HELP! I'm getting sued by ex roommate.

[Lilly]

You're only on the hook for the amount of the overcharge; treble damages in definately not applicable here, only the amount of the overcharge. However, if the LL finds out that you charged MORE than your total rent he can move to evict you. You can possibly "cure" this by refunding the amount of the overcharge. Hope you saved your money.

[Lilly]

Also, the overcharge would have occurred from December 20, 2000 on. That is the date that 2525.7 became effective.

[gettingby]

Does it matter that she knew when she rented the room that she was paying over half? She didn't care as she was happy to have a nice place to live. Surely there must be provision where the roommate ins't being deceived.

[mjr203]

Does anyone have an example of a case in which it is a roommate overcharge, not a sublet overcharge?

why is treble damages not applicable in these cases?

If you dodge the treble damage bullet, feel lucky, because having overcharged your roommate (and your current one I might add), no matter if they were happy at first or well off or what, you violated the rent stabilization law. Like me again said, you've been living rent free since 99. Do you own that apt? no. do you get to charge whatever you like to your roommate? no. Do people get away with this? Yes. But when they get caught there are penalties.

-POINTER

[custudent]

I sued my former roommate for overcharging me. My lawyer, an experienced tenant attorney, told me that I had grounds to seek tremble damages.

He explained that the purpose of tremble damages was punative: it is supposed to make it painful to illegally overcharge a roommate or subtenant. If the only cost is the overcharge or overcharge plus interest, then there is no real deterrent.

In the end, we settled out of court for 1.5 times the overcharge. But I can't comment on whether a judge would have actually awarded me anything above the overcharge.

[mjr203]

http://tenant.net/Court/Hcourt/index.html?x=927

This housing court case as summarized on Tenant.net seems extremely relevant.

"The Court did not award treble damages as plaintiff was a roommate and not a subtenant. Moreover, tenant's actions, while in violation of the previously mentioned statute, were based on good faith and were not willful. The Court further held that tenant's actions weregrounded upon the mistaken belief that the rent was beingfairly allocated according to room size. The court notedthat treble damages are not appropriate where the tenant was not profiteering from her roommates in excess of the legal regulated rent."

So in that case, treble damages were not awarded because a) roommate not subtenancy b) not determined to be profiteering by the prime tenant.

In this case, I am not sure how a judge would rule, given that the prime tenant ("gettingby") so drastically overcharged the roommate, certainly "profiteering" from the relationship.

Note: My initial statement about bedroom size apparently was incorrect -- courts have found that bedroom size does not mean one roommate in an RS apt should pay more or less than their proportional share.

-POINTER

[mjr203]

http://tenant.net/Court/Hcourt/index.html?x=841

This case also seems to apply in the sense that if gettingby's LL gets wind of this, they could move to evict. But perhaps by curing the overcharge, i.e. refunding ex-roomie's $, gettingby would if exposed to LL action, be able to keep apartment.

-POINTER

ps tenant.net -- great resource

[gettingby]

This is the only way I, and many others like me, can afford to live in this city. I know I don't own my apartment but the fact that I lived here when the neighborhood was like the wild west should mean something. I'm not profiteering, but barely making ends meet.

[Chimera]

You cannot justify theft by claiming hardship.

[mjr203]

You're barely making ends meet with a net rent income of $340 (after taking in a G and paying out $660) -- paying zero rent for 2 years?

That's a shame but you should have pursued less expensive housing, sought a better paying job, or relocated -- all choices that many people I know have had to take in the last few tough years.

Like Chimera said, hardship is not a legitimate excuse for fraud.

[gettingby]

It's not fraud if the roommate knows they're paying more than half. I didn't lie to aqnyone. People have been doing this for years. Why is it all of te sudden illegal or dishonest. A lot of people are going to loose their homes if landlords can evict for this.

[mjr203]

Originally posted by gettingby:
It's not fraud if the roommate knows they're paying more than half. I didn't lie to aqnyone. People have been doing this for years. Why is it all of te sudden illegal or dishonest. A lot of people are going to loose their homes if landlords can evict for this.

I should have said "violation of the rent stabilization code" instead of fraud, but whatever.

It has always been illegal. People just look at a situation and see the benefit they can reap from it and not the logic of what the law is. How can you, the non-owner, of an apartment get $1000 for renting one room when the owner of the apartment only can charge $660 for the whole magilla by law? Is any of this getting through?

The fact that people do this and have been doing this is irrelevant. Why shouldn't LLs be able to evict individuals who make money off property they don't even own?

If I were you I'd stop trying to convince us of your innocence and start thinking how you might settle with the ex-roommate without alerting the LL and without going bankrupt.

<small>[ April 29, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: pointerout ]</small>