Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker
Would you break this concept down for us lay-folks and how it would pertain to the OPs issue?
|
Accord and Satisfaction is a method of settling debts that was established in English Common Law as well as it's more modern variant in the Uniform Commercial Code. It's essentially a simplified way of settling disputed debts. Basically you need a meeting of the minds (accord) and to execute an agreement on that (satisfaction). It essentially creates a new, binding agreement.
In this instance, the OP could send a check to the landlord for a lower amount, stating that the check is payment in full. If the landlord cashes the check, they have accepted the agreement and are bound to it. The check and its novation are a valid offer.
It's a pretty powerful tool. We just had a case down here in Florida where a developer abandoned a project and saved themselves a bunch of money by using accord and satisfaction.
http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/opinions/3D07-0340.pdf
Quote:
I did a little reading around about Accord & Satisfaction and why is it that some legal sites say that the satisfaction has to be in a different form than the original contract requested? One example:
Accord and Satisfaction
Does this mean that the accord between the OP of this issue would have to offer $350 in some other form? Or would the "other form" also be considered any amount of money less than $350?
|
This comes into play when the debt is liquidated, meaning there can really be no bona fide dispute. Say, you loan me $10,000. There is no dispute to the material facts and thus if I gave you a check for $5,000 marked as payment in full, it is not binding and you can still come after me for the other $5,000. However, like the example, if I offered you a plot of land in exchange, accord and satisfaction would apply.
Quote:
|
Are damages still considered unliquidated when they were itemized and can be proven with receipts to repair/remediate to the tune of $350?
|
Potentially yes. The tenant could dispute that they caused the damages, the reasonableness of the costs, or a host of other things. Even if their disputes are a real stretch, the mere dispute is enough to make accord and satisfaction possible.
Quote:
|
I think the problem is that a lot of LLs don't want to settle or negotiate for a lesser amount - and especially if they are "private LLs". If a LL has pictures of damage and receipts totaling $350 to repair/remediate the damage caused by a tenant, why accept one penny less than what is owed or bother with a counter? Only to stay out of small claims court to not aggravate grumpy judge?
|
I understand completely, and in those instances a better idea would be to accept reasonable payments on the debt. Unfortunately for the OP, it doesn't appear their landlord wants to go that route either, so a lower lump sum payment is a reasonable counter offer.
If a landlord is not in a financial position to accept a settlement or payments, then they really have no other choice but to file and I think most judges would understand that.
Quote:
|
And if the LL DOES enter negotiations, and a resolution can't be found, can/would that be held against the LL when LL takes the tenant to court for the original and full amount? Meaning, will a judge hear that the LL was willing to negotiate, so award the LL less at the end of it all b/c LL WAS willing to maybe accept less through negotiating with tenant?
|
No. If the landlord makes a good faith effort to settle the matter and a resolution can't be reached, they are under no obligation to sue for a lesser amount. In fact, their effort would make it more likely for them to be awarded the full amount. The judge can (if they choose) order payment arrangements at the request of the Defendants, however.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
