Suppose you’re going to court docket to evict a non-paying tenant. This must be a no brainer. However on this case, the tenant had a countersuit, claiming the home wants repairs. Be careful!We had a current case like this. This was an older home and did want some issues carried out to it. However the situation of the home was acceptable to the tenant upon move-in, as was so indicated on the stock. 4 months after move-in, the tenant stopped paying lease. He didn’t have a job, and had no cash. We despatched him the demand for possession and he wrote a letter again suggesting that we apply his safety deposit to the lease, which we are going to by no means do. Additionally, in his letter he listed some dozen upkeep points. Most of them had been both false or gross exaggerations. Clearly, he was attempting to mitigate the truth that he was in breach of contract for nonpayment of lease. This overused tactic seldom works, and most judges see by it. However, in good religion, we tried to deal with among the respectable points. He made it troublesome for the seller to entry the property, so we received little or no completed earlier than the court docket date.In court docket the whole lot seemed prefer it was going our approach, the road of questioning that decide took appeared proper alongside the traces I might have anticipated. Within the tenant’s counter-suite he moved for consideration for the worth of stolen private property. The decide denied that movement as a result of there was no proof submitted and the decide didn’t assume the owner was accountable for the tenant’s stolen property anyway. Every little thing appeared in place for a judgment for the plaintiff. Surprisingly, whereas we did get the writ of possession, we didn’t get a cash judgment for the again lease. The decide decided the situation of the property to have diminished the worth of the lease. How he determined how a lot that quantity must be is past my understanding.I believe I may have argued this protection if I had perceived the route that the decide was taking. However I didn’t. It was not till after he gave his judgment that I noticed what he was pondering. He gave no indication in anyway in his questioning, and the tenant didn’t transfer for this protection.So what is the lesson realized? As a landlord, if a counter-suite is made regarding upkeep and repairs, don’t assume that the decide is with you on it, make your case for why there isn’t any case for a declare of diminished worth, even when this isn’t asserted as an affirmative protection by the tenant. If the decide doesn’t assume your argument is related, he’ll cease you earlier than you get too long-winded. However the lesson I realized is to by no means depart a query of diminished worth on the desk ever once more.
