Forcible Entry and Detainer - Can apt/CA collect after court ruling?

[Anonymous]

Hello all,

I have had some money issues and a forcible entry and detainer was issued in smail claims. I did not get this notice and was not able to appear in court. HOWEVER, the court document states that it grants the plantiff "possession of property only" and the judged crossed out the amounts my apartments were asking for and stated the only thing they were granted was possession of property. If anyone would like to see the court image, I will provide it in a PM if you are 1) serious about answering 2) confused by my statements herein.

Can they take what the judge said they couldn't have in court and turn it over to a collection agency?

I just got a letter that states I owe the apartments 1900.00(the original court amount they asked for was like 900.00 plus court costs).

Please let me know! Thanks,

Brandon

[AndySoCal]

No a collection agency cannot overrule a judge. I would send the collection agency a copy of the judges decision highlighting the appropiate information. They have no legal basis to collect a dime. If they that does not stop the issue I would seek a legal remedy.

[Anonymous]

Just because the judge did not grant a judgement for the rent does not mean they may not seek to collect it.

It sounds like the judge ordered the eviction but did not order a judgement for rent.  But unless the judge ordered the rent amount to be set aside, there isn't anything preventing them from going after it.

They may have failed to file the suit for delinquency in addition to the suit for forcible detainer and the judge would not grant the rent under the forcible detainer action, meaning they would have to file separate suit or go to collections for the rent. 

It just depends on what the judge actually ordered.  Not granting a judgement does not mean he said they cannot pursue it.  If they sued for rent and it was dismissed with prejudice, then this would possibly be in your favor. 

[Anonymous]

I would have to agree here. They went after past due rent, the judge specifially crossed that off the "decree" and said they get possession only. That would be like me suing you for $100.00 you owed me for a personal loan, losing the case, and then turning you into a collection agency. It seems the court has already ruled this is not a valid debt. Anyone agree or disagree?

[Anonymous]

txjohn,

It wasn't granting anything or giving anything special. They asked for it and were denied it. It would seem to me since they asked for past due rent WITH the forcible entry and detainer that this ruling would cover BOTH aspects, especially seeing as how she ruled in their favor of making me leave, but in my favor of not owing any backdue rent. But yes, they did sue for rent and court costs, and it was denied.

Any ideas here? It really sounds like I do not owe this. I am not trying to skate free of my duties, but at the same time, I only stayed there one month after getting my notice I was late on rent. I was laid off from my position at work, etc etc.

[Jazzzy]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

txjohn,

It wasn't granting anything or giving anything special. They asked for it and were denied it. It would seem to me since they asked for past due rent WITH the forcible entry and detainer that this ruling would cover BOTH aspects, especially seeing as how she ruled in their favor of making me leave, but in my favor of not owing any backdue rent. But yes, they did sue for rent and court costs, and it was denied.

Any ideas here? It really sounds like I do not owe this. I am not trying to skate free of my duties, but at the same time, I only stayed there one month after getting my notice I was late on rent. I was laid off from my position at work, etc etc.

---

So...you do owe them rent? If you are not "trying to skate free of your duties"......??? I'm confused by your statement.

When I had to evict a tenant, I did the eviction first and then went after the judgment for rent after they were gone. I did this because the tenant usually left the unit in a mess. I then sued for the entire amount...rent, damages, cleaning, lost rent if they broke a lease, etc.

If there is a way you can clear this up now, that will make for an easier path for you going forward. Paying the amounts due now may be less painful than fighting this for years and having it dog your credit. I doubt the judge said they can't come after you for further damages. You may want to contact them about paying a minimal amount each month. If former tenants could pay me past due rent/damages at say $50/month, I always let them do that, and we both went away happy.

If you can make this whole, don't let a short-term situation cause you long-term grief.

[Anonymous]

---

@LynetteM wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

txjohn,

It wasn't granting anything or giving anything special. They asked for it and were denied it. It would seem to me since they asked for past due rent WITH the forcible entry and detainer that this ruling would cover BOTH aspects, especially seeing as how she ruled in their favor of making me leave, but in my favor of not owing any backdue rent. But yes, they did sue for rent and court costs, and it was denied.

Any ideas here? It really sounds like I do not owe this. I am not trying to skate free of my duties, but at the same time, I only stayed there one month after getting my notice I was late on rent. I was laid off from my position at work, etc etc.

---

So...you do owe them rent? If you are not "trying to skate free of your duties"......??? I'm confused by your statement.

When I had to evict a tenant, I did the eviction first and then went after the judgment for rent after they were gone. I did this because the tenant usually left the unit in a mess. I then sued for the entire amount...rent, damages, cleaning, lost rent if they broke a lease, etc.

If there is a way you can clear this up now, that will make for an easier path for you going forward. Paying the amounts due now may be less painful than fighting this for years and having it dog your credit. I doubt the judge said they can't come after you for further damages. You may want to contact them about paying a minimal amount each month. If former tenants could pay me past due rent/damages at say $50/month, I always let them do that, and we both went away happy.

If you can make this whole, don't let a short-term situation cause you long-term grief.

---

This is a little biased in my opinion, as you are a landlord and are trying to fill the shoes of the company coming after me. There was a month of rent owed to them, HOWEVER, the court has ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the property management ONLY is granted possession of the property; their request for past due rent was stricken. So, I do NOT owe them rent any longer according to the court of law. Believe it or not, landlords and management companies screw you out of so much money with their confusing leases they prey on desperate people. While you may not perform this practice, it is not different in my opinion than what mortgage companies, credit card companies, etc do only a daily basis to prey upon the vulnerable. Put yourself in a time where you where taken advantage of in a situation and try to understand where I am coming from as a person, not a landlord. I do appreciate everyone's valuable input, however, with your references to your tenants and how you handle them, it is clearly a biased one.

[Anonymous]

I trust everyone here with my personal information, and as such, I would like to share the actual case with you, so you can better make an informed opinion. For your review, visit the following link on OSCN(Oklahoma Supreme Court Network):

http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&...

At the bottom, you have the option of viewing/downloading the image that the judge signed ordering possession and denying any rent or past due rent to the plantiff.

[Jazzzy]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

This is a little biased in my opinion, as you are a landlord and are trying to fill the shoes of the company coming after me. There was a month of rent owed to them, HOWEVER, the court has ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the property management ONLY is granted possession of the property; their request for past due rent was stricken. So, I do NOT owe them rent any longer according to the court of law. Believe it or not, landlords and management companies screw you out of so much money with their confusing leases they prey on desperate people. While you may not perform this practice, it is not different in my opinion than what mortgage companies, credit card companies, etc do only a daily basis to prey upon the vulnerable. Put yourself in a time where you where taken advantage of in a situation and try to understand where I am coming from as a person, not a landlord. I do appreciate everyone's valuable input, however, with your references to your tenants and how you handle them, it is clearly a biased one.

---

I knew I would likely come off sounding that way, and I debated whether or not it was worth trying to help. I speak from the experience of seeing these issues dog former tenants for years. It's not unusual for me to get a call from a former tenant telling me that I need to get an old judgment off their record....because they are trying to buy a home, or a car, or a motorcycle, etc. I tell them that I will be more than glad to do that, as soon as it is paid. Most of these judgments eventually get paid.

I'm certainly not trying to fill the shoes of the company coming after you. I don't know all the details.

I honestly was confused by your statement that you weren't trying to dodge your responsibility, but that you apparently owe a month's rent. Those two statements didn't reconcile.

I truly wish you luck in your future endeavors. I'm not a big company....we are mom-and-pop landlords. I attempted only to bring another perspective to the conversation that may or may not become your reality. Sorry if I offended you.

[Anonymous]

coerciondotde, I've got to agree with both txjohn and LynetteM.  The fact that a portion of the complaint was stricken does not mean it was adjudicated in your favor.  It is what it is, stricken.  That's it...no more, no less.

Advice on these boards come from people of various backgrounds and experience, including real estate.  While you may view LynetteM's comments as biased because she owns rental properties, others may view them as insightful, emanating from practical and ongoing experience in renting to tenants.

What she is suggesting is that you investigate this now, and handle it now if it needs handling, to avoid years of credit problems down the road. 

That's sound advice, because the fact is that you are not sure whether or not you are off the hook, legally speaking.   You believe you are, so why not go the extra distance and know for sure, one way or the other?  You'll have peace-of-mind if you are off the hook; you'll have a jump on heading off problems if you're not off the hook.  Either way, finding out for sure is the best thing for you right now.

Whatever you do or don't do from here on in doesn't effect anyone here but you, and you alone will decide what course you'll take.  Sometimes, though, it's nice to get a look at someone else's map from that trip they've already been on.

Good luck with everything, I hope it all works out for you.