Consumer Law, Warranties Father Renigged on Verbal Agreement with Daughter and Son In-Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

grle4lif

New Member
A VERBAL agreement was made between a father, and his daughter and son in-law that they could come live in his residence until the couple had become financially stable enough to either build a house on the adjacent property or possibly just taking over his property. (There was never actually nething specific stated in the agreement about when or even if the couple would ever leave the residence, just brainstorming and ideas tossed around because it was years into the future!) The agreement was made that the couple would make a payment every month to the father which would be used to then repay the loan that was taken out to remodel the basment of the house into an in-law suite where the now resides. The loan was to be repaid over a total of 60 months, or 5 years, in which the couple would be responsable for and would pay in full in replacement of any kind of "RENT" to reside in the home. The couple would pay the father on the 25th of every month allowing for a 10 day grace period before the actual date of payment due to the bank that issued the loan. First payment was made by the couple on June 25, 2007 and the first payment made towards the loan by the father was July 5, 2007. The date the couple actually took up residency was in October 2007. Since this time the couple has put other money into the property other then just the repayment of the loan, estimated at at least a couple of thousand dollars. About a year ago the couple fell into some fincial hardships but were able to continue paying the father towards the loan every month until April 2010 when the son in-law went to the father asking if he (the father) would make the loan payment for possibly the next two months (the one for May and the one for June). At the time he was approached all was well and he VERBALLY granted the request and was informed that repayment to him for money then owed would be paid back as soon as the couple had the funds available which would more then likely be in June. On June 7, 2010 the daughter wakes up to find a notice taped to the door. The document heading reads: Failure To Pay Rent - Landlord's Complaint for Repossession of Rented Property Under Real Property secion 8-401! The daughter is not exactly 100% sure what this document is first of all and the amount stated on the document that is owed to the father by the couple is not accurate, as well as a couple more details on the notice!

Obviously the only agreement the father had with the daughter and son in-law was a VERBAL one, so do they have any rights now that the father has decided to go back on what was suppose to be the original agreement, or was it the couple that first broke the verbal agreement when they could not pay the rent in full those few months? And what actions should the couple take next? Do they have any options?
 
A VERBAL agreement was made between a father, and his daughter and son in-law that they could come live in his residence until the couple had become financially stable enough to either build a house on the adjacent property or possibly just taking over his property. (There was never actually nething specific stated in the agreement about when or even if the couple would ever leave the residence, just brainstorming and ideas tossed around because it was years into the future!) The agreement was made that the couple would make a payment every month to the father which would be used to then repay the loan that was taken out to remodel the basment of the house into an in-law suite where the now resides. The loan was to be repaid over a total of 60 months, or 5 years, in which the couple would be responsable for and would pay in full in replacement of any kind of "RENT" to reside in the home. The couple would pay the father on the 25th of every month allowing for a 10 day grace period before the actual date of payment due to the bank that issued the loan. First payment was made by the couple on June 25, 2007 and the first payment made towards the loan by the father was July 5, 2007. The date the couple actually took up residency was in October 2007. Since this time the couple has put other money into the property other then just the repayment of the loan, estimated at at least a couple of thousand dollars. About a year ago the couple fell into some fincial hardships but were able to continue paying the father towards the loan every month until April 2010 when the son in-law went to the father asking if he (the father) would make the loan payment for possibly the next two months (the one for May and the one for June). At the time he was approached all was well and he VERBALLY granted the request and was informed that repayment to him for money then owed would be paid back as soon as the couple had the funds available which would more then likely be in June. On June 7, 2010 the daughter wakes up to find a notice taped to the door. The document heading reads: Failure To Pay Rent - Landlord's Complaint for Repossession of Rented Property Under Real Property secion 8-401! The daughter is not exactly 100% sure what this document is first of all and the amount stated on the document that is owed to the father by the couple is not accurate, as well as a couple more details on the notice!

Obviously the only agreement the father had with the daughter and son in-law was a VERBAL one, so do they have any rights now that the father has decided to go back on what was suppose to be the original agreement, or was it the couple that first broke the verbal agreement when they could not pay the rent in full those few months? And what actions should the couple take next? Do they have any options?


The law of property in this country does not permit oral agreements.
If it isn't in writing, it can't or never happened.
Or, certain state statutes speak for the parties in dispute, such as month to month tenancies.
 
Daughter Needs To Lecture Father!

Well, the "daughter" is not the only one who is not 100% sure as to what the posted "document" is supposed to be; I have to say ditto (with a huge emphasis on laughter) and daughter and son-in-law should feel free to join in the laughter with confidence. Because not only is the "document" a legal aberration to say the least, it would still have no legal force or effect even if it was somehow real since the dispute is not of the landlord-tenant variety and the "father" has absolutely no claims against the daughter.

Oh contraire!

The dispute here is without question one for breach of a quasi-contract by the father and it is the daughter and the son-in-law who have genuine claims against the father for reliance damages and for unjust enrichment based on the Contract Law's doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

Army Judge is absolutely correct in his assertion and the "statute" he is referring to is called the Statutes of Fraud which basically demands that certain type of agreements be in writing or they be without effect, such as marriage contracts, contracts for sale of goods totaling $500 or more, and of course any land or property contract including lease agreements.

You and your husband moved into the basement on reliance of the father's promise and the loan obtained was used to improve his property which you have solemnly been paying back for the last three years; and now he unjustly wants you out on some nonsensical excuse and he is said to have been unjustly enriched by the improvement to the basement at your (collective) detrimental reliance. If he wants you out; fine; so be it. But he should first pay you for all your "out-of-pocket" expenses and reliance damages.

Write back to your father and enlighten him of this little gem a substantive law, telling him quite straight up that he is in fact the liable person and not you, and that unless he comes to his senses and adheres to the terms of the quasi-contract, you will insert the two counter claims in the answer to any complaint he may bring (one that is actually rooted in real world) and let the chips fall where they may.

You are in good shape and father does not have a legal leg to stand on.


fredrikklaw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top