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.)
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:
Taking photographs of what I received.
Mailing a certified response back asking what kind of shit you’re trying to pull, with witnesses who can verify what I responded with.
Opening all future packages in the presence of witnesses.
That shit’s not going to get you far with a judge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The state of rhode island the burden of proof is on you. So when i send in my check… the tax return, the payment voucher, someone in the state steals the check (has my ssn: my bank account number,my name, my signature my phone number my address etc…). then a month later i get a notice of penalty and interest along with deficiency in payment of taxes… there is nothing i can do… what constitutes burden of proof? do i have to hire notarys to witness me putting hte check in an envelope and then in front of the notary hand it to a delivery service? This seems to be unreasonable. How can a state go against the constitution and FINE me when i have done nothing wrong. how can i be guilty till proven innocent in america? they got my return but they lost the check? someone is having a good laugh at the taxpayers expense… they are not handling MY check as if it were their own. and my personal info is broadcast to the universe becaseu my state requires that info on the check… which they handle with criminal carelessness. it’ s not just the tax people either… the dmv u wait 3 hours in line… forget something they will walk to the door behind you and lock it on you so you cant come back in. that’s their idea of customer service… and it’s not just me… they did it to a ri cop girlfriend and the cop even pulled his gun on dmv people. he lost his job and the dmv people probably had another good laugh ri is the worst state in the uniion when it comes to customer satisfaction. I have a high res photo of everything i put in the envelope… seconds before i stuffed the envelope. the work place was clear of clutter and everything was done with extreme attention as this is my taxes! I MAILED THEM A CHECK 100% certainty! and unless stuff falls out of the envelope or the postal service steals the checks… the state of ri got it… cus they got my return! and burden of proof on the citizen!!!
Evictions are expensive, and judges know this. So the judge has a document stating that the landlord sent something by mail at the appropriate time, and the landlord stating (under penalty of perjury) that is was a copy of the proper termination notice in which the landlord can produce the original.
Å) The tenant knows they didn’t pay rent … duh … they knew this was coming anyway,
ı) The landlord is actually using the court system, instead of hiring a half dozen bar-bouncers, and
Ç) The judge likes the landlord, especially if the landlord has presented 50 consecutive perfect cases in a row over the decades.
In civil cases, the standard of evidence is a preponderance of said evidence … unless the judge has a reason to think the landlord is a lying bastard, he/she won’t naturally think he/she is. So the judge will believe you sent a termination notice simply because you said the certified letter contained it, just don’t give the judge any ideas you’re lying about anything.
IMEIO, this is a bad idea. If you want to work with the tenants, then work with them. You’ll have to keep the relationship workable, threatening legal action in writing and by certified mail will most likely be seen as a threatening action. If they have the money and are just refusing to give it to you, you want to evict them anyway. If they don’t have the money, no threat will make them have the money.
Seriously, don’t put this in writing unless you intend to follow through promptly, or your creditability with these tenants drops like a duck filled with buckshot.
Oregon Law actually forbids using certified mail, too slow, and requires these notices be sent by first class mail. I use the PS Form 3817 to document the postmark, the extra $1.47 is cheap compared to all the court costs, lost rent and all the work getting the unit ready for the next tenant (and for you the 2,000 mile trip)
The landlord/tenant relationship goes back to the Middle Ages. Back then the landlord served as the judge for the court so “evictions” were quicker, although execution would be be the more proper term. The wife and kids are sold into slavery in time for the landlord to make his payment to his duke, or whatever.
Yeah, and it was landlord blood that flowed in the streets of Paris …
Yep. So a crooked mortgage company would not send a blank piece of paper, they would send one of their junk mail brochures trying to sell you refinancing or something. You would see it as junk mail, throw it away, and probably not even remember it. I get that kind of junk mail often, sometimes in envelopes trying to masquerade as important, certified mail from some vague government department.
I can. Suppose the tenant sends a blank piece of paper by CMRRR and later claims he sent a real check? But now the presumption is the other way. Why would the landlord not deposit the check and collect his rent. The tenant can prove that his check was deposited, assuming it was. So now who will the judge believe?
The first thing the judge would consider is - who benefits by lying? Who has the incentive to send blank paper, vs. who has the incentive to receive a cheque and not cash it, or ignore a “final notice”?
If the landlord benefits from eviction, even without the rent being paid - i.e. flips the house for a tidy fortune, gets out of rent control - they have an incentive. If the tenant simply hasn’t paid the rent, then they are living rent free - their incentive.
But again -totality of evidence. If the tenant shows bank statement indicating balance was always there waiting for cheque to clear, cheque numbers… always paid on time before this… landlord if fighting an uphill battle.
Also remember that the landlord tenant rules usually are covered by a more complex act than simple civil debt laws.
But basically, to get back to the late lamented and resurrected original post - all a certified letter does is prove something was sent. It does not prove contents, but each side will have to swear to contents in court. Of all the things that happen in court, perjury - trying to game the system - is not one judges tolerate. It’s one thing to misinterpret or misremember, but when faced with a direct contradiction, the judge has to decide who’s the liar.
My advice to the tenant in the above situation is to go to the bank, withdraw the cash for rent, and have it sitting on the table in front of them while the judge walks in. I’ve lost count how many of my tenants have told the judge they didn’t have the money … I imagine the judge hears it all the time … this act sets the tenant apart in an important way.