A "heartless" Melbourne landlord has taken a grieving woman to court to recover $600 from her deceased father. Apparently, the dead man failed to give 28 days notice before "vacating" the apartment. What are your thoughts?
by 
singwell-is off researching a lot
ANSWERS: 8
-
Is this Melbourne Florida or Melbourne, Australia? If it's in Fl, I'd like to meet the landlord
-
I don't see how he could sue the daughter unless she lived there too. Maybe the estate of her father, but I really don't see how in the case of death, failure to give notice would hold up. Either way, I think that is ridiculous...unfortunately, as far as some people are concerned, money is the only thing that matters.
-
That's a little heartless, and while the daughter won't be responsible, it is possible to sue the estate. I guess technically he didn't give 28 days notice, but one would think under the circumstances the landlord would be realistic. But, like said earlier, some people only think "money." I personally would not hold a tenant to that under these circumstances.
-
sounds to me like the guy would make a very good capitalist
-
The landlord really doesn't have a case.
-
I think that is awful and i hope the courts make him pay all costs and fine him for wasting their time...shame on him
-
That is absurd. The only way it would seem that he could have an argument to payment of some sort would be if the deceased's belongings weren't taken out in a timely manner, and the landlord couldn't rent the space. I would think some sort of "act of God" clause would prevent having to give notice prior to vacating the premises.
-
OK, I'll take the other side. If this man had been in his car, had a heart attack, and ran into your home, doing $600 in damages, would you expect restitution from his estate? Of course you would. You would have a $600 loss that isn't your fault. You'd want to be paid back. A landlord asks for 28 days notice because he needs to find another tenant so he doesn't lose a month's rent. When this man broke his lease, the landlord was left without a tenant and the empty apartment cost him $600. How is this different from the first scenario? A landlord should take a $600 loss but you shouldn't? I'm sure the landlord's mortgage company wouldn't accept the excuse "but my tenant died, please take $600 off of my mortgage this month".
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC