I need legal advise (civil matter)

[JSD]

Did the girlfriend ever have any discussions about renting the place with you?  Were there any annotations on her check?  Was it made out to you, to her boyfriend (signed over to you), or to cash?

Yes, She visited with Steve and posted on my facebook "it was great seeing you guys! I can't wait to move in" (which I screen printed and saved to my desktop as a Jpeg). She wrote the check out to me.

If he was clever (rather than just sleazy) he'd say that the lease was to be for a year, but you guys couldn't agree on terms.  No, that's not true, but if he claimed it (with no way for you to dispute it) it puts the judge in a tough situation, as generally leases for a year or more have to be in writing.  State law can vary, but it's a pretty strong defense.

I suppose that could be a difficult obstacle to get around. But why would he give me a check if an agreement wasn't reached?

[Moranis]

If he was clever (rather than just sleazy) he'd say that the lease was to be for a year, but you guys couldn't agree on terms.  No, that's not true, but if he claimed it (with no way for you to dispute it) it puts the judge in a tough situation, as generally leases for a year or more have to be in writing.  State law can vary, but it's a pretty strong defense.

I suppose that could be a difficult obstacle to get around. But why would he give me a check if an agreement wasn't reached?

Roy's point is that any lease over a year has to be in writing or it isn't valid (that is pretty much the law in every state in the country).  If the lease isn't valid then you can't rely on that and have to go into equity, which is much more difficult to prove and the damages are different.

[Roy Hobbs]

If he was clever (rather than just sleazy) he'd say that the lease was to be for a year, but you guys couldn't agree on terms.  No, that's not true, but if he claimed it (with no way for you to dispute it) it puts the judge in a tough situation, as generally leases for a year or more have to be in writing.  State law can vary, but it's a pretty strong defense.

I suppose that could be a difficult obstacle to get around. But why would he give me a check if an agreement wasn't reached?

Roy's point is that any lease over a year has to be in writing or it isn't valid (that is pretty much the law in every state in the country).  If the lease isn't valid then you can't rely on that and have to go into equity, which is much more difficult to prove and the damages are different.

Right.  Now, the court could convert the annual lease into a month-to-month lease, I suppose.  It's simply something to ponder.

Keep in mind that I'm not a landlord-tenant attorney, and that none of this is offered as legal advice.  Rather, consider it me thinking out loud.

[JSD]

If he was clever (rather than just sleazy) he'd say that the lease was to be for a year, but you guys couldn't agree on terms.  No, that's not true, but if he claimed it (with no way for you to dispute it) it puts the judge in a tough situation, as generally leases for a year or more have to be in writing.  State law can vary, but it's a pretty strong defense.

I suppose that could be a difficult obstacle to get around. But why would he give me a check if an agreement wasn't reached?

Roy's point is that any lease over a year has to be in writing or it isn't valid (that is pretty much the law in every state in the country).  If the lease isn't valid then you can't rely on that and have to go into equity, which is much more difficult to prove and the damages are different.

Right.  Now, the court could convert the annual lease into a month-to-month lease, I suppose.  It's simply something to ponder.

Keep in mind that I'm not a landlord-tenant attorney, and that none of this is offered as legal advice.  Rather, consider it me thinking out loud.

Annual lease? we never had a lease it was a month by month arrangement that he backed out of out of nowhere. So are you guys telling me I don't have a strong case?

[JSD]

Also, who would I be going after in this case? Steve, his girlfriend or both?

[Moranis]

If he was clever (rather than just sleazy) he'd say that the lease was to be for a year, but you guys couldn't agree on terms.  No, that's not true, but if he claimed it (with no way for you to dispute it) it puts the judge in a tough situation, as generally leases for a year or more have to be in writing.  State law can vary, but it's a pretty strong defense.

I suppose that could be a difficult obstacle to get around. But why would he give me a check if an agreement wasn't reached?

Roy's point is that any lease over a year has to be in writing or it isn't valid (that is pretty much the law in every state in the country).  If the lease isn't valid then you can't rely on that and have to go into equity, which is much more difficult to prove and the damages are different.

Right.  Now, the court could convert the annual lease into a month-to-month lease, I suppose.  It's simply something to ponder.

Keep in mind that I'm not a landlord-tenant attorney, and that none of this is offered as legal advice.  Rather, consider it me thinking out loud.

Annual lease? we never had a lease it was a month by month arrangement that he backed out of out of nowhere. So are you guys telling me I don't have a strong case?

No, what Roy was telling you that is if this guy did some research he could argue the agreement was for a year, but you couldn't reach terms, and thus he could back out since leases of a year or longer have to be in writing.

As to who you would sue, you would need to sue both your friend and his girlfriend.

[indeedproceed]

If he was clever (rather than just sleazy) he'd say that the lease was to be for a year, but you guys couldn't agree on terms.  No, that's not true, but if he claimed it (with no way for you to dispute it) it puts the judge in a tough situation, as generally leases for a year or more have to be in writing.  State law can vary, but it's a pretty strong defense.

I suppose that could be a difficult obstacle to get around. But why would he give me a check if an agreement wasn't reached?

Roy's point is that any lease over a year has to be in writing or it isn't valid (that is pretty much the law in every state in the country).  If the lease isn't valid then you can't rely on that and have to go into equity, which is much more difficult to prove and the damages are different.

Right.  Now, the court could convert the annual lease into a month-to-month lease, I suppose.  It's simply something to ponder.

Keep in mind that I'm not a landlord-tenant attorney, and that none of this is offered as legal advice.  Rather, consider it me thinking out loud.

Annual lease? we never had a lease it was a month by month arrangement that he backed out of out of nowhere. So are you guys telling me I don't have a strong case?

No, what Roy was telling you that is if this guy did some research he could argue the agreement was for a year, but you couldn't reach terms, and thus he could back out since leases of a year or longer have to be in writing.

As to who you would sue, you would need to sue both your friend and his girlfriend.

He's saying if the guy was smart, he'd lie, and say the lease was for a year. You couldn't prove him wrong and then you'd have to have something in writing, because all leases for a year or more need to be in writing.

[JSD]

If he was clever (rather than just sleazy) he'd say that the lease was to be for a year, but you guys couldn't agree on terms.  No, that's not true, but if he claimed it (with no way for you to dispute it) it puts the judge in a tough situation, as generally leases for a year or more have to be in writing.  State law can vary, but it's a pretty strong defense.

I suppose that could be a difficult obstacle to get around. But why would he give me a check if an agreement wasn't reached?

Roy's point is that any lease over a year has to be in writing or it isn't valid (that is pretty much the law in every state in the country).  If the lease isn't valid then you can't rely on that and have to go into equity, which is much more difficult to prove and the damages are different.

Right.  Now, the court could convert the annual lease into a month-to-month lease, I suppose.  It's simply something to ponder.

Keep in mind that I'm not a landlord-tenant attorney, and that none of this is offered as legal advice.  Rather, consider it me thinking out loud.

Annual lease? we never had a lease it was a month by month arrangement that he backed out of out of nowhere. So are you guys telling me I don't have a strong case?

No, what Roy was telling you that is if this guy did some research he could argue the agreement was for a year, but you couldn't reach terms, and thus he could back out since leases of a year or longer have to be in writing.

As to who you would sue, you would need to sue both your friend and his girlfriend.

But if we couldn't reach terms why would he give me a check? and why would I have taken down my ad and replied to phone calls "sorry i have the place rented"

[JSD]

So if we were planning on having a 1 year lease I'd be screwed? So he says "we couldn't agree to terms" and then the judge says "why did you write him a check if you didn't agree to terms right?" and what does he say?

[bdm860]

I was thinking of saying this as a joke, but think it may actually be a decent (but far out) solution.

Go on Judge Judy.

Per wikipedia

Both the plaintiff and the defendant receive $100 for their appearance as well as $35 a day, paid to them by the show. The litigants' stay lasts for the number of days that the show does taping for that week, which is two or three days.[14][15] In addition, the travel and hotel expenses of the litigants and their witnesses are covered by the show.

The award for each judgment is paid by the producers of the show, from a fund reserved for each case.

So if I'm reading that right (granted it's only wikipedia), if you went on Judge Judy and won, you the producers would pay the settlement, not your friend.  Plus you all get free travel and hotel accomdations, plus an you and your friend (or ex-friend) each get paid at least $135.

So go on Judge Judy and handle this.  You both get paid, you both get a free mini-vacation, you both get to be on TV (and hopefully you come off looking like the good guy), and if you win the producers pay the settlement and not your friend.  This may be the best way to handle this and still remain friends.

You can submit your case here: http://www.judgejudy.com/submit_case.php   

Lol, I know it's kind of far out, but hey this could actually work and this totally sounds like something I'd see on Judge Judy.

[Roy Hobbs]

The lease of real property is an interest in land, and is therefore subject to the Statute of Frauds. First Nat. Bank v. Fairhaven Amusement Co., 347 Mass. 243, 245, 197 N.E.2d 607 (1964). A lease of real property falls within the Statute of Frauds as "a contract for . . . tenements . . . or of any interest in or concerning  [*9]  them" and must, therefore, be in writing to be enforceable. G.L.c. 259, § 1. See O'Brien v. Hurley, 331 Mass. 172, 176, 117 N.E.2d 922 (1954), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 940, 76 S. Ct. 313, 100 L. Ed. 820 (1956); Whaler Motor Inn, Inc. v. Parsons, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 477, 482, 314 N.E.2d 457 (1974). In order to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, the writing must incorporate the promise that the plaintiff seeks to enforce. See Hall v. Horizon House Microwave, Inc., 24 Mass.App.Ct. 84, 93, 506 N.E.2d 178 (1987). The writing must be inclusive and contain all the terms of the oral contract the plaintiff is charging the defendant. Harrington v. Fall River Housing Authority, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 301, 306, 538 N.E.2d 24 (1989), quoting from A.B.C. Auto Parts, Inc. v. Moran, 359 Mass. 327, 330, 268 N.E.2d 844 (1971). Satisfaction of the Statute of Frauds is a question of law. Simon v. Simon, 35 Mass.App.Ct. 705, 709, 625 N.E.2d 564 (1994), citing Schwanbeck v. Federal-Mogul Corp., 412 Mass. 703, 709-10, 592 N.E.2d 1289 (1992).

It is undisputed in the summary judgment record that there was no written lease or any writing dictating the terms of the oral agreement between Richard  [*10]  and the Caplises. Here, Richard seeks to enforce promises allegedly included in this oral lease agreement against the Caplises. In order for Richard to have an enforceable contract with the Caplises that would have satisfied the Statute of Frauds, Richard would have to prove not only an agreement, but also "a memorandum in writing containing the terms of that [agreement] in so far as [Richard] seeks to enforce them." Schwanbeck, 412 Mass. at 710, quoting from Fichera v. Lawrence, 312 Mass. 287, 288, 44 N.E.2d 779 (1942). Due to the lack of a writing and noncompliance with the Statute of Frauds, the oral promises made between Richard and the Caplises on April 22, 1999 were not an enforceable contract. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Caplises cannot be liable for breach of contract and are entitled to summary judgment on Count I of Richard's compliant.

The Massachusetts statute of frauds states:

(1) A lease contract is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless:

(a) the total payments to be made under the lease contract, excluding payments for options to renew or buy, are less than one thousand dollars; or

(b) there is a writing, signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by that party’s authorized agent, sufficient to indicate that a lease contract has been made between the parties and to describe the goods leased and the lease term.

(2) Any description of leased goods or of the lease term is sufficient and satisfies subsection (1)(b), whether or not it is specific, if it reasonably identifies what is described.

http://law.justia.com/massachusetts/codes/gl-pt1-toc/106-2a-201.html

Because your lease was for more than $1,000, it seems that it might not be enforceable under contract principles.  However, as Moranis says, even if that's the law related to contracts (and I'm not saying it is, because I haven't done any serious research), you may be able to recover something in equity.  (see, e.g., M.H. Promotion Group v. Cincinnati Milacron, 1998 Mass. Super. LEXIS 733 (1998)).

[Roy Hobbs]

So if we were planning on having a 1 year lease I'd be screwed? So he says "we couldn't agree to terms" and then the judge says "why did you write him a check if you didn't agree to terms right?" and what does he say?

What are you going to say if he argues that you guys were still negotiating, and that the money was as a deposit that you promised to give back if you couldn't reach terms?

It's a crappy situation, but hopefully the lesson learned is that *every* real estate transaction should be in writing, always.  You may be able to recover a month's rent, you may be able to recover your actual documented expenses, or you may be able to recover nothing (as, as mentioned above, there is no evidence that somebody else was going to rent the place).  A lot will depend upon the judge's discretion, and what s/he thinks your detrimental reliance was.

In a nutshell, my prediction is that the judge is going to say "forget about the contract, there was no contract.  There was no lease.  Now, how did you rely upon this guy's promise, and what were your actual damages?"  That may or may not be tough to prove, depending upon how lenient the judge is.

Also, of course, as others have said, there's a duty to mitigate.  Make sure you get the fliers / advertisements up again as soon as possible, and start showing it to tenants again.

[Chris]

So if we were planning on having a 1 year lease I'd be screwed? So he says "we couldn't agree to terms" and then the judge says "why did you write him a check if you didn't agree to terms right?" and what does he say?

What are you going to say if he argues that you guys were still negotiating, and that the money was as a deposit that you promised to give back if you couldn't reach terms?

It's a crappy situation, but hopefully the lesson learned is that *every* real estate transaction should be in writing, always.  You may be able to recover a month's rent, you may be able to recover your actual documented expenses, or you may be able to recover nothing (as, as mentioned above, there is no evidence that somebody else was going to rent the place).  A lot will depend upon the judge's discretion, and what s/he thinks your detrimental reliance was.

Yeah, from the little I know about real estate, this is pretty much it.  If its not in writing, your just asking to get screwed. 

I think the best advice to take is instead of spending so much time worrying about this guy, double your efforts trying to rent the place out.  Who knows, you may get someone in there by June 15th...or at least July 1st.

[Roy Hobbs]

I think the best advice to take is instead of spending so much time worrying about this guy, double your efforts trying to rent the place out.  Who knows, you may get someone in there by June 15th...or at least July 1st.

I agree (and it's what the court is going to require anyway).  Also, of course, drop the guy as a "friend".

[BCelts]

A couple questions:

Did the girlfriend ever have any discussions about renting the place with you?  Were there any annotations on her check?  Was it made out to you, to her boyfriend (signed over to you), or to cash?

It's probably irrelevant, but I'm wondering if he'd try a "it wasn't really my money to give" defense at any small claims case.  It shouldn't really matter -- the verbal agreement plus the check (i.e., attempted payment) should be enough -- but you never know what a judge will say.

If he was clever (rather than just sleazy) he'd say that the lease was to be for a year, but you guys couldn't agree on terms.  No, that's not true, but if he claimed it (with no way for you to dispute it) it puts the judge in a tough situation, as generally leases for a year or more have to be in writing.  State law can vary, but it's a pretty strong defense.

Great idea, but agency law probably prevents that from being a defense here.  If she wrote the check, and her "agent" (I'm not going to go into how the law defines an agent, just trust me that he can be considered her agent here) made the agreement to rent the place, you probably have an enforcible oral contract.  Enforcible on them both.  So if you go to small claims court, sue them both.  Don't forget about promissory estopple (worth looking up).

Having said that, get someone else to rent it starting July 1.  If you can do that, you are really only eating 1/2 a months rent.  Not worth the effort or problems resulting from it.