ExtortedinNJ
New Member
Hi all,
I'm in NJ, and we recently moved out of our apartment. During our final walkthrough our landlord was satisfied with the condition of the house and gave us back our full security deposits. Now three weeks later, he has returned and is saying there is odor caused by our cats and wants us to pay for the damages. We left the place in sparkling condition and we did not detect any odor at all.
Initially we refused. When he responded he said that he "proof" that the place was tainted because he once took pictures of one of our dirty cat boxes, implying that they then urinated over the rest of the house. He also insists on having several witnesses that the place still smells, including the new tenants and his handyman. He said that he tried to clean the place, and instead decided to repaint the whole apartment. He sent us the bill for approximately $700 and said that if we paid it, he would settle and drop any potential charges. He did supply records of payment to the painting company, for work and supplies. He also insists there are several other charges that he will not be charging us for if we settle soon.
We're not entirely sure what to do. The whole situation sounds like he's trying to extort us to pay for the apartment's new paint job. The language he used sounded like a debt collector (I can post the e-mail, if necessary), he began threatening to start garnishing our wages, as it we are unaware that small claims court exists and that we can fight it.
Anyway, I know the burden of proof is on him. He insists the damages are "hidden" but we do not believe any damage was actually caused, and that any methods he's taken to clean the place are excessive anyway. The fact that he's backpedaling on the security deposit issue is also very shifty. I can't find any legal precedence for a case like this since the deposit was returned. Does anyone have any advice? We are going to be taking to a lawyer tomorrow to see where we might stand. I'm also reticent to not hand out the $700 he's requesting, not only out of principle, but because he might potentially just take it and try to sue anyway.
I'm in NJ, and we recently moved out of our apartment. During our final walkthrough our landlord was satisfied with the condition of the house and gave us back our full security deposits. Now three weeks later, he has returned and is saying there is odor caused by our cats and wants us to pay for the damages. We left the place in sparkling condition and we did not detect any odor at all.
Initially we refused. When he responded he said that he "proof" that the place was tainted because he once took pictures of one of our dirty cat boxes, implying that they then urinated over the rest of the house. He also insists on having several witnesses that the place still smells, including the new tenants and his handyman. He said that he tried to clean the place, and instead decided to repaint the whole apartment. He sent us the bill for approximately $700 and said that if we paid it, he would settle and drop any potential charges. He did supply records of payment to the painting company, for work and supplies. He also insists there are several other charges that he will not be charging us for if we settle soon.
We're not entirely sure what to do. The whole situation sounds like he's trying to extort us to pay for the apartment's new paint job. The language he used sounded like a debt collector (I can post the e-mail, if necessary), he began threatening to start garnishing our wages, as it we are unaware that small claims court exists and that we can fight it.
Anyway, I know the burden of proof is on him. He insists the damages are "hidden" but we do not believe any damage was actually caused, and that any methods he's taken to clean the place are excessive anyway. The fact that he's backpedaling on the security deposit issue is also very shifty. I can't find any legal precedence for a case like this since the deposit was returned. Does anyone have any advice? We are going to be taking to a lawyer tomorrow to see where we might stand. I'm also reticent to not hand out the $700 he's requesting, not only out of principle, but because he might potentially just take it and try to sue anyway.
