furniture abandonment laws

[NynJa]

Contuation from http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91489, dont want to necro

I've had it with these fucking kids. Word has gotten out that I apparently threw out the girls clothes, and her boyfriend is threatening to kill me. His father called me up 'representing' her, saying that what I'm doing (holding her clothes/furniture untill I get the money I'm owed) is illegal, which it isnt. Then her boyfriend called me up 10x at work, non-fucking-stop, leaving voicemessages saying that I better not have thrown her shit out, or he'd call the cops on me, etc etc. I called him back when it was convenient, saying that I have her shit, and I'm getting sick of these calls and what not. He told me that if I throw anything out he'll call the cops on me. I told him to go ahead, that she abandoned her stuff, and if he wants to go that route, I'll be glad to inform the police of his death threats to me, considering he allready has been to juvi hall and I have the following stored in my phone
*no previous text msg*
Me: Hey sry to bug ya, what were ryans words to me regarding kristeens furniture?
A: Yes ryan said he was going to kill u if u threw her stuff out

I also asked her if she would testify in court if necessary, she was reluctant, but considering I allready have her text, it might be sufficient to drag her in.

I told him that I'm getting fed up of this shit, and that I'm just going to throw everything out on the street.


Anyways...I couldnt find anything regarding furniture abandonment laws, attempts to google "furniture abandonment laws canada" drew up child abandonment >.>
Anyone have any idea? I'm not a landlord, nor is there proof of when she lived with me, if even.


edit: couple searches say 30 days, and up to 5 years (wtf?) though what they're referring to is rather vague.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

If the abandonment laws in Canada are like the U.S. then it doesn't sound like she abandoned the furniture if she wants it back. If it's the same as in the U.S. you currently have a bailment, which means you better take care of her stuff.

[Pikarya]

Do you still have the voicemail of him threatening you? If so, you obviously should report it to the police stat with a report.

[NynJa]

He never threatened me on voice mail, it was on the phone to someone else I recorded my last convo w/ him, tried to get him to say it, but he wouldn't bite.


Another issue is the money they owe. They left March 7th, can you charge someone partial rent for the time into the new month they lived there?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Of course you can. Which is why your holding their furniture? And I'm not saying that's not right, but don't think you're entitled to hold it w/o consequences. Additionally, since the bailment is for your sole benefit you'll be held strictly liable for any damage. Assuming the law is the same.

[NynJa]

Still didnt answer though when furniture is legally considered abandoned. Just because she wants it "now", doesnt mean anything since the past 2 months they said nothing, not to mention the storage space.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Still didnt answer though when furniture is legally considered abandoned. Just because she wants it "now", doesnt mean anything since the past 2 months they said nothing, not to mention the storage space.

Here's the abandonment law in the U.S. You can apply the facts better than I can.

1) Property discarded by TO with no intention to reclaim AND
2) TO's conduct evidences intent

Non-use will not constitute abandonment. TO = True owner

It would seem the TO doesn't meet requirement #2 at least.

[Darus Grey]

You are not their landlord, were you legally sub-leasing to them? By your description no.

Abandoned property is not even relevant here unless you're their landlord, it's personal property and you have absolutely no obligation to keep it.

Notify them that if they do not claim it within X days, you will discard it, this is your only obligation.

Edit: And since they were not on the lease, no you cannot pursue them for rent owed, they were not even legally living there unless you have some form of written agreement with them.

[NynJa]

You are not their landlord, were you legally sub-leasing to them? By your description no.

Abandoned property is not even relevant here unless you're their landlord, it's personal property and you have absolutely no obligation to keep it.

Notify them that if they do not claim it within X days, you will discard it, this is your only obligation.

No, I was the only one on the lease, as she was under 18 and unable to sign. All this info is in the thread linked above, dont need to recount story.

Edit: And since they were not on the lease, no you cannot pursue them for rent owed, they were not even legally living there unless you have some form of written agreement with them.

But by that notion, how can she pursue me for furniture left behind if she 'never lived here'?

[Darus Grey]

But by that notion, how can she pursue me for furniture left behind if she 'never lived here'?

There's a difference between legal residence and current residence, since you have no written agreement they can simply say you were not charging them rent, you have no proof otherwise and thus are unable to seek compensation.

As for the furniture they cannot pursue it, for the same reason, you are not their landlord and have no obligation to store their property, technically you do since you agreed to store it, but since that agreement is not in writing, same as above applies.

Notify them, and then discard it if they do not reclaim it, they can't pursue you, you can't pursue them.

Personally I'd even avoid going to the police about the messages unless you've already done so, because all it does is create a record of the situation that they CAN use to pursue you if you told the police you were holding their stuff for past-rent...

In which case it could be construed that you have stolen their property and could be liable.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The agreement doesn't need to be in writing.

[Darus Grey]

The agreement doesn't need to be in writing.

It does if you want to prove damages. Otherwise they can just corroborate their story and you have 3 people's word against 1-2, it's a losing situation not worth pursuing.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It does if you want to prove damages. Otherwise they can just corroborate their story and you have 3 people's word against 1-2, it's a losing situation not worth pursuing.

Meh, a writing has more to do with enforcement than damages, it just makes it easier to prove there was a contract. A court would just infer it from the facts here.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

These are the only times you NEED the contract to be in writing.

Marriage
Year
Land - ANY INTEREST
Executor/ix paying from own estate
Goods
§2-201(1): $500 or more
§2-209(3): as modified $500 or more
Suretyship

[Darus Grey]

What "facts"? The only "facts" have been him saying they had an agreement. That's not a fact if he cannot produce credible witnesses to said agreement, and if the opposing party outnumbers him, especially since one of them can prove they had no income and were living there for free, thus setting a precedent for the story of the others.

A good judge isn't going to infer anything from that. As a landlord myself I have issues collecting past-rent with WRITTEN agreements, it's not worth the effort or cost to pursue.

Verbal he-said she-said agreements with tenants not on the lease?

You need some exposure to the real world swampy if you think you can cut it in the law field.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I didn't say it would be enforceable, I just said it doesn't need to be in writing to be enforceable. And in this situation a court would just infer its conclusion from the facts.

[Darus Grey]

Again...what "Facts"?

What you know and what you can prove are different things, and that's a pretty shitty judge(which in fairness I do not discount the possibility of, but would not rely on either) if he would just infer based on the OP's word alone.

You're talking about a hypothetical scenario, in which yes you are correct, but what you say has no bearing on reality. A contract exists, PROVING IT DOES, is another matter, which I don't think the OP can do.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Holy shit I didn't say he would infer from the facts there was some sort of contract. Just that he would use the facts. Hell, I wasn't even trying to argue that, just state that it need not be in writing.

[Darus Grey]

This is why we never can have a civil conversation.

it just makes it easier to prove there was a contract. A court would just infer it from the facts here.

Holy shit I didn't say he would infer from the facts there was some sort of contract. Just that he would use the facts. Hell, I wasn't even trying to argue that, just state that it need not be in writing.

/facepalm.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

"It" being whether there was a K or not