Wow, I'm getting screwed...pls help

[dhc905]

Quick rundown of what happened.

I have two A/C units in my windows. The landlord sent around a memo a while ago saying that in order to have an A/C unit, an additional $300 charge was necessary. I felt this was both unfair and not right considering that the landlord pays all utilities. So I didn't pay.

A couple weeks ago we noticed some water damage that happened to be underneath one of my A/C units. We removed the A/C unit for a week and there was still water coming out of the wall (suggesting it wasn't the A/C unit that was causing the problem). So we call the maintaince people and tell them of the problem. They come, look at it, and say they'll come back later.

Well later was today. Both my roommate and I were out of the apartment and the landlord comes in (keep in mind this is unannounced), observes our A/C units (both of which were turned off/unplugged), confiscates them and leaves nasty messages saying we're going to be charged the $300 energy fee PLUS pay for the water damage.

My thoughts on the matter are this, and if a sharp legal mind could make a counter-point I'm all ears.

1.) The landlord can't come into my apartment unannounced whenever she feels like it.

2.) She can't take my ****, even though it's against their made-up rules (i.e. post lease signing)

3.) She can't charge me for the water damage.

4.) The A/C's weren't running when she took them/saw them so I wasn't breaking any rules ANYWAY.

5.) All in all, this seems like an illegal search and seizure of something that wasn't even illegal in the first place.

If it matters for case law or a different set of tenant laws, I'm in Evanston, IL.

Please help - I'm looking at upwards of $600 worth of damages, which is $600 I won't have to buy your **** on here

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by dhc905

Quick rundown of what happened.

I have two A/C units in my windows. The landlord sent around a memo a while ago saying that in order to have an A/C unit, an additional $300 charge was necessary. I felt this was both unfair and not right considering that the landlord pays all utilities. So I didn't pay.

A couple weeks ago we noticed some water damage that happened to be underneath one of my A/C units. We removed the A/C unit for a week and there was still water coming out of the wall (suggesting it wasn't the A/C unit that was causing the problem). So we call the maintaince people and tell them of the problem. They come, look at it, and say they'll come back later.

Well later was today. Both my roommate and I were out of the apartment and the landlord comes in (keep in mind this is unannounced), observes our A/C units (both of which were turned off/unplugged), confiscates them and leaves nasty messages saying we're going to be charged the $300 energy fee PLUS pay for the water damage.

My thoughts on the matter are this, and if a sharp legal mind could make a counter-point I'm all ears.

1.) The landlord can't come into my apartment unannounced whenever she feels like it.

2.) She can't take my ****, even though it's against their made-up rules (i.e. post lease signing)

3.) She can't charge me for the water damage.

4.) The A/C's weren't running when she took them/saw them so I wasn't breaking any rules ANYWAY.

5.) All in all, this seems like an illegal search and seizure of something that wasn't even illegal in the first place.

If it matters for case law or a different set of tenant laws, I'm in Evanston, IL.

Please help - I'm looking at upwards of $600 worth of damages, which is $600 I won't have to buy your **** on here

Your lease may describe the circumstances in which the landlord can enter the apartment. If you asked to have the maintenance people come in, you may have effectively given consent, depending on what exactly was said. She can't take your a/c's and has to give them back. If not, it's theft. She can charge you for the water damage if it's your fault. Whether or not it's your fault is a matter of proof/opinion. Your point #4 is BS. Obviously, you had them because you were using them. That doesn't give her the right to "confiscate" them, but don't piss away your credibility claiming you just bought them to use as ottomans.

I'm not sure why you think the fact that the landlord pays the utilities makes it inappropriate to impose an extra charge for air conditioners (although $300 per month seems high). Presumably, the fact that the landlord pays all utilities is the reason for the extra charge. The landlord has agreed to pay the utilities based on the set-up of the apartment when you moved in. If you're hooking up a/c and running it a lot, you're going to be jacking up the utility bill way higher than would be normal. It's reasonable to expect you to shoulder some or all of that extra cost. Obviously, though, what if anything your lease says may be relevant. If you had a problem with it, there were a variety of options available to you (move out, negotiate the issue with the landlord, etc.) Just blowing it off and hoping you didn't get caught is pretty lame, and I don't think you have legitimate grounds for whining about getting caught.

Not a legal opinion, just my two cents.

 

[EL72]

Landlord should return your ACs but you can't just decide not to pay the $300 because you deemed it unfair. I recommend you read the terms of your lease agreement closely. As for entering your place, the landlord must notify you in advance and obtain your consent but it seems you let the guys in and agreed they could come back later.

 

[dhc905]

Well said, lawyerdad.

As for shouldering the costs of A/C's I don't think that I should have to. The landlord, signing a 1 year lease should know, and build in, the extra cost that is associated with heating and cooling the apartment. The heating is central, so they obviously build that cost into my rent, so why should they not build the cooling aspect as well?

As for point 4, I know enough to know that the law isn't about what's right, it's about what's just. But I won't go pissing credibility, nor hitching my arguement on that point.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up. At the very least I'll get my A/C's back.

 

[dhc905]

Originally Posted by EL72

Landlord should return your ACs but you can't just decide not to pay the $300 because you deemed it unfair. I recommend you read the terms of your lease agreement closely. As for entering your place, the landlord must notify you in advance and obtain your consent but it seems you let the guys in and agreed they could come back later.

I did say they could come back later, but (and this is probably where the law is behaving justly, but unfairly this time against me) shouldn't that mean they can come back and enter, again with my consent?

 

[EL72]

Originally Posted by dhc905

I did say they could come back later, but (and this is probably where the law is behaving justly, but unfairly this time against me) shouldn't that mean they can come back and enter, again with my consent?

They say: we'll come back tomorrow + you say: fine = consent.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by dhc905

Well said, lawyerdad.

As for shouldering the costs of A/C's I don't think that I should have to. The landlord, signing a 1 year lease should know, and build in, the extra cost that is associated with heating and cooling the apartment. The heating is central, so they obviously build that cost into my rent, so why should they not build the cooling aspect as well?

.

In my (limited) experience, when the landlord is paying utilities there's usually something in the lease hooking up extra appliances, etc. If there's nothing in your lease that's a significant oversight on your landlord's part.

But yeah, you should definitely get your A/C's back.

 

[Pennglock]

I would try to leverage the fact that she took your property to get out of paying the surcharce. Tell her you're willing to put the problem of the stolen property behind you, but she's going to have to forget about the surcharge...

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by dhc905

I did say they could come back later, but (and this is probably where the law is behaving justly, but unfairly this time against me) shouldn't that mean they can come back and enter, again with my consent?

It probably would depend on what exactly was said (and what people claim was said). But ultimately I don't think it matters. Most jurisdictions afaik do not have in this context an analogue to the "exclusionary rule" of criminal law, so whether or not they entered without your consent is unlikely to make much difference if you get into a fight about whether you owe them the $300 (may depend on what your lease says) and whether you owe them for water damage (obviously depends on what caused the damage).

 

[Baron]

I'm a landlord in TX and we prohibit tenants from using window units in our apartments. There are many factors at play, but the water dripping issue is one factor, the extra load on the electrical system is another - not just the added cost, but the potential for line failure due to loads that are higher than the system was designed to carry. This actually just happened at one of my properties earlier this year - there was a short in a panel box that led to power failure in about 30 units. Older properties (built in the 60's or 70's or older) weren't designed with all the gagdets and appliances we use today - look at how many plugs come out of a typical home entertainment cluster (tv, tivo, dvd, cable box, a few stereo components, video game system, etc.)

Lawyerdad summed up the situation pretty well. They can't take your A/C's, you owe the $300 (it's a one time charge, correct?) and you gave consent for entry to your apt. when you sent in a maintenance request. If you moved into an apartment without a/c, you can't presume that the landlord has to shoulder the cost of providing it. The opposite is true.

For the record, I do provide AC to all my tenants, but people in TX are demented and they will stick a window unit in every room if they could in order to bring the temperture in their aparments down to 40 degrees, the same temperature it is in all the local movie theaters and malls. This is only true in cases where I pay the utilities, not surprisingly. In buildings where tenants pay, they tend to magically become more practical about their energy use.

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by dhc905

5.) All in all, this seems like an illegal search and seizure of something that wasn't even illegal in the first place.

If it matters for case law or a different set of tenant laws, I'm in Evanston, IL.

I fully agree with lawyerdad, and add one thing that is insignificant to your argument. Illegal searches and seizures implicate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects the people from illegal searches and seizures at the hands of the government. So, to challenge a search and seizure as being in violation of the Fourth Amendment you need to show two things: 1) that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing seized or place searched; and 2) that there was government action. Clearly, you have a privacy interest in your A/C units. There was not, however, any governmental action when your landlord snagged your A/C units, unless the cops had her snag the A/C units for them. But, of course, that's not the case.
As far as researching the law, I'm sure you could pop in Northwestern's law library and search through applicable statutes yourself. You could probably find a librarian that would show you where to look.

 

[DNW]

Originally Posted by Brad

I fully agree with lawyerdad, and add one thing that is insignificant to your argument. Illegal searches and seizures implicate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects the people from illegal searches and seizures at the hands of the government. So, to challenge a search and seizure as being in violation of the Fourth Amendment you need to show two things: 1) that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing seized or place searched; and 2) that there was government action. Clearly, you have a privacy interest in your A/C units. There was not, however, any governmental action when your landlord snagged your A/C units, unless the cops had her snag the A/C units for them. But, of course, that's not the case.
As far as researching the law, I'm sure you could pop in Northwestern's law library and search through applicable statutes yourself. You could probably find a librarian that would show you where to look.

You sound like you've just taken a bar exam.

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

You sound like you've just taken a bar exam.

LOL, yeah, this is what my life has been reduced to. I have to admit, I think Crimimal Procedure is pretty fascinating.

 

[dhc905]

I knew it was at the hands of the government, but if you really want to be technical, I think it's still an illegal search and seizure (i.e. robbery), I didn't pull a 4th

. Anyway, they brought back my AC's (which, being an environmentally conscious person, are usually off unless it's unbearably hot) and I haven't heard from them since. I guess maybe they have more important things to do with their time, hahaha

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by dhc905

I knew it was at the hands of the government, but if you really want to be technical, I think it's still an illegal search and seizure (i.e. robbery), I didn't pull a 4th

.

Anyway, they brought back my AC's (which, being an environmentally conscious person, are usually off unless it's unbearably hot) and I haven't heard from them since. I guess maybe they have more important things to do with their time, hahaha

Well, I'm glad she brought back your A/C units.

I don't mean to be a dick, but to be technical, "illegal search and seizure" is a legal term of art. You can't really discuss illegal searches and seizures without discussing the Fourth Amendment. Even then, illegal searches and seizures are only those where the cops don't have a valid warrant, or can't fit their behavior into one of the six exceptions to the warrant requirement.

What your landlord did by taking your A/Cs could most likely be classified as larceny (i.e. theft), or maybe burglary, but I serisouly doubt it (if she did not have permission under the lease to enter your apartment or you did not consent, and she intended/planned to commit a felony before inside then it may be burglary). It was most likely not robbery, robbery usually requires some use of force, or threat of force directed at the person of another and then an accompanying larceny. It may be a tort for conversion, but she gave them back and that would probably not amount to such an unreasonable interference with your property so as to make her pay full replacement value. Or it was trespass to chattels, which requires a far less invasive interference with another's personal property to recover.

None of this is legal advice and it should not be taken as such, it's just when you start throwing around terms of art, it helps to know what they mean.