wouldn't mean anything. So what he received it, it wasn't by personal delivery and it wasn't certified. And would be willing to bet the landlord knows this. I'm sure this probably isn't the first time he's dealt with this.

I think he's F'd unfortunately. Only question will be what his actual damages are, and since the statute seems to indicate it's a month to month fall back, maybe he's just stuck with 30 days rent.

If he really wants to get the guy scared, file a DTPA action against him for overcharging him $1,000 and threatening to ruin his credit score in violation of the fair debt collection act.

[olevetonahill]

LL, that case proves nothing. In the face of the statute even if he could prove the Landlord actually received it it wouldn't mean anything. So what he received it, it wasn't by personal delivery and it wasn't certified. And would be willing to bet the landlord knows this. I'm sure this probably isn't the first time he's dealt with this.

I think he's F'd unfortunately. Only question will be what his actual damages are, and since the statute seems to indicate it's a month to month fall back, maybe he's just stuck with 30 days rent.

If he really wants to get the guy scared, file a DTPA action against him for overcharging him $1,000 and threatening to ruin his credit score in violation of the fair debt collection act.



I like :D

[Leroy Lizard]

LL, that case proves nothing. In the face of the statute even if he could prove the Landlord actually received it it wouldn't mean anything. So what he received it, it wasn't by personal delivery and it wasn't certified. And would be willing to bet the landlord knows this.

I guess that depends on how long he's been in the game.

Again, gotta' try something. The DTPA is pretty interesting. Do they typically take such mistakes that seriously? I mean, a lot of people make mistakes in arithmetic.

[TMcGee86]

I guess that depends on how long he's been in the game.

Again, gotta' try something. The DTPA is pretty interesting. Do they typically take such mistakes that seriously? I mean, a lot of people make mistakes in arithmetic.


You are right it will depend on how long he's been doing this. Though if he's willing to run to small claims court I would guess he's done this before.

And yes they take those kind of mistakes seriously. A near 50% increase is huge, couple that with the threats and all of the sudden it sounds like he was relying on the guy not knowing the rules regarding service of notice and hoping to bilk him for some extra cash. And that threat is a big time no-no. There are very strict procedures you have to follow when collecting a debt.

And the great thing about DTPA is you get treble (3x) damages.

[Leroy Lizard]

You are right it will depend on how long he's been doing this. Though if he's willing to run to small claims court I would guess he's done this before.

Well, I think everyone would try to at least try to bluff.


And yes they take those kind of mistakes seriously. A near 50% increase is huge, couple that with the threats and all of the sudden it sounds like he was relying on the guy not knowing the rules regarding service of notice and hoping to bilk him for some extra cash. And that threat is a big time no-no. There are very strict procedures you have to follow when collecting a debt.

By the same token, you would think an experienced landlord would know better. But, maybe he does.

[TMcGee86]

By the same token, you would think an experienced landlord would know better. But, maybe he does.

Good point, but DTPA is a pretty specialized area it's not going to come up a lot and I'm not even sure it applies here, I was just using it as a good bluff. Plus debt collection is a whole other area of law whereas if the LL is any sort of pro he's going to know exactly how the 30 day notice works. That's pretty much the backbone of that law.

[XingTheRubicon]

You are right it will depend on how long he's been doing this. Though if he's willing to run to small claims court I would guess he's done this before.

And yes they take those kind of mistakes seriously. A near 50% increase is huge, couple that with the threats and all of the sudden it sounds like he was relying on the guy not knowing the rules regarding service of notice and hoping to bilk him for some extra cash. And that threat is a big time no-no. There are very strict procedures you have to follow when collecting a debt.

And the great thing about DTPA is you get treble (3x) damages.

The DTPA is texas isn't it? This Landlord lives in OK.

What's the = to DTPA in OK?


btw, individuals collecting debt are not subject to guidelines under the fair debts collection protection act complaints to the FTC.

any additional info (OK) would be appreciated


Leroy, I'm really am trying to help my brother with this...so instead of attention whoring the entire thread, why don't you sit on the floor and lick your own butt.

[Frozen Sooner]

BTW, if I'm the brother's lawyer and he really wants to fight this thing, why not wave the Supreme Court decision in front of the landlord's face? Maybe it will scare him off At the very least, it should force him to run to his own lawyer to counter. (And maybe he won't want to spend the money.)

And in court, at least it's something. I haven't seen much else in here that would help the brother fight the charges.

Because it's such a terrible argument that if the landlord's attorney got wind of it his brother's lawyer would receive a smackdown letter of epic proportion, and might (if landlord's attorney was feeling froggy) open brother's attorney up to an ethics complaint. In court it's worse than nothing-it's so incorrect that it would open up the party making it to sanctions under OK's equivalent to FRCP 11.

Leroy, the reason why I said you wouldn't trust Homey was precisely this post. Nobody who completed even the first semester of law school would attempt the argument you just made in the face of the statute Homey posted. It's a bad argument caused by your misunderstanding of Supreme Court precedent and how that interacts with state statutory law. It doesn't make you a bad person to just admit you were wrong on this one and move on, but you're hanging on to this case like a monkey with his hand wrapped around a walnut in a bottle.

Oh, yeah, before I forget: Frozen Sooner (and any person who may use such alias) is not a licensed attorney in Oklahoma; Alabama; Fribourg, Switzerland; or any other jurisdiction. Anything resembling legal advice posted under such alias is simply an academic exercise and is not to be relied upon except at the peril of the person so relying.

[olevetonahill]

But Mike
Its been my experience with the SCC system that very few use attorneys
Its a lot like ya see on the peoples court deal
2 peeps get up and state there case

[XingTheRubicon]

Frozen's right. It's right there in black and white in the statute in all OK landlord/tenant lease agreements.


One other glimmer of hope is that the 30 day notice was mailed with a monthly payment check. The LL cashed the check. The check was wrapped in the notice.


My brother told me if he loses to this POS, he's turning to "dolphin street justice." I don't even want to explain that. It is funny though.

[Frozen Sooner]

But Mike
Its been my experience with the SCC system that very few use attorneys
Its a lot like ya see on the peoples court deal
2 peeps get up and state there case

You're correct-the big advantage to small claims is that there's no real need for attorneys. Leroy's hypothetical involved attorneys for both parties.

[soonerscuba]

Because it's such a terrible argument that if the landlord's attorney got wind of it his brother's lawyer would receive a smackdown letter of epic proportion, and might (if landlord's attorney was feeling froggy) open brother's attorney up to an ethics complaint. In court it's worse than nothing-it's so incorrect that it would open up the party making it to sanctions under OK's equivalent to FRCP 11.

Leroy, the reason why I said you wouldn't trust Homey was precisely this post. Nobody who completed even the first semester of law school would attempt the argument you just made in the face of the statute Homey posted. It's a bad argument caused by your misunderstanding of Supreme Court precedent and how that interacts with state statutory law. It doesn't make you a bad person to just admit you were wrong on this one and move on, but you're hanging on to this case like a monkey with his hand wrapped around a walnut in a bottle.

Oh, yeah, before I forget: Frozen Sooner (and any person who may use such alias) is not a licensed attorney in Oklahoma; Alabama; Fribourg, Switzerland; or any other jurisdiction. Anything resembling legal advice posted under such alias is simply an academic exercise and is not to be relied upon except at the peril of the person so relying.BUT I'M BEING CONTRARIAN, AND THAT MEANS I'M SMART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[olevetonahill]

XTR Tell yer bro to make sure he has an attorney. The ll prolly wont and so he will mess up in the face of yer Bros attorney and get his *** handed to him
Plus Like I said if the judge rules against yer Bro he CAN appeal it to District court and Have a jury trial and every thing .

[olevetonahill]

You're correct-the big advantage to small claims is that there's no real need for attorneys. Leroy's hypothetical involved attorneys for both parties.

Thats the point of My last post bro

The times I had my attoney with me I prevailed
the times I didnt . It was a toss up or the idiot judge just cut both parties claims in 1/2

[Leroy Lizard]

Good point, but DTPA is a pretty specialized area it's not going to come up a lot and I'm not even sure it applies here, I was just using it as a good bluff. Plus debt collection is a whole other area of law whereas if the LL is any sort of pro he's going to know exactly how the 30 day notice works. That's pretty much the backbone of that law.

The LL is lucky he is in Oklahoma (?). In California, good luck collecting.

[TMcGee86]

The DTPA is texas isn't it? This Landlord lives in OK.

What's the = to DTPA in OK?


btw, individuals collecting debt are not subject to guidelines under the fair debts collection protection act complaints to the FTC.

any additional info (OK) would be appreciated


Leroy, I'm really am trying to help my brother with this...so instead of attention whoring the entire thread, why don't you sit on the floor and lick your own butt.

Yeah unfortunately everything I'm talking about relates to TX. I have no idea what the OK equivalent is.

[Leroy Lizard]

The DTPA is texas isn't it? This Landlord lives in OK.

What's the = to DTPA in OK?


btw, individuals collecting debt are not subject to guidelines under the fair debts collection protection act complaints to the FTC.

any additional info (OK) would be appreciated


Leroy, I'm really am trying to help my brother with this...so instead of attention whoring the entire thread, why don't you sit on the floor and lick your own butt.

I'm the one person who posted information to try to help you out. (Which didn't go over too well, unfortunately.)

[Soonerfan88]

Disclaimer: Looking for an actual answer, not arguing with attorneys or trying to give advice.


when the tenancy is month-to-month or tenancy at will

If you are actually under a lease with a specified time limit, does that still fall under this? If not, what is the statute/law/ruling that covers such leases?

[Okla-homey]

Disclaimer: Looking for an actual answer, not arguing with attorneys or trying to give advice.



If you are actually under a lease with a specified time limit, does that still fall under this? If not, what is the statute/law/ruling that covers such leases?

Speaking ONLY for Oklahoma, because that's the only law I know off the top of my cranium, when the lease term is up, unless you have an understanding with the landlord to the contrary, its understood you're leaving. Thus, no written notice is required to unarse the property at the end of the lease term. That said, it's still a good idea to tuck a note in with the last rent check stating you intend to split at the end of the lease term.

Also, FYI, you can stick around at the end of the lease term, as long as the landlord is cool with it, without executing a new lease agreement. In that case, you're considered a month-to-month tenant. That's where the notice dealio kicks in. If you're renting month-to-month after the expiration of a single or multi-year lease, you then have a legal obligation to deliver that month's notice before splitting. And remember, either put in in his hands yourself (a/k/a "personal service") or send it by CERTIFIED MAIL!!!!!!11!1

The landlord also has a legal right, under Okie law, to ask you to permit him to show the property to potential renters/buyers. He generally must give you 24 hrs notice though.

Got it?

[Leroy Lizard]

Because it's such a terrible argument that if the landlord's attorney got wind of it his brother's lawyer would receive a smackdown letter of epic proportion, and might (if landlord's attorney was feeling froggy) open brother's attorney up to an ethics complaint. In court it's worse than nothing-it's so incorrect that it would open up the party making it to sanctions under OK's equivalent to FRCP 11.

I've seen far, far bigger stretches than this by lawyers. I've seen lawyers cite cases in letters that actually refute their client's argument. The hope is that a strongly worded letter will shake the opposition up. It's a bluff.

Besides, you're missing an important point in this: If the brother really had a lawyer, there would be no reason to ask a message board.

I think this is mostly a matter of personality conflict.


Leroy, the reason why I said you wouldn't trust Homey was precisely this post. Nobody who completed even the first semester of law school would attempt the argument you just made in the face of the statute Homey posted.

Maybe so, but "trust me" is really not much of an argument.


It's a bad argument caused by your misunderstanding of Supreme Court precedent and how that interacts with state statutory law. It doesn't make you a bad person to just admit you were wrong on this one and move on, but you're hanging on to this case like a monkey with his hand wrapped around a walnut in a bottle.

Criminy, I never even said I was right. I just offered one idea. I found something on the Internet that looked pertinent and suggested it was something he could try. If I had tried to give him legal advice privately, you would have a better argument.

People talk about science on this board and a lot of them are not scientists. BFD.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, but when actual scientists show up and say "that's wrong" most people defer to what they say. You, however, would argue with Ike about particle physics.

And I call complete bull**** on you seeing lawyers make bigger stretches. You may think they were bigger stretches, but as you've amply demonstrated in this thread and others, you don't have the slightest idea what you're doing with the law. It's OK-the law is hard. People go to school and stuff for it. Homey doesn't HAVE to make an argument beyond "trust me." By posting the statute, he's already proven you wrong. You're just missing the implied minor premises associated with posting the statute because you don't know some things that we had to go to school to learn. Again, doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make you wrong.

I'd agree that it's likely a personality conflict. You should ask yourself why every thread you post in tends to become a personality conflict, and whose personality is the constant.

As for the XTR not having a lawyer, your exact hypothetical was to have his brother's lawyer write something up-YOU introduced the assumption of lawyers, not I.

[Frozen Sooner]

Speaking ONLY for Oklahoma, because that's the only law I know off the top of my cranium, when the lease term is up, unless you have an understanding with the landlord to the contrary, its understood you're leaving. Thus, no written notice is required to unarse the property at the end of the lease term. That said, it's still a good idea to tuck a note in with the last rent check stating you intend to split at the end of the lease term.

This is also the majority rule. Or at least according to both Professor Brubaker, Professor Krier, and the E&E book. :D


Also, FYI, you can stick around at the end of the lease term, as long as the landlord is cool with it, without executing a new lease agreement. In that case, you're considered a month-to-month tenant. That's where the notice dealio kicks in. If you're renting month-to-month after the expiration of a single or multi-year lease, you then have a legal obligation to deliver that month's notice before splitting. And remember, either put in in his hands yourself (a/k/a "personal service") or send it by CERTIFIED MAIL!!!!!!11!1

Don't know about OK, but in some jurisdictions this can open you up to treble or even quadruple rent as a holdover tenant. Make SURE the landlord is OK with it-preferably with a new lease agreement.

[Soonerfan88]

Thanks

[Okla-homey]

Don't know about OK, but in some jurisdictions this can open you up to treble or even quadruple rent as a holdover tenant.

Not in Okieland.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yeah, but when actual scientists show up and say "that's wrong" most people defer to what they say. You, however, would argue with Ike about particle physics.

I didn't argue.

At no point did I tell Homey he was wrong, or that I was right.

I just think you are making far more out of this then warranted.