Anyone Actually Been To Court Over Frozen Pipes?
Has anyone actually been to court over frozen pipes. I have received a fair amount of feedback about this question, but all of it seems to straddle the fence.
My lease only suggests tenants aquire renter's insurance. There is no specific language in the lease directing tenant not to turn off the heat or to keep the heat above a certain level. Tenant turned off heat, pipes froze, lots of water damage to the unit.
I have asked her to reimburse me for my security deposit.
Tenant feels this is my fault for not warning her. I
Has any of you actually been to court for this type of issue? Tenant is difficult to reason with, so court may be where we are headed.
It would be great to get some advice from someone who has acutal experience in this area!
Dear John,
Thank you for your response. I am the landlord. I use a standard lease purchased from the Columbus Apartment Association in Columbus, Ohio. The lease is very comprehensive about almost everything, but for some reason has no language about frozen pipes or keeping the temperature above a certain point.
Believe me, these items will be added in any future lease I use.
Currently, however, I have a problem. The lease says that "a tenant must return the apartement to the landlord in identical condition minus normal wear and tear." It also says that the tenant is liable for any damages due to their negligence.
The lease strongly recommends that a tenant get renters insurance. (I am not sure why they don't require it, but I will in the future.)
The tenant left for vacation and turned off the heat causing the pipes to burst and the flooding damaged the apartment. She decided not to get renter's insurance despite the advice in the lease agreement.
If the question goes to court, I imagine the outcome will depend upon whether the court feels that turning off the heat was negligence. Negligence is defined as not acting the way a normal reasonable and prudent person would.
My attorney thinks he has a good shot at winning the case, but he has not really looked into it yet. I don't share his confidence. I am not sure how much money I want to spend on attorney's fees considering my insurance will limit my expenses to $1000 dollars.
I figured, however, it was worth getting some feedback from the forum.
Do these clarifications allow you to provide further advice?
I would think that you also have a good case. But, as you point out, your out of pocket is only $1000. Is $1000 worth what it will take to go to court?
Another question is are you going to be able to actually collect any judgment? What kind of units are these? Also, is this tenant still living there? I'd be worried if they live there what they'll do to the unit if you do win and they feel they were screwed...
WIth litigating you have to look at what you will actually get as opposed to what you will be rewarded from a juegement. Does the tenant have steady employment that they will not leave if they are garnished. Do they have a savings... probably not. Judgements are useless if there is no income or savings to back it up. You may want to file a claim and then sue in small claims for the $1000 deductable. This will be easier to get then a large judgement.
How much is the dollar value of the damage and home much will your insurance cover?
The dollar damage has yet to be determined. We may be able to save the ceiling if we can get it to dry out with the dehumidifiers. The contractor has also indicated that the hardwood floors may well return to normal once they dry out. If we lose the ceiling and the hardwood floors, the damage could be somewhere between 5000 and 10,000 dollars.
There must be some general covenant in your lease indicating that the tenant cannot do damage to your unit. I doubt that the tenant claiming that she did not know that the the pipes would break is much of a defense any more than she could claim that if she defrosted the refrigerator with an ice pick, she didn't know that the coolant might run out. In both cases the damage is due to a tenant's specific act. I would think your attorney is on course. The issue for you seems more economic than legal in selecting the best way to recover your losses.