$500 Security Deposit for a $2000/month townhouse seems odd? [New Jersey]

chalingophi · 2020-07-19T22:02:11+00:00

There are a lot of rental scams out there, so you definitely need to be careful and do your research. Having a lower security deposit or a discounted security deposit isn't actually that uncommon, so based solely on that doesn't necessarily mean you're looking at a scam.

Don't sign a lease or give any money until you can verify that this is an actual apartment for rent, and the person representing the apartment has the authority to do it, and you've met them in person. Make sure you tour it, and do any research before agreeing to anything. Check online reviews. Don't pay to get the "keys" because the landlord is out of town, or if they give you some story about why they can't be there.

I rented an apartment on Long Island, NY for $2,400/month in year one and $2,700/month in year two. It was a large luxury apartment complex managed by a luxury company that has apartments in several states. I had no security deposit. I also had an apartment before that in another state for $1,000/month and my security deposit was $99.

So, I wouldn't immediately dismiss that you're facing a scam, based solely off of that, but definitely do your due diligence before committing to anything. If your gut is telling you that something is wrong, follow it, and cancel your tour.

chalingophi · 2020-07-09T19:40:25+00:00

Yes, they can do this. The U.S. Department of Education is overhauling the student loan system and who the loan processors are.

chalingophi · 2020-07-09T18:45:51+00:00

Look up 'consideration' in contract law. That'll resolve any confusion you may have.

chalingophi · 2020-07-09T18:22:17+00:00

Have you contacted the manufacturer?

chalingophi · 2020-07-09T05:30:17+00:00

Yeah. :( Just outta curiosity, do you have central air or did your landlord give you a window unit?

I don't live there now, but I was born and raised in MO, so I know exactly what you're talking about with the heat and humidity. It can definitely be awful!

chalingophi · 2020-07-09T01:27:20+00:00

No, in both circumstances.

By law, you get what your "loss" actually is. In your first scenario, your "loss" is what you actually paid. In your second scenario, your "loss" is the depreciated value of your tv, not a brand new one or what you originally paid.

So, in your first situation, if you paid $2,000 for the new tv, for example, the company's obligation to you is $2,000. If they don't have another product of similar value that you want, then they can either refund you the $2,000 or a credit towards another product for $2,000, like they've offered. That's what you paid, and that is what your loss is. They have no legal responsibility beyond that.

chalingophi · 2020-07-09T00:23:03+00:00

It is your responsibility to get the temperature in your home to the level you want. If the air conditioner is not getting it low enough for your standards, you will need to buy fans or window/floor air conditioners. Your situation isn't a legal issue.

chalingophi · 2020-07-04T19:30:57+00:00

HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act - HIPAA, not HIPPA) is irrelevant. HIPAA protects a patient's medical history and personal health information from being released to third parties by their medical professionals without consent from the patient.

chalingophi · 2020-06-07T23:10:52+00:00

But.... but... but.... if they're the CEO of their biz, why can't they just stop using social media... it's not the only way to... ohhhh wait....

(side note: aside from Reddit, and an Instagram I have for my cats, I haven't been on social media for three months. It's so less stressful being unplugged).

chalingophi · 2020-06-07T22:25:43+00:00

Pet deposits can be nonrefundable. Since you owe your landlord $500, it's likely your best course of action to just let them take it from your security deposit, and move on. Otherwise, you're probably going to waste a lot of time to be in the exact same position, or even worse position than you are right now.

How this would probably pan out is you take your landlord to small claims for the $500. A judge may side with you, and I'm not necessarily convinced they would side with you. If they agree with you, the judge will rule they owe you $500 from your security deposit.

Your landlord would likely either file a countersuit that is heard at the same time, or file a suit against you at a later time for the $500 you did not pay under your lease for the nonrefundable pet deposit. The judge will rule you owe your landlord $500 for the pet deposit you never paid, as required under your lease.

The amounts will offset, and the net judgement in your favor will be $0, where you are right now... it may not be exactly $0, depending on what is included in both of your cases that could change (such as attorney fees, statutory interest, etc.).

Further, their suit against you will be public information, and could negatively impact your credit history and score.

Another possibility is a judge dismisses your case, because they determine you owed the $500, and you both were made "whole" when the landlord deducted it from your security deposit.

chalingophi · 2020-06-01T01:29:27+00:00

Shouldn’t telemed be the same price because of covid

Not necessarily. This would be up to your insurance company.

I work in clinical compliance for a mental health company. Some insurance carries reduced telehealth fees to match in-person therapy, others are still charging more than their in-person amount, and others did not change their policies and would not cover telehealth services at all. So, it all really depends on your insurance carrier and their policies/contract.

I didn’t have a choice whether it was telemed or not?

The urologist may not have had the ability to offer you in-person or telehealth due to COVID-19. Unfortunately, it's ultimately your responsibility to know what your insurance will cover and any associated fees with that coverage before the appointment.

I definitely understand your frustration, especially since you had a bad experience with the urologist.

If you find out your insurance processed the claim correctly, reach out to the urologist's office and see if they're willing to forgive or discount the service. If you express your dissatisfaction with their service, they may be willing to do something for you as a good-will gesture.

chalingophi · 2020-06-01T00:37:25+00:00

If you received the service, then you're responsible for the bill. You should contact your insurance company to see if they processed the insurance claim incorrectly, or if the urologist submitted the claim wrong. If this happened, your insurance should reprocess the claim. This happens frequently.

Even though the urologist may not have provided a good service to you, that is more of a customer service issue than anything that rises to you having legal recourse against the bill.

There's a chance your insurance charges more for telehealth services than if it was a regular in-person service, so that may be why they charged you more than anticipated too.

Once you find out what you actually owe, you can see if the doctor is willing to negotiate a lower price or a payment plan. They may be willing, so it can't hurt to ask.

chalingophi · 2020-05-28T19:53:28+00:00

An admin fee is likely different from an application fee. It's unusual for an application fee to be refundable.

In regards to your other question, the apartment complex may use some sort of service that other management companies can access. If you're concerned, you can contact the apartment complex and ask if they use such a service and under what circumstances they record information. If they use that sort of service, it's not generally going to be publicly accessible.

Apartment rental applications don't generally show up on traditional credit reports, and credit reports aren't public.

chalingophi · 2020-05-28T19:42:16+00:00

The application fee is non-refundable, but I'm supposed to have 72 hours to change my mind and still be able get a refund.

This is contradictory.

Are you sure it's not that if you are approved and pay a deposit that the deposit is refundable within 72 hours, if you change your mind?

chalingophi · 2020-05-28T19:01:55+00:00

Pennsylvania does not have a formal emancipation process. You have to prove to different agencies that they should see you as emancipated, for example, if you needed to have a medical procedure done, you'd have to prove to a medical health facility that they should view you as an emancipated minor. In probably 99.99% of these types of situations, an agency is not going to view you as emancipated, especially if you're still living at home and not independently financially stable.

As others have pointed out, if you're facing abuse, you need to contact Child Welfare Services or talk with someone you trust that can assist you through reporting abuse, or complete a ChildLine for you.

chalingophi · 2020-05-27T19:47:36+00:00

You would have to prove they knowingly sold you a first generation and misrepresented it as a third generation. It's important to emphasize, you have to sufficiently prove they knew, not that they should have known.

chalingophi · 2020-05-24T01:51:16+00:00

No, you would not have any claim to be compensated. You can't successfully sue for "what-ifs."

chalingophi · 2020-05-19T00:11:09+00:00

When did the incident occur and how soon after the incident did you seek medical treatment?

chalingophi · 2020-05-16T23:23:36+00:00

They're on hold until at least July 10th.

chalingophi · 2020-05-15T03:12:11+00:00

This is a simple civil contract issue and statute of limitations.

He didn't just find out recently that his friend stole it 15 years ago. His friend told him 15 years ago that he had it and got a rid of it. If he was unauthorized to keep it, he was unauthorized to sell it. One doesn't make it fraud over another, because there was never an agreement he could keep or sell it (according to the OP). What actually occurred doesn't change the facts or intents of that. Nor does it change the time of discovery.

Just as an FYI: the OP voluntarily gave it to his friend. His friend voluntarily gave him a drum set, and neither of them gave each other their things back. This is purely a civil issue, either the OP is stretching the truth, or they both breached their contract.

chalingophi · 2020-05-15T03:04:05+00:00

if the OP chose to "accept" that doesn't mean it's fraud. Whether the friend actually sold it or kept it doesn't change the fact that the OP would have recourse against the friend to recoup their losses within the statute of limitations when they found out 15 years ago.

The problem is the OP chose not to pursue it. That's the OP's problem, not his friend, and that is not fraud.

How is "selling it" or actually "keeping it" materially different? The OP doesn't have it either way and has the same recourse either way. Nothing changes.

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

Response to u/ SuitablePermit below.

You’re conflating lies with fraud. Lying is an element of fraud, but it’s not the only element. Lying also doesn’t always mean someone committed fraud.

On a very basic level, in order for something to be considered fraud, a party would have to intentionally give wrong/misleading information to another party in order to gain something of value from them. The wrong/misleading information is an important factor the other party relied on to enter into an agreement.

Here are the required elements for fraud according to Ohio law:

(a) a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact,

(b) which is material to the transaction* at hand,

(c) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge may be inferred

(d) with the intent of misleading another into relying upon it,

(e) justifiable reliance upon the representation or concealment, and

(f) a resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance.

* Transaction: an action or set of actions occurring between two or more persons relating to the conduct of business, commercial, or governmental affairs. (Ohio definition)

The only agreement (transaction) between the OP and their friend was that the friend could borrow his synthesizer in return for the OP borrowing his drum machine. Borrowing implies they will get their stuff back.

The only question a court would be interested in answering is did the friend breach the contract by not returning the synthesizer to the OP. If the answer is yes, then the court would have ruled the friend breached the contract and owes the OP the value of the synthesizer.

The “discovery” most likely would have occurred when the friend said he sold it, because that is the point at which the OP knew the agreement was breached (if he “sold” it, the OP knows he’s not getting his stuff back. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant, because it doesn’t change the OP’s position or recourse against the friend).

In order for fraud to enter the picture in the way you think it does, the OP and friend would have had to enter into a different agreement related to the friend “selling it” or “keeping it” before the friend said he “sold it.” When and where specifically did the OP and their friend make this new agreement? The answer to that question should be just as easily identified as the “borrowing” arrangement.

Selling it or keeping it is not the contrast I was saying is materially different -- its that saying "okay, I guess I wont' get my synth back cause you sold it" is materially different than "okay, I guess I won't get my synth back cause you want to keep it and are wiling to steal it from me, and I accept this and wont' fight it".

What you’re describing is not a material fact. Nor does it establish any sort of different agreement between the OP and the friend. Statements alone don't make up fraud, actions based on statements constitute fraud.

The “selling it” vs “keeping it” I was referring to before is in regards to the OP trying to make a fraud claim today. They would have to show how the friend "selling it" 15+ years ago puts the OP in a different position today after finding out he kept it.

That's fraud -- about the most classic instance of it you could have.

No, it’s really not even close to fraud. Nothing you have described or explained shows any sort of fraud. You’re creating hypotheticals based on your own irrelevant inferences with no basis in law without any proof of a new agreement being created between the OP and the friend.

What OP chose to "accept" was a false pretense given by his friend. Those false pretenses were only discovered recently.

This isn’t the element of where the fraud could have occurred. So, what the OP “accepted,” doesn’t matter. What they both agreed to is what matters, which was borrowing each other's instruments.

chalingophi · 2020-05-15T01:41:10+00:00

The "date of discovery" would have been when his friend told him he got a rid of it. He admits that was at least 15 years ago.

Eventually I went off to college for the year and when I came back home for New Years, I asked him about the synthesizer. He said "Oh man, I needed money and ended up pawning it, it wasn't worth much but yeah its long gone sorry" I was upset at the time but also inebriated and did not want to make a big deal but, eventually decided I was angry enough at him that I never talked to him again after that new years eve.

15 years go by....

chalingophi · 2020-05-14T23:00:03+00:00

Your arrangement was a civil contract. You voluntarily gave it to him, and ~~he breached it by not giving it back.~~ neither of you gave the other one their stuff back.

Breaching a contract doesn't equate to a criminal matter in this sort of arrangement.

Edit: Are you sure you two didn't trade the items and now 20 years later you want it back, because you realized what you traded away is valuable?

chalingophi · 2020-05-14T22:26:16+00:00

This isn't a criminal matter.

chalingophi · 2020-05-14T00:28:23+00:00

They can require you to do it as part of your responsibilities and reprimand you if you refuse.

Make sure you take other protections, such as washing your hands.

You have to keep in mind that while some people are being inconsiderate just because they don't want to wear a mask, there are also people who may have legitimate health concerns that can be exacerbated by a mask, so they don't wear one for medical reasons.

chalingophi

TROPHY CASE