[synclastica_86]

I recently got into some conflict with the landlord of my second parking spot at my vacation condo and I'm in need for some advice. Here's the background:

I have two cars at my vacation condo but only own a single spot there. I rented a second spot from the developer (company A). I paid $750 up front for the use of the parking spot from Nov 2013 to Nov 2013. June 2013, I was told by company A that the property rights will be sold to company B and I should contact company B for further rental. I tried to contact company B without success. In October 2013, a freaked-out owner e-mail me and said that he wants the car moved and me to pay him for the rental. I asked him whether I can continue to rent the spot from him or purchase the spot out right and he declined. I moved the car to a off-site storage in December 2013.

Two weeks ago. I received an e-mail from him threatening to tow my car away and auctioning it off. As my car is no longer there and I was caught up with work, I did not get back to him. Today I received an e-mail from him asking for $1,600 for the rent from June to January. In the e-mail he said "happy to deal with it or we can lein your unit if we can't work it out." I have no clue what this means.

Here's what I think:

1. Company B could have asked company A for the money. But it just seem easier to push me, an individual, instead.
2. I really don't mind paying for the spot from Nov to Dec as it took me longer than expected to find parking. However, I shouldn't be responsible for the rental spot from June onward as I already paid company A the $750 up front.
3. I never agreed on any monthly rate with company B and wasn't given an opportunity to act before he named an arbitrary price of $1,600. This can't be right. I mean, if this is okay, they why not just say $1 million instead?

Please give me some advice on how I should proceed with this. Thanks!

[grimlock]

Hello fellow HKer -something is missing in your description I don't quite follow it..

[synclastica_86]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Hello fellow HKer -something is missing in your description I don't quite follow it..

Well... Simply put... I rented a parking spot from company A and paid up front. Company A sold the spot to company B. Company B wants to charge me for the spot again for the duration that I already paid for.

[Maestro]

Here is my thought on this...

First did you have anything from Company A for the rental, if so you are in good shape since it was paid in full until the end of Nov it was Campany A responsibility to give the balance of the rent to Company B. If this is the case, then send Company B the written agreement and said they need to take up the matter with Company A.

The only issue is then the month of Dec, and if Company B wants to make an issue of it, you can show you made a good faith effort to extend the agreement with Company B and they failed to respond as such you can only assume the terms of the agreement with Company A continue to exist month to month.

I would say that Company B is not on solid grounds, but they are using a threat to put a lien on your property to get you to comply. They are blackmailing in a sense and a court will not look kindly on this. So either pay to make it go away or wait for your day in court. If you not planning to sell your place anytime soon then let him put a lien on the property and then sue Company B in court for your cost to deal with them.

Now if you do not have anything in writing with Company A you are screw, and Company B can pretty do what they like.

Just saw you not in the US, so much of what wrote is valid in the US not sure how other countries handle stuff like this.

[synclastica_86]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Here is my thought on this...

First did you have anything from Company A for the rental, if so you are in good shape since it was paid in full until the end of Nov it was Campany A responsibility to give the balance of the rent to Company B. If this is the case, then send Company B the written agreement and said they need to take up the matter with Company A.

The only issue is then the month of Dec, and if Company B wants to make an issue of it, you can show you made a good faith effort to extend the agreement with Company B and they failed to respond as such you can only assume the terms of the agreement with Company A continue to exist month to month.

I would say that Company B is not on solid grounds, but they are using a threat to put a lien on your property to get you to comply. They are blackmailing in a sense and a court will not look kindly on this. So either pay to make it go away or wait for your day in court. If you not planning to sell your place anytime soon then let him put a lien on the property and then sue Company B in court for your cost to deal with them.

Now if you do not have anything in writing with Company A you are screw, and Company B can pretty do what they like.

Just saw you not in the US, so much of what wrote is valid in the US not sure how other countries handle stuff like this.

The rental property is in Canada. Does email transcripts with company A and banking statements counts as written proof?

[Seminole]

Need some more information as to the spot. Is the spot just an extra spot out in the lot or is it a spot in front of another Condo that was unoccupied at the time? So Company A was the developer of the property, did Company B take over as the developer or is Company B the purchaser of a unit who's spot you happen to park in?

If it's a case of you renting a spot out in the lot or if B took over as developer (and the unit is still empty) it might be like a situation I had with a rental apartment when a new owner took over the complex. The owners paid utilities for the whole complex and then would bill us every 3mo. for the excess charges over our utility allowance. Additionally rent was due by the 5th day of the month. When the new owners came in they changed it to charging us utilities monthly plus requiring the rent due on the 3rd. If you paid on the 4th or 5th you were charged a $100 late fee.

However in the US when there is a signed contract between two parties (lessor and lessee) and another company comes in and buys the property from one the lessor, they also bought the rights and terms of that contract and could not modify that contract without consent of the lessee. So I raised the issue with them after refusing to pay by the 3rd and being charged late fees (I was doing this to be more of a pain in the ass then anything) and they had to give in and refund all the late fees they charged everyone and resume billing us every quarter for utilities.

So, in the US (I saw this is in Canada so I don't know if it applies) if Company B became the new developer you'll have some better ground to stand on since you could argue you had a contract. However if they came in and bought the single unit and the spot is the assigned one to that unit I think you'd have a much harder time. Imagine this was a neighborhood and the developer let someone rent a space on your driveway before you moved into your house. You wouldn't want that person parking on your property either. In a scenario like that I'm not sure of what rights or remedies either party has.

[Maestro]

Seminole summed it well, as he and I said it may not apply in CA since their consumer renter laws could be different.

I will tell you if I was company B your emails would not carry much weight with me since it not a formal contract or agreement so it would not be binding to me as the new owner. If you had a formal contract agreement with Company A then they would be required to disclose that obligations to the new owner and they would also be bound to that agreement as well. However, there is some rules that even verbal agreement are binding so emails could be consider a binding agreement, but it would be up to a court to decide.

As Seminole pointed out, what did Company B buy, the entire property or just one unit. Different laws apply whether they are buying it all or just one unit. I suspect from your comment about them putting a lien on the property that they bough the entire property since an individual usually cannot easily put a lien on your property.

[synclastica_86]

Originally Posted by Seminole

Is the spot just an extra spot out in the lot or is it a spot in front of another Condo that was unoccupied at the time?

The parking facility is indoor at the basement of the building. Each spot is associated with a particular unit.

Originally Posted by Seminole

So Company A was the developer of the property, did Company B take over as the developer or is Company B the purchaser of a unit who's spot you happen to park in?

Units are sold to different individual buyers. There is a board consisting of owners that hired another company (not company B) to manage the property. Company B just purchased the remaining unsold units (around 4-5 of them I believe).

Originally Posted by Seminole

I was doing this to be more of a pain in the ass then anything.

This is also my point of view. I don't like the fact they suddenly name a price without letting me decide whether to keep renting the spot. I don't like to seem like a pushover if you know what I mean.

Originally Posted by Seminole

Imagine this was a neighborhood and the developer let someone rent a space on your driveway before you moved into your house. You wouldn't want that person parking on your property either. In a scenario like that I'm not sure of what rights or remedies either party has.

This I can relate to. However, company B purchased the condos to rent out. And as far as I am concerned, some of his units are still vacant and he did not suffered any losses because of my car being there. In addition, from my perspective, I don't think I should pay both company A and B for the duration.

Originally Posted by Maestro

However, there is some rules that even verbal agreement are binding so emails could be consider a binding agreement, but it would be up to a court to decide.

So is it time to lawyer up? Is it worth layering up over such amount? I just received an e-mail from company B that is copied to an email of a legal clerk.

Originally Posted by Maestro

what did Company B buy, the entire property or just one unit.

They bought a couple of units, but I think the building is ran by a board consisting of owners.

Originally Posted by Maestro

Different laws apply whether they are buying it all or just one unit.

How is it different? If he purchased just a few units, what will it count as?

Originally Posted by Maestro

I suspect from your comment about them putting a lien on the property that they bough the entire property since an individual usually cannot easily put a lien on your property.

Well, at this point, I think that it sounded like a bluff. Just as he said that he was going to tow my car away to action it off AFTER the car has already been moved. He obviously has no idea whether his spots are occupied or not.

[Maestro]

I would agree the fact he threaten to tow your car and it is already gone means they have not idea if it was still there, also be probably has no idea when the car left.

Okay now I have a better picture of what you are dealing with, you send a single spot form a single individual which are calling Company A, Campany A is not the manager or owner of the entire property so you deal and any agreement you had with them is between them and most likely can not transfer to the new owner. I like renting your neighbors driveway and they sell the property to a new owner at that moment they can tell you to vacate their driveway, does not matter that you paid the neighbor for the whole year, they just screwed you. You issue is with the originally owner of the property, you paid him for 12 months and only had use for 9 months and then he sold the property and the new owner told you to leave.

There is not much you can do with the new owner, they have no legal responsibility to honor the deal with the original owner to use the spot. The only question at this point is what to do now, you can ignore the new owner and see if he really bluffing or trying to work something out. You were basically use the spot without permission.

[PINeely]

I think he just sees a gray area and is trying to take advantage of it. But clearly he's a shit property owner if he hasn't come by to even look at his spots/units for what appears to be the entire duration of his ownership.

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by synclastica_86

The parking facility is indoor at the basement of the building. Each spot is associated with a particular unit.

Units are sold to different individual buyers. There is a board consisting of owners that hired another company (not company B) to manage the property. Company B just purchased the remaining unsold units (around 4-5 of them I believe).

This is also my point of view. I don't like the fact they suddenly name a price without letting me decide whether to keep renting the spot. I don't like to seem like a pushover if you know what I mean.

This I can relate to. However, company B purchased the condos to rent out. And as far as I am concerned, some of his units are still vacant and he did not suffered any losses because of my car being there. In addition, from my perspective, I don't think I should pay both company A and B for the duration.

So your situation is completely different from mine. With mine what the new owners of the complex were doing was illegal and I could have challenged them in court and won. I was being an asshole because the law was on my side and I could be. You are in an entirely different situation. Company B is now the owner of their units just as much as you are of your unit. They have zero obligation to rent you the spot and can name whatever price they want. You had an agreement with the developer to park in the assigned spot of an unsold unit, however that unit has now been sold and Company B now is the legal owner of the spot.

What should have happened is that you should have been notified by Company A that the unit was sold and you would need to vacate the spot for the new owner, this seems like it happened. However, Company A should have should have prorated your payment and the remaining balance refunded to you.

As you already mentioned, each unit only has 1 spot, and if you refuse to vacate the spot you are impeding Company B's ability to rent the apartment, as nobody will rent if they can't park there (I get that you moved the car now, just speaking in general terms). That is probably why they were freaking out on you plus the refused to rent you or sell you the spot because where would their tenants park if you were using it? The $1600 is what Company B is looking for as damages for you depriving them of the space from the time they bought it until you moved the car. I'm sure they came up with some way of calculating that (e.g. $230 per month). They could honestly try to sue you for the full rental value of the condo if they had been actively trying to rent it because they could claim that your parking there prevented them from being able to rent the condo.

You mentioned in your first post that they are the "landlord" of "your" second spot. They are not. They are the owners of the spot just the same as any of your other co-owners in the building. The fact they are in the business of renting out condos means nothing in this case and it would be the same as if the developer had sold the unit to a private owner and you just kept parking in that guys spot without his permission. Sorry to say, but the developer fucked you over here and kept the extra money and you should have moved the car as soon as the unit sold.

As far as the lien, anybody can place a lien on a property when they are claiming unpaid services. All Company B has to do is file this with the courts and if you ever sell your condo in the future $1,600 of the sale price will be withheld from you and given to Company B.

Your best bet in this situation is to try and have a rational discussion with the Company. Explain the background of you paying Company A, how you thought they gave Company B the remaining balance when the units were purchased, and how you live out of the country so it has been difficult to handle all of this from abroad. Ask them to explain how they calculated the $1,600 (maybe the answer will suffice for you) and if you don't agree with the calculation or amount see if you can negotiate a lower payment. Then you need to go back to the developer and demand a refund of half $375 as they did not fulfill that part of the agreement.