Landlord Only Accepting Rent If Legal Fees Included

[ouiareborg]

They're trying recoup legal fees from taking me to court: Eviction, Rent Demand, etc, that adds up to over $400. Now, even though we didn't need to go to court(The stipulation that was signed, was what I was trying to go by to begin with), it was they're right. Now, I suggested to pay half the legal fee this month, and half next(Along with rent). They say that they will only accept the entire amount, or nothing. Do they have the right to refuse the rent, if all the legal fees they are asking for is not included, or is it a separate matter? Any help is appreciated.

[TenantNet]

Did the court order legal fees be paid?

Does your lease have a provision that allows for legal fees?

Did the stipulation you signed call for legal fees? What exactly did the stipulation state? This is where many tenants hurt themselves.

Were you represented by a lawyer?

[ouiareborg]

The stip said, that the landlord was not including legal fees now, but reserved the right to seek them in the future

[TenantNet]

What about the other questions I asked? Was the stip signed by a judge? (i.e., "so ordered"?)

What did it say in regards to other issues? Anywhere in the stip does it refer to "final judgment"?

Are you rent regulated?

All these questions are important.

[ouiareborg]

No lawyer, rent stabalized, judge signed, and said, "They are not including legal fees now, but are reserving the right to seek legal fees in the future." There was also work that was being done, that they said was finished, but just looking at it, obviously isn't, and on the previous stip(A couple of months before, when my personal crises started), it does mention that there was work that needed to be finished. But the last stip, I forgot to make sure it was on there, but the judge and the attorney(Who someone suggested that they're supposed ask), never asked me, "Is there any work, that is needed in your apartment." Hope I'm not being to vague

[TenantNet]

What about your lease? Is there a legal fees clause there?

Does the stipulation say "final judgment?"

Was there a trial, or did the judge in any way rule that the LL was entitled to the rent payments?

Again ... what did the stip say? You can paraphrase - don't need the exact language, but without knowing the answers to these questions, it's difficult to offer an accurate assessment.

And ... was the "previous stip" dealing with the same case, or is this a new case? If the former, the language of that stip is important. That some repairs might need to be made is probably irrelevant.

[ronin]

If the judge said they reserve the right to seek legal fees that strongly suggests that they have to go to the judge to get them and notify you of their attempt.

So my point of view is that even if they are allowed in the lease, they have not been ordered by the judge or agreed in the stip.

I've seen LL's try to just add legal fees on the rent bill before. If I remember correctly, for a rent stabilized apartment, the proper course of action is to warn them that the fees were not authorized by the court and that you will file a complaint with the DHCR for an illegal rent increase (the added legal fees) and seek treble damages.

You of course can just hold your rent and wait for a return to court, or file an Order to Show Cause to the judge to block the unawarded fees.

[TenantNet]

They ALWAYS have to go to the court to get legal fees awarded. Legal fees can go to the "prevailing" party, but who prevails is often in dispute. For example, if the court awards to the landlord the rent sought in the petition, but not possession of the apartment (both of which are sought in a non-payment), then who prevails? But no fees can be awarded without specific action by the court. That they reserve the right ... doesn't mean much. And the lease must also contain a legal fees clause.

In addition to threatening to go to DHCR, one can also file a complaint with the BAR Association. That might be more effective in having the landlord lawyer back off.

It seem the original poster didn't want to fully answer my questions. So my general remarks might not apply to him/her.

[ouiareborg]

Sorry, had to leave town last minute. Appreciate the help. The stip has the following:
1) Judgement and warrent remain in full force and effect
2) "Amount" is all rent due and owing through June 30th, 2010
3) Respondent tenders MO's totalling "Amount."
4) Execution of the warrent stayed to June 30th for payment of "Amount"( All payments to current rent first, then arrears.
5) On default, warrent shall execute on service of a Marshells notice.
6) Petitioner reserves all claims to all legal fees& ,(the rest is difficult to read)resamers? difuses?
7)All payments by Bank check or MO

Hope this helps. Again, appreciate the help.

[TenantNet]

You aren't answering all the questions (and I've asked several times) and you haven't provided a complete history. Now it seems as if there was a previous matter which of course changes everything and it's even more confusing, not clarifying. So I really can't give you an accurate assessment of where things are. Perhaps you might wish to seek a legal consultation with an attorney ... but make sure you have ALL the documents on all matters, not just half a loaf.