All Forum Posts by: Stewart McMillan

@Matthew Olszak Thanks I've spoken with a few attorneys. One said to just walk away, that an eviction will be too lengthy and expensive, and one said to send 5 day notice but also be amicable and offer reasonable outcomes to the tenants. The problem is they sunk money into the attorney. 

We'll see what happens. The moment they pay rent, I lose all my leverage. 

Thanks @Matthew Olszak, they have me dead to rights on the CRLTO violation, but just applying pressure with a 5-day notice while also sending them emails with generous offers (though not as generous as the CRLTO penalty). From what I hear, they like the building they're in so I've also offered to be a solid reference for them if we settle for a reasonable outcome.

If a check showed up in the mail tomorrow, I'd be screwed, but as long they withhold rent I'll continue to steer towards a better outcome with a carrot/stick approach.

@Aaron Mazzrillo agree with your approach, and I've offered that, I've even offered to update appliacnces or make other superficial improvements to make them happy, but they're being opportunistic. I don't blame them. Easy money.

@Jay Hinrichs I should have mentioned they have a valid claim on a Chicago ordinance technicality, and they could absolutely get out of their lease. 

The weird thing is they haven't taken any formal action to break the lease and they're 25 days late on rent now.

@Rich V. I really like the drink/honest approach but unfortunately I'm out-of-state. I've received a settlement offer from their attorney. 

It's definitely not an empty threat as they have a valid claim on a Chicago ordinance technicality (the dreaded 2x security deposit penalty). But they're risking eviction which would wipe out their gain from the penalty. They've made a few technical mistakes, one before they hired an attorney, but another one afterwards which has actually given me some leverage.

@Account Closed I can't say that the attorney has a bad reputation, but there's very little information about her online despite the fact that she's been practicing for at least 10 years (solo practice). Her LinkedIn profile is filled out but no picture and she has zero followers. Literally zero.

I'm in the middle of a dispute with some tenants. The building's manager, whom I've known and worked with for 7 years, says that these tenants seem nice/normal and she hasn't had any problems with them.

Unfortunately these seemingly nice tenants have been withholding rent after a minor dispute and now they are trying to sue me.

As of now they are at risk of being evicted. (5-day notice is on the way)

They have good jobs, good background checks, references, etc. They seem like people that would not want to have an eviction on their record. I understand why deadbeats willingly go along with an eviction, but I can't understand why an attorney would advise the route they're taking.

I want to tell them that they should be skeptical of their attorney's advice because he/she might be doling out self-serving counsel. The attorney has very little to no reputation in Chicago. Every attorney I speak with says "WHO??".

If I cast doubt on my tenants' attorney, would there be any potential legal consequences?

Thanks!

@Jack B. just a quick clarification. It was my fault the power was turned off, so completely understand this would be upsetting for tenants. Tried to restore power quickly but ComEd wouldn't open a new account over the weekend. Just an all-around cluster, but I acknowledge that the fault was mine. 

I made it clear to tenants that they would be reimbursed for hotel expenses, but they kept withholding rent despite the fact that the situation was resolved as quickly as circumstances would allow. They had no power for three days all in. They could have gone to a hotel, but it seems as if they opted not to because they never provided receipts. Despite this, I continued to offer them $150/day which is more than prorated rent ($1850/mo).

Sounds like a horrible situation for you last summer, good for you for holding your ground. Very frustrating when the tenants aren't able to reason through situations in a logical way, but that's probably expecting too much.

Overall I had a very good, easy run as a landlord over the course of 7 years, I got complacent and let my standards drop for tenants - recently it's been much harder to find good tenants in South Loop. So it's very likely I'm going to get burned for the 2x deposit penalty. Outcome still tbd of course, will update as things progress.

@Nicholas W. the tenants stated that they had heat. They may have been wrong. Anyways, I think the point was the power outage did not put them in serious danger and I offered to put them up in a hotel.

@Brad Weiner, @Drew Millard, @John Casmon and @Eric S. Interested to hear your take on this scenario:

I have a tenant that's behind on rent, has 4 months left in their lease term, and has hired an attorney to go after their security deposit plus the 2x penalty for not following RLTO guidelines.

Can a tenant do this before their lease term ends while they are behind on rent?

I always return security deposits with the appropriate interest, but I haven't provided receipts of security deposits. I will certainly do so in the future.

Thanks @Lumi Ispas, they responded with an offer for $3k, but the attorney was unwilling to add language regarding the condition of the unit, i.e. they won't guarantee there isn't damage beyond normal wear and tear. 

Additionally, one thing that's been bothering me, and I'm interested to hear Chicagoans' takes on this, is that technically these tenants have not terminated their lease. The RLTO states:

The tenants sent a notice of intent to vacate 24 hours after they notified me of the power outage. According the RLTO section above, this was too early. Additionally, the language in their letter made no mention of termination of lease, only that they would be leaving the apt on 5/31. They have not sent me any formal termination of the lease, so technically the lease is still active, correct?

If the lease hasn't expired, then what gives them the right to pursue their security deposit? Granted, I did not hold funds in a separate account, but it appears that's a moot point if I return the security deposit in a timely manner with interest. See RLTO section below.

I'm taking "subject to correcting a deficient amount of interest paid" to mean "in the event that the landlord doesn't return the deposit with enough interest". 

I think it's easy to pile on and focus on the obvious errors I've made, but it seems the tenants made some errors as well. Also keep in mind that I offered to put tenants up in hotel, pay for groceries, etc. The unit's heating is forced air, so they had heat. By all indications they stayed in the unit, but I was still happy to reimburse them for more than prorated rent because I was appalled at my mistake.

@Brie Schmidt and @Jeff Burdick please poke holes in my RLTO argument, I've been spending too much time on this and wouldn't mind just settling, but I wonder if I can, at the very least, negotiate down further after citing these mistakes to the attorney and the tenants. 

Thanks @Ronan M., your earlier post motivated me to do some more homework on this.

I can only speculate, but I imagine their attorney just asked them if I had followed CRLTO's guidelines for security deposits. 

It seems like when you google anything involving security deposits in Chicago, the top results are law offices that essentially coach tenants on how to go after their 2x security deposit penalty. 

My tenants said they wanted to treat their security deposit as May rent. I said they can't do that. They probably googled "security deposit chicago", read a few of the results, then the light bulb goes off.