Landlord/Tenant - Who is in the wrong:?

A tenant wrote a check for the rent.

The check was returned for Non Sufficient Funds.

According to the Law, the Landlord does not have to accept a personal check from that tenant for up to 3 months. Landlord wants cash from the tenant, rightfully so, however if the landlord wants the tenant to pay in Cash, the landlord must “properly notify the tenant in writing with the returned check attached” for the cash requirement.

So the landlord forgets to put the cash request in writing, and now the Rent is due. Landlord attempts to get his rent payment, and the tenant refuses to pay because of not being

Properly notified.

Landlord wants to evict the tenant for non payment of rent.

Tenants’ defense is that the cash was available, however didn’t want to risk paying in cash without notice, for fear of not being able to prove payment.

Who’s at fault here?

24 Answers

Relevance
  • 6 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    the LANDLORD is at fault for not accepting the check...since notice was not given that cash would be required.

    also, does the law allow cash only? is a money order an option?

    NOTE: MOST PEOPLE ARE MiSSING THE POINTS....

    this is the NEXT CHECK in question. tenant is attempting to pay, landlord is refusing the NEXT check.

    The LL can give legal notice now that he wants the rent in cash while refusing the check, but cannot hold tenant liable for rent being late.....landlord can accept cash at a later date and credit it as paid on time.

    • Lv 5
      6 months agoReport

      Nope. Simply is an old troll here who routinely insults every other user. She is a psychiatric case who thinks her upstairs neighbors make noise just to annoy her. But then again, she is such an a$$h0le that she might be right, Kippie the Sock Puppet.

  • 6 months ago

    You said the tenant refused to pay. That is enough to be evicted for non-payment. If the tenant actually was willing to pay, but by check, get a lawyer. Oral agreements can be upheld in some places.

  • zipper
    Lv 6
    6 months ago

    The tenant is wrong. His bank must of notified him that his check was no good, so now he is two months with nonpayment. And not knowing under the law is no excuse.

    • SimplytheFACTS
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      try some tutoring...your comprehension is deplorable....tenant is offering a check, LL is refusing it..ni excuse to be stupid

  • 6 months ago

    none at all i hate people

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 6 months ago

    Landlord for not following the law.

  • 6 months ago

    If the tenant is saying they wouldn't pay cash because of the improper notice but they wouldn't pay by check due to the partial notice, well they were refusing to pay and therefore can be evicted for non-payment of rent. If they gave the landlord a check that might be ok (since the cash notice was never given) but they can't simply refuse to pay the rent at all.

  • 6 months ago

    The tenant is at fault for not paying. The rental agreement is the notice to pay rent, thus no monthly statement is required and no matter what form, the rent needs to be paid in full by the tenant. A landlord can have a desired form of payment, but unless it is stated in the contract, any should be acceptable (obviously not rubber checks).

    • SimplytheFACTS
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      WRONG, no notice was given that it must be cash. Tenant willing to pay check.

  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    They're both in the wrong. Tenant didn't pay and landlord didn't provide notice.

    This could have been easily avoided if both weren't such idiots. Arrange a time to meet in person. Tenant brings the cash and landlord brings his/her receipt book. Problem solved. Judges must get so tired of being everyone's mommy.

  • 6 months ago

    The tenant can (and should) get a receipt for his cash payment. Your defense will not hold up in court. Not to mention you knew the check was returned NSF and you should have immediately made it good.

    • DEBS
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      @Bill - So b/c you as the landlord didn't follow the law you're willing to commit blackmail in order to try and drag that cash out of them. I would think it would be more logical, moral, and legal to follow the law.

  • DEBS
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    You say the 'tenant refused to pay'. I'm going to assume this means that the tenant refused to pay *in cash* but was willing to write a check on the spot with the landlord refusing to accept that check as payment. That being the case, the landlord did not follow the law as you laid it out so the tenant has no legal obligation to pay cash.

    'cash was available' is not relevant to the situation. It is only whether payment was attempted to be made by the tenant and refused by landlord.

  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    When the tenant is evicted for nonpayment, he will then know who is right or wrong. Pay your bills/rent, the landlord does not need to put this in writing for cash or check, no one cares as long as payment is made.

    • SimplytheFACTS
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      WRONG, no notice was given that it must be cash. Tenant willing to pay check. no legal obligation to pay cash.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.