My landlord’s management company sent a “lease amendment” to everyone that starting in 30 days they would no longer accept cash, just checks and money orders.
They said it was because their bank courier refused to carry cash, for his safety, and they also didn’t want cash in the office to discourage robbers. (I presume they will put up a sign to let the robbers know this.)
Doesn’t affect me because I do an automatic direct deposit.
But it must add to the cost for some tenants without checking accounts because they must buy multiple money orders (due to limits of $500 each) every month.
So, can they do that? If you insist on handing over legal tender can they refuse and try to evict you?
Curiously enough, the state law allows the reverse: If a landlord gets a check that bounces they are allowed to insist on cash for the next 6 months.
I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me that a big part of this will ride on whether your rent payment is considered a debt. If you try to purchase something in the store they do have the right not to accept cash, since this is not considered a debt. Is rent analogous to that?
I know that my rent that I will pay on 1 July is for the month of July, meaning I am paying in advance. Is this really a debt? I don’t think it is, although that is complicated by the fact that I signed a contract stating I will continue to purchase these months of usage for at least a year. Does that make it a debt? I don’t know what the legal definition is.
They may have to accept cash, but they can specify where that cash can be accepted, which will usually be at a local bank. All they have to do is supply payment coupons to the tenants so that the payment is routed properly. Most likely, there are very few tenants still paying their rent in cash and it is no longer worth it for them to continue insurance coverage for having cash in the office or for the “bank courier” (who is probably just an office employee).
No, they can mandate payment by Check, MO, or other forms, the “for all debts public and private” doesn’t stop that. It is possible that State or local law may require them to accept cash. And, if it actually gets to court for eviction, the fact that you are standing there with the rents in full in cash will be very much in your favor- ianal.
What they can’t do for "“for all debts public and private” is require payment in their own script, foreign currency or gold, etc.
I was sure that Cecil had addressed this very question a few years back, but couldn’t find the column in the archive. Instead you’ll have to settle for what the U.S. Department of the Treasury says: Front page | U.S. Department of the Treasury
In short, if you actualoly owe money to someone pursuant to a contract requiring payment at a future date (they are yourcreditor, you their debtor), they may not refuse payment in legal tender, though they may place limitations on where, now, and when they will accept such payment. The debt must exist – it’'s not a requirement that any business selling goods or services must accept cash payment for them.
As applied to this circumstance – if you have a lease, such that you’re obliged to pay for apartment X for a year regardless of whether you decide to go camp on the beach and leave your apartment empty for that year, your lessor must accept cash – but can place quite specfic bounds on how and when he will accept it (the example of paying it in at his bank being a good one). If, on the other hand, you’re a tenant at will, renting month to month, he can say he wants credit card payment, money order, cashier’s check, etc. – you do not have a debt to him, just a contractual arrangement for goods or services (your apartment).
P.S. That entire paragraph attempting to draw out a distinction between a tenancy for a term, a periodic tenancy, or an at-will tenancy and how that relates to a distinction between a debt and a contractual arrangement is deeply erroneous.
As other posters have pointed out, a lease is an agreement, and as long as something isn’t illegal you can contract for almost anything. (There are certain things like strict liablity you can’t contract out of. Like if you keep a lion, that animal is strict liability. It’s considered so dangerous, you can’t waive your rights to it.)
So probably if you were in the sixth month of a 12 month lease you could make a strong case for still paying in cash. I mean come on a if a landlord took you to court for non-payment of rent and you could show he refused cash, he’d laughed out of court.
But when you sign a lease they can make it a condition of renting to you.
I worked in one hotel where we required in order to accept employement you had to have direct deposit. This varies from state to state but usually the state requires the employee incur no fees (some states do allow you to charge a fee for direct deposit) as a result of direct deposit, and some states, like Kansas make it mandatory a payroll debit card can be substituted.
So basically you can make a form or type of payment mandatory but usually it only pertains to new not existing thing. Like in my above payroll example, mandatory direct deposit only would apply to new hires, not old hires.
Well, I’d observe that you don’t have a reference that a lessor must accept cash.
In general, two parties to a contract can specify the consideration that will pass between them. If they wanted, they could contract that the payment be made in whatever specific medium they like: cash, checks, gold dubloons, whatever.
However, if there were a breach of the contract and suit was instituted and money damages were awarded, then these damages most certainly could be paid in cash.
You can even refine this latter notion. Another type of remedy used in contract actions is specific performance, where the court orders a party to a contract to do what the contract called for. It is often used in real estate agreement cases to compel a seller with cold feet to sell the property he agreed to convey. If you want to consider the seller to “owe” the house to the buyer; he could not, if specific performance were awarded, just show up with a corresponding amount of cash. He must satisfy his “debt” (at least so to speak) with a house, not currency.
“Legal tender” is these days a bit of an anachronism. As Elendil’s Heir’s link to the Treasury reveals, even that department does not understand the Coinage Act of 1965 (the most recent statutory command regarding legal tender) to obligate merchants to accept cash. The legal tender concept was once important when this country used commodity money, which minting would be suspended during wartime. To ensure that paper money did not detriment its holder (and thus defeat the objectives of the suspension, which was to conserve needed commodities in the war effort), the government was much more adamant in ensuring that people would accept it. These days, outside of certain devotees of one Doctor Congressman Ronald Paul, paper money is not so controversial. Accordingly, the animating worry behind the concept of legal tender is much attenuated, as is enforcement against those refusing to deal with cash.
This makes no sense. Of course the owner of an apartement cannot make laws which apply to other people. Only the government can do that.
But the owner of an apartment is free to demand that the monthly rent shall consist of 50 lbs of tomatoes, 100 gallons of diesel fuel and 200 Euros. To get the lease of the apartmemt you have to agree to those conditions and they are perfectly legal and enforceable.
Now, if the rent is specified in grams of cocaine then there might be a problem.
In fact the gov’t has done so. That’s exactly what Legal Tender refers to- dollars. Not cash, as the gov’t site points out, a business can reject cash in some cases. They can not reject dollars, however- they can simply request the form of said dollars.
Note that Casinos in Vegas are very careful to not indicate that their chips are a form of cash.
The National Bank Act ended the legality of private script.
Note that the last person to try issuing private script is “As of November 2008, Angel Cruz is a wanted federal fugitive.”
As far as I can tell, he’s not wanted for making up his own Monopoly money Cruz-bucks to play with; he’s wanted on multiple charges of fraud, particularly for crafting millions of dollars worth of bogus checks with fake bank routing numbers and passing them off as the real deal.
In the UK the Royal Mint offers the following advice:
A common tactic used by disgruntled recipients of fines etc is to pay the whole amount in small denomination coinage… £2000 fine in 5p etc. However, the Royal Mint also specify how much of a particular denomination can be used for a given debt… e.g. the courts only have to accept a max. of £5 in 5p coins.
Again, your answer makes no sense. Again, you are making shit up as you go.
What you are saying is that bartering is illegal and you cannot exchange one thing for another unless you first convert both things to dollars. Which is bullshit. Any business can require that their products or services be paid in produce, or in Euros or in whatever they wish to ask and there is nothing illegal about that. Or please prove otherwise. Prove that an American business cannot set its prices in another currency that is not US dollars.
Thanks for the input. I think that Treasury link provides the answer: It’s up to the states, which probably puts my neighbors out of luck, but I can check that on a state law search.
The state CAN override all contract terms, and they do. For example, no matter what it says in your lease it’s illegal to charge “liquidated damages” for late payment. They must prove actual damages to collect in court. And no matter what you have in your lease, this year, but not last but also two years ago, rent cannot be changed more than 10% without 60 days notice - the law has changed twice lately with the see-saw control of the state senate.