The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-01-2011, 03:47 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
How does sending something certified mail prove anything?

Anytime you send something important, sometimes the law requires, or people close to you tell you to be sure to send it certified mail, return receipt requested because those lying, cheating bastards on the other side will claim that they never received it.

So, let's say that they do claim that they never received it. All I've got is a piece of paper that says that I sent them........something. I could send them a blank piece of paper. Why does the law put such an importance on CRRR mail?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 12-01-2011, 03:59 PM
Noel Prosequi Noel Prosequi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the Ning Nang Nong
Posts: 1,087
The point of certified mail is not to prove every detail of the transaction, just one aspect of it that is commonly used as an excuse -" it must have got lost in the mail". The sender has to give evidence of the content of what was sent, but that is usually credible enough. The sender typically has an interest in actually sending the relevant document, such as a legal form or whatever. Large operations such as business and government usually have good records of what they send this way.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:06 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noel Prosequi View Post
The sender has to give evidence of the content of what was sent, but that is usually credible enough.
How does a CRRR receipt give any evidence as to what was sent? I could mail a blank piece of paper, nothing, a recipe for Mom's chocolate chip cookies, anything.

I could think of many reasons why you would want to make it appear like you sent something but really didn't...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:19 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 16,549
But usually the point of sending something certified mail, to prove you actually sent something, is because you actually wanted to send that something.

If you didn't actually want to send it, then why are you sending it? Certified mail is helpful if you send a document to someone, and they claim it was lost in the mail, and you have the return receipt to prove that they at least signed for something. What they actually signed for is not determined. But that's not the point of certified mail. It only proves that you sent something, and someone recieved something. Note that the recipient signs the reciept before they open the package.

If you send a blank document, and the reciever signs for it, then opens it and finds blank paper instead of the documents they wanted, they'll just call you and demand you send the real documents. The fact that you have a return reciept that you sent them a package doesn't mean you have legal proof that you sent them the documents they wanted.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:34 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
didnt we have a thread on this a couple months ago?
I remember someone had the reply that the receiver could claim the sender sent a blank piece of paper.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:42 PM
Voyager Voyager is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 33,433
Consider a trial where person A shows a receipt for the mailing of an important document, and person B claims that all he got was a blank piece of paper. Did you follow up with a request for the actual document? Do you have a copy of the letter with this request, and the certified mail receipt? Lost in the mail might be a believable excuse, getting a blank piece of paper with no followup not so much.

There is another reason. At least when I delivered mail, certified letters were treated a lot differently from regular first class mail, being held in a separate place and even being held in a separate place in your mail bag. (I didn't get a truck.) Certified letters actually are a lot less likely to go missing than regular letters.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:42 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
didnt we have a thread on this a couple months ago?
I remember someone had the reply that the receiver could claim the sender sent a blank piece of paper.
I don't remember a previous thread, but that is an excellent point. It works both ways. The sender or receiver could claim that the document was not sent.

I get that sometimes the sender will actually want the document to get there. But in my current situation (irrelevant to this thread) I have to send my renters a notice that they are again late on their rent via certified mail saying to Pay up or Else.

(Of course, they duck the mail and process servers, so it doesn't matter. That's another thread)

But in this situation, I don't really care if they receive the document or not. I'm just fulfilling my legal obligation before I can evict them (I really won't, but don't tell them that) So, I send the required notice and if my some miracle of God they actually sign the form, it:

1) Doesn't give me proof that I sent the document and
2) It doesn't guarantee that they received it.

It shows I sent something. If I was wanting to evict them in a nefarious way, I could send a blank document so they don't cure their default, and then I bring an eviction suit.

Likewise, they could move to dismiss my eviction suit claiming that they never received the document.

And again, all I have is a piece of paper with their signature saying that they received...something. I'm going to swear to God that I put the document in there, and they are going to swear to God that the document was not in there. What does my CRRR show to the court?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:45 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
(IANAL) Yes, but then the receiver has to actually claim they received something, in a certified mail envelope. The judge will hear 2 conflicting stories and one must be lying. Who is lying - the guy who is trying to collect on a legitimate debt, or the weasel who has spent a year trying not to pay a legitimate debt? Being a judge is so hard sometimes..

Remember!!! In civil matters, lawsuits, it's not a matter of "prove beyond reasonable doubt you did send the actual document". The rule is "preponderance of evidence", and if on the overall circumstances it's more likely the receiver is lying, the sender had no incentive to send a blank sheet (all it does is put off collection for 6 months and rack up the lawyer bills) - the judge will say "it's 60-40 the sender is telling the truth, so I find for the sender."

Besides, judges hate it when the weasels play games and especially when they blatantly lie on the stand. If that's how it seems, then expect extra heavy judgement against you...

Last edited by md2000; 12-01-2011 at 04:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:45 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Consider a trial where person A shows a receipt for the mailing of an important document, and person B claims that all he got was a blank piece of paper. Did you follow up with a request for the actual document? Do you have a copy of the letter with this request, and the certified mail receipt? Lost in the mail might be a believable excuse, getting a blank piece of paper with no followup not so much.
A couple of things. Usually person B doesn't know what is supposed to be coming (They might have an idea, but they aren't sure). Does the law require that if I receive a blank piece of paper in the mail that I must follow up with the sender?

And again, (evil laugh here) I could say that I sent them a first class letter asking them what was going on or send a blank page CRRR and claim that I sent them a letter asking what was up with the blank piece of paper.

I don't see how this receipt has evidentiary value above my word that I put the document in the package they received.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:50 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
(IANAL) Yes, but then the receiver has to actually claim they received something, in a certified mail envelope. The judge will hear 2 conflicting stories and one must be lying. Who is lying - the guy who is trying to collect on a legitimate debt, or the weasel who has spent a year trying not to pay a legitimate debt? Being a judge is so hard sometimes..

Remember!!! In civil matters, lawsuits, it's not a matter of "prove beyond reasonable doubt you did send the actual document". The rule is "preponderance of evidence", and if on the overall circumstances it's more likely the receiver is lying, the sender had no incentive to send a blank sheet (all it does is put off collection for 6 months and rack up the lawyer bills) - the judge will say "it's 60-40 the sender is telling the truth, so I find for the sender."

Besides, judges hate it when the weasels play games and especially when they blatantly lie on the stand. If that's how it seems, then expect extra heavy judgement against you...
Fair enough, now I remember why I phrased the OP the way I did. Assume a situation similar to what was described above where it would be beneficial for the sender not to send a real document, but to send a blank page. Now you've got the sender lying, saying he sent it and the receiver telling the truth saying he received a blank page.

The judge does one of two things:

1) Rules for the reciever (right call) but then legitimate senders can never prove anything and would make CRRR worthless.

2) Rules for the sender (wrong call) and scoundrel senders can get away with this ruse all of the time.

Last edited by jtgain; 12-01-2011 at 04:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-01-2011, 07:56 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
I don't remember a previous thread

Here it is.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:14 PM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 6,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Fair enough, now I remember why I phrased the OP the way I did. Assume a situation similar to what was described above where it would be beneficial for the sender not to send a real document, but to send a blank page. Now you've got the sender lying, saying he sent it and the receiver telling the truth saying he received a blank page.
Can there really be such a situation in the real world? I mean, even in your own case you really do intend for the notice about the late rental to be in the envelope, not a blank page.

I can't think of any situation where it would be beneficial for the sender not to send a real document, but to send a blank page, via certified mail.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:55 PM
Hail Ants Hail Ants is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NY USA
Posts: 5,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Anytime you send something important, sometimes the law requires, or people close to you tell you to be sure to send it certified mail, return receipt requested because those lying, cheating bastards on the other side will claim that they never received it.

So, let's say that they do claim that they never received it. All I've got is a piece of paper that says that I sent them........something. I could send them a blank piece of paper. Why does the law put such an importance on CRRR mail?
You might be confusing it with the idea of proving you had some piece of evidence on a certain date, which for that you mail the evidence to yourself and don't open it. Then it has a dated, unbroken govt seal on it proving it existed since at least before that date. Designs for an original invention, song lyrics etc. are some examples.

One of the coached contestants used this in Quiz Show (mailed himself the answers before he appeared on the show, proving he had been given them in advance).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-02-2011, 12:37 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Ants View Post
You might be confusing it with the idea of proving you had some piece of evidence on a certain date, which for that you mail the evidence to yourself and don't open it. Then it has a dated, unbroken govt seal on it proving it existed since at least before that date. Designs for an original invention, song lyrics etc. are some examples.

One of the coached contestants used this in Quiz Show (mailed himself the answers before he appeared on the show, proving he had been given them in advance).
I believe this is called the poor man's copyright and has no legal value but as IANAL I'm sure to be corrected
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-02-2011, 02:05 AM
Senegoid Senegoid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 6,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I believe this is called the poor man's copyright and has no legal value but as IANAL I'm sure to be corrected
IANAL either (and never regretted it). The idea of Poor Man's Copyright (PMC) is a perennial notion that has come up routinely since the days of cuneiform clay tablets, and I have routinely seen essays debunking it, claiming that it is legally worthless or sometimes even worse than useless. (Some of which essays even claim to be written by real lawyers!) Just google for Poor Mans Copyright and you will instantly find umpty-ump pages about it. The few I glanced at all unanimously agree that it doesn't work.

Here is one discussion from The Intellectual Law Group, which at least on the surface appears to be written by real lawyers specializing in intellectual property law.

See also The Myth of Poor Manís Copyright for another detailed discussion of how it works, and why it doesn't.

Hardly unexpectedly, snopes has an article on it too.

The gist of these articles seems to be:
(1) You have a copyright automatically from the moment you create your work, without having to do anything.
(2) However, enforcing that copyright in a court of law doesn't automatically easily follow.
(3) Using the PMC does nothing to add to that. Courts have little-to-no regard for PMC (for reasons which you can read in the above and other cites).
(4) Formally registering your work not only gives you better basic enforcement capabilities in court, but in fact gives you additional rights beyond what the default copyright gave you. For example, only with registration can you sue in Federal court, and only with registration can you sue an infringer for punitive damages in addition to actual damages.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-02-2011, 03:07 AM
psychonaut psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
(IANAL) Yes, but then the receiver has to actually claim they received something, in a certified mail envelope. The judge will hear 2 conflicting stories and one must be lying. Who is lying - the guy who is trying to collect on a legitimate debt, or the weasel who has spent a year trying not to pay a legitimate debt? Being a judge is so hard sometimes..
I'm glad you're not a judge. Why are you automatically assuming that the tenant is at fault? What if the tenant was in fact making payments the whole time, but due to some banking error the payments were misrouted and never showed up in the landlord's account? What if the tenant was paying the landlord in cash, but the landlord failed to provide receipts in hopes of later falsely claiming non-payment? What if the tenant really was delinquent with his payments, but had been upfront and apologetic about this with the landlord, trying to work out a payment schedule for the debt? There are any number of scenarios in which, regardless whether the debt actually exists, it's the landlord, not the tenant, who is being a weasel.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-02-2011, 03:49 AM
BeaMyra BeaMyra is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 522
This comes up on the ebay and PayPal boards a lot. People claim they pay for something and the seller send them a rock. Then they dispute it with PayPal and all PayPal requires is proof you sent it.

In this case, it seems you could get away with it once or maybe twice, but if a seller does it time and again, in this case it becomes quickly obvious
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:12 AM
Hairy Bob Hairy Bob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
BeaMyra, We've had it happen the other way around too. My wife sold a phone a while back, the buyer claimed it was faulty and was told to return it (all done through ebay and paypal), so they sent back the hands-free kit by recorded delivery (UK equivalent of certified mail) and gave paypal the tracking number. As soon as it was shown to be delivered, paypal took the money from my wife's account and gave it to the scumbag. When she tried to appeal she was basically told that we accepted delivery and we were S.O.L.
Quite infuriating really.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:21 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The Glitter Palace
Posts: 16,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Anytime you send something important, sometimes the law requires, or people close to you tell you to be sure to send it certified mail, return receipt requested because those lying, cheating bastards on the other side will claim that they never received it.

So, let's say that they do claim that they never received it. All I've got is a piece of paper that says that I sent them........something. I could send them a blank piece of paper. Why does the law put such an importance on CRRR mail?
Because it's not just the registered mail; that's simply one part of the proof of service.

Here's what I posted in the previous thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper
The details of personal service will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in my jurisdiction, the mere fact of sending something by registered post isn't sufficient to prove service. Someone (typically the secretary or para-legal) then has to swear an affidavit, (1) attaching a true copy of the document sent by registered post, (2) swearing that he/she put the true copy in the registered post, and (3) attaching the proof of delivery by the post office. It's that affidavit as a whole which is the proof of service, not just the document from the post office.

Nowadays the true copy is a photocopy; I suppose before photocopiers, it would have been a carbon copy (fortunately I can say I'm young enough to not know how it worked before photocopiers); before carbons, I imagine it would have been a hand-written copy by Bartleby the Scrivener.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:31 AM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
If you are dealing with a company that has been rumored to make trouble, you have a copy of the letter you sent, plus certified mail, for when you're going to court. But going to court costs money and time and is a bother, so you hope to avoide it by showing the company "Whatever weasel move you try, is not going to work, so play by the damn rules". If they don't react, you do a follow-up letter, citing your evidence and threatening a lawyer.

If you are dealing with he-said she-said situations, like ebay, you always have the option of packing the parcel/ letter in presence of a witness, or taking a picture (with digital photos so widespread, a cell-phone is at hand.)

Side-note: now that Christmas is coming up, some postal employees were found out to have been stealing mail some years back because of Christmas Stollen (a sweet food). A company sending CD-ROMs with important data on them back and forth via certified mail to another company was surprised when one of the parcels didn't contain six CDs, but five, and a media company got the sixth one. First there was a big upset about how such sensitive data (credit card billing) could get mislaid, but in the end it was traced back to some postal employees at the sorting center, who had opened parcels to steal complimentary Stollens that companies sent out as gifts before Christmas to their customers, suppliers and business partners. To cover up the loss, they had replaced some parcels with other content.

I remember it mostly for the stupidity of the guys: stealing credit cards in the mail or cash - makes sense. But Stollen, which hasn't much worth and can be bought, when every package can be tracked and at a time when a safe job is worth so much more? Boggingly stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:32 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The Glitter Palace
Posts: 16,647
jtgain, a question - do the rules you are operating under in your lease situation just say that the notice may be sent by registered mail?

or, do the rules go on to say that proof of service by registered mail is irrefutable proof that the document was in fact served on the recipient?

there is a difference: if the rules simply provide that documents can be sent by registered mail, but do not make any comment about the value of the proof of registered mail delivery, then they are just providing for an alternative to the traditional personal service. it's only if the rules go on to add some sort of irrefutability that the registered mail acquires particular significance.

if the rules do not go on to provide any statement about the evidential value of that proof, then I think that you may be over-stating the significance of the reliance on registered mail. (not intended as legal advice about your situation, of course; I don't have any idea where you are working or what the law in your jurisdiction is; I'm just participating in the general discussion.)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-02-2011, 11:30 AM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
A lot of the protection is provided by the fact that you'd have to plan this ahead of time.

Using certified mail to fake the sending of some notification would have to be done well before the conflict could, say, reach court. The idea is that you fail to make a demand, wait for that demand to (obviously) not be met, then go to court and claim that you made a reasonable demand in the past and it was ignored.

So, for this to actually work, the victim of this scam is going to have receive and sign for a certified shipment with nothing valid in it, then just ignore it. That requires a pretty foolish victim.

If I get what appears to be an obviously fake certified package from someone I have a legal relationship with, I'm doing the following things:

1. Taking photographs of what I received.
2. Mailing a certified response back asking what kind of shit you're trying to pull, with witnesses who can verify what I responded with.
3. Opening all future packages in the presence of witnesses.

That shit's not going to get you far with a judge.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-02-2011, 02:25 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychonaut View Post
I'm glad you're not a judge. Why are you automatically assuming that the tenant is at fault? What if the tenant was in fact making payments the whole time, but due to some banking error the payments were misrouted and never showed up in the landlord's account? What if the tenant was paying the landlord in cash, but the landlord failed to provide receipts in hopes of later falsely claiming non-payment? What if the tenant really was delinquent with his payments, but had been upfront and apologetic about this with the landlord, trying to work out a payment schedule for the debt? There are any number of scenarios in which, regardless whether the debt actually exists, it's the landlord, not the tenant, who is being a weasel.
I did not see anything about the landlord v tenant before my post; it was just about "what if a letter is blank"? One or the other is being a weasel. The case does not revolve around the one (blank?) mail, but the whole of the dispute.

I too have trouble imagining circumstances where it is in the sender's interest to not notify the receiver. In any case where it might matter, the judge will likely ask "one letter, is that all you ever did to resolve this!?" You have to show you took reasonable steps before involving the law, or the judge will simply tell you to get lost and try to settle this without a court first.

All relevant evidence can be entered. If the tenant was honestly but incorrectly paying the rent the whole time, there will be a paper trail that includes the misdirected payments. If the tenant just shoved hundred dollar bills through the wrong mail slot, no receipt, the judge won't give him much sympathy. Stupid doesn't earn points in court. If the tenant is in a rent controlled apartment and it's in the landlord's interest to fabricate evidence to evict (and raise the rent for the next guy) then either the judge will hear about that, or the tenant needs a better lawyer. If notification is a specific and most important key step before eviction, then probably the landlord should do something more specific and verifiable than sending an envelope on his own, which may or may not contain the notice - like have his lawyer do it, or having someone else witness the process. If the key element is whether the tenant actually paid, then where the mistake came and who is responsible from is the most important issue. Was the tenant sloppy and careless, was it the bank, or the landlord did not provide correct information? If the landlord missed several months payments, and all he did was (maybe) send one letter, he may not get much sympathy from the judge. In some circumstances, a duty of good faith is necessary.

And so on, it goes around in circles. The judge will listen to both sides and decide which weasel is lying. What each witness sounds like and what details back up their story is important. The main point is - it is the TOTALITY of the evidence, not one blank paper, that will decide the trial.

What the OP sounded like was the assumption that if you cannot prove the letter was (not) blank beyond a reasonable doubt, the case might fail. That might be the case in criminal law, but in lawsuits the outcome is less dependant on every element.

Last edited by md2000; 12-02-2011 at 02:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-02-2011, 02:41 PM
Voyager Voyager is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 33,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
A couple of things. Usually person B doesn't know what is supposed to be coming (They might have an idea, but they aren't sure). Does the law require that if I receive a blank piece of paper in the mail that I must follow up with the sender?

And again, (evil laugh here) I could say that I sent them a first class letter asking them what was going on or send a blank page CRRR and claim that I sent them a letter asking what was up with the blank piece of paper.

I don't see how this receipt has evidentiary value above my word that I put the document in the package they received.
If I got a blank piece of paper from someone I had never heard of, maybe. If I got a blank piece of paper by certified mail from my mortgage company, I damn well would call to find out what was going on. If I happened to be on the verge of foreclosure and got the paper, even more so.
Since the sender will of course have a copy of what was supposed to be sent, to do this scam he would both have to have some reason to send a blank piece of paper and have some reason to think the recipient is too stupid to follow up. And be willing to risk a charge of perjury. Courts are not perfect, so he might get away with it, but it seems a bit doubtful. It seems far more likely that the recipient would be making a desperate and incorrect claim, with some further justification why he didn't follow up. The recipient would have far more reason to lie than the sender, and if I were on a jury that's how I'd evaluate it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-04-2011, 02:33 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
jtgain, a question - do the rules you are operating under in your lease situation just say that the notice may be sent by registered mail?

or, do the rules go on to say that proof of service by registered mail is irrefutable proof that the document was in fact served on the recipient?

there is a difference: if the rules simply provide that documents can be sent by registered mail, but do not make any comment about the value of the proof of registered mail delivery, then they are just providing for an alternative to the traditional personal service. it's only if the rules go on to add some sort of irrefutability that the registered mail acquires particular significance.

if the rules do not go on to provide any statement about the evidential value of that proof, then I think that you may be over-stating the significance of the reliance on registered mail. (not intended as legal advice about your situation, of course; I don't have any idea where you are working or what the law in your jurisdiction is; I'm just participating in the general discussion.)
Well, its Florida. Before you evict a tenant, you must provide them with a 3 day notice form stating the amount they owe you, payable in 3 days or get out. If they ignore or otherwise do not pay, only then can you bring an eviction suit.

The statute provides that you can serve the tenant with this notice by: certified mail, by swearing that you left the document at the rental premises, or that you hand delivered it to the tenant.

I am a thousand miles away now, so #2 and #3 are not feasible options. I suppose it would be much easier to lie about #2 or #3, but CRRR doesn't give anymore truthful assurances for the same reason. But I am only using my situation as an example.

Plus, again, for whatever reason, I like these deadbeats. As long as they communicate with me and pay whatever they can, I'm not going to evict them. I will send these legal notices to prod them into paying because I do need the money. I guess you could say that I'm bluffing to get them to pay in fear of being evicted, but if the cards were on the table, I wouldn't do it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-05-2011, 08:29 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Well, its Florida. Before you evict a tenant, you must provide them with a 3 day notice form stating the amount they owe you, payable in 3 days or get out. If they ignore or otherwise do not pay, only then can you bring an eviction suit.

The statute provides that you can serve the tenant with this notice by: certified mail, by swearing that you left the document at the rental premises, or that you hand delivered it to the tenant.

I am a thousand miles away now, so #2 and #3 are not feasible options. I suppose it would be much easier to lie about #2 or #3, but CRRR doesn't give anymore truthful assurances for the same reason. But I am only using my situation as an example.

Plus, again, for whatever reason, I like these deadbeats. As long as they communicate with me and pay whatever they can, I'm not going to evict them. I will send these legal notices to prod them into paying because I do need the money. I guess you could say that I'm bluffing to get them to pay in fear of being evicted, but if the cards were on the table, I wouldn't do it.
This goes to my point:

One side says "I sent them a notice" and has given the tenants ample opportunity and leeway over and over, and kept the house in good repair.
The other side is chronically late paying, has been sent such notices often, etc. and says "Oh by the way, we only got a blank paper".

If you were a judge, who would you believe?

On the other hand, if one side has to be prodded to do basic maintenance, and sends a notice (they claim) the first time rent is missed without inquiring where the cheque is; and the other side never missed a rent payment for years until one cheque got lost in the mail and "the paper was blank"... Who would you believe then?

The judge listens to the whole case, and decides based on the preponderance of evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-06-2011, 04:39 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 16,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
The statute provides that you can serve the tenant with this notice by: certified mail, by swearing that you left the document at the rental premises, or that you hand delivered it to the tenant.
But look at your options. All you have to do is swear you handed them the document. If you're willing to perjure yourself, then you're golden. Of course, sending them the blank paper by certified mail requires the exact same thing, you'll have to stand up in court and swear that you sent them the notice.

So certified mail isn't evidence that you sent them something. It's standing up in court and swearing that you sent it that is evidence that you sent them something. You could show up in person, hand them a blank sheet of paper, and walk away, and later swear in court that the blank sheet of paper was their 3 day notice. Or you could do nothing, and later swear in court that you personally handed them the notice.

Then they can stand up in court and swear to their version of events, whatever that is, and the judge has to sort it out.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-06-2011, 08:57 PM
TokyoBayer TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
In business, the idea is the create a comprehensive paper trail.

I've only had to do this a few times, but you do things such as:

Email them then follow up with a phone call, using your cell phone, so you have records of when you call and the length of conversations.

Send emails with what you want to assert, but also include a point which they will be very likely to respond to. For example, one company said they don't give formal exclusive distribution but would give us it to us "informally." I wrote an email thanking them for that, and asked a question concerning a specific product, to which they responded, without questioning the agreement about exclusive distribution. If they were to challenge this is court, the question would be why didn't they say something in the email that we didn't have an agreement for exclusive distribution.

If I had to send a certified mail, and thought that it was going to go to court, then I would first send an email telling them I'm sending the XXX document by certified email, with response required. Send the certified mail, and then follow with phone call and an email.

If you have a strong enough paper trail, you'll be more able to prove your point.

And try to stay away from people who require this.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-07-2011, 03:06 PM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 30,439
In my years of rental propertymanagement, we had one tenant who sent us a pamphlet via certified mail. We filed for eviction.

The second month, when he sent another certified letter, I opened it in front of the broker, who took several photos of the brochure.

The tenant showed proof in court that he had bought money orders and had signed receipts for the certified mail. The judge asked for proof the money orders were cashed.

He was evicted.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-07-2011, 10:31 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
If one side says "notice was sent" and the other side says the letter was blank, one of the jobs the judge has is to decide who is lying. There is no such "unless you can prove it irrefutably, you lose." The until now scrupulously honest guy may suddenly decide to screw his tenant. If he's real smooth, he might even con the judge and pull it off. But... Usually the facts are what they seem to be.

"the race is not always to the swiftest, nor the contest to the strongest... But that's the way to bet.". - O. Henry
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-08-2011, 10:00 AM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 16,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoPlayer View Post
If I had to send a certified mail, and thought that it was going to go to court, then I would first send an email telling them I'm sending the XXX document by certified email, with response required. Send the certified mail, and then follow with phone call and an email.

If you have a strong enough paper trail, you'll be more able to prove your point.

And try to stay away from people who require this.
Right, but this is the opposite. He isn't imagining sending a document by certified mail and then wanting additional evidence that the document was delivered. He's imagining someone who doesn't really send the document, but wants to create fake evidence that it was sent.

This will only work if the sender is willing to perjure himself over the issue. And also the reciever is an idiot who gets behind on his rent, gets a blank document via certified mail from his landlord, and then shrugs his shoulders and forgets about it. Until they get evicted, when they decide to fight the eviction in court, and say they didn't get the notice.

Or alternatively, the question is, what do you do when you get a certified letter from someone and you open it and there's nothing relevent in it, and later in court they claim that you got important documents in the letter which you failed to respond to. How can you fight the presumption that, because you got a certified letter you got what was supposed to be in that letter? The answer is, if you get a certifed letter from someone with supposedly important documents that don't seem important, you follow up right away with them. You get on the phone and figure out what's going on. That way when you get to court and they get on the stand and claim they sent you X, Y and Z, you can get on the stand and say you asked about X, Y, and Z, and you called them, and they said you didn't need an X, Y, or Z, pay no attention.

Again, the certifed letter isn't evidence that someone got a document. It is a human being standing up in court swearing that they sent the document that is evidence, and the reciept merely supports their testimony.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.