Can an apartment owner keep a deposit of a deceased tenant …?
The rent was up to date and the following month’s rent was paid by the deceased’s sibling to schedule professional movers and clean…the apartment was rented 2 days after the the keys were returned. A check was sent to the sibling’s address but it was made out to the estate of the deceased. There was no will. When asked to write out the check to the sibling rather than the deceased’s estate, the owner stated that he was doing a favor (check made out to the estate) and did not have to pay otherwise. He chose to take 20% out of the deposit for carpet replacement (rented 7 yrs) but did not replace it. The owner admitted that the sibling should be paid for the cleaning but after waiting 3 months the sibling asked the owner why he was “sitting on the check” ,.. the owner replied “you’re being pushy, I think I will “sit on the check” it has been 5 months…Is there a legal stand in this event?
He was supposed to make out the check to the estate, though he could have been kind enough to make it out to the sibling to make it a little easier. But as far as taking money out to replace a carpet, that’s his responsibility. Normal wear and tear is the landlord responsibility. He is required to either clean or replace the carpet and paint the apartment when a tenant moves out and before a new one moves in. He sounds sheisty to me. Tell him if he doesn’t make the full check out to the estate you will sue him in small claims court for the return of the full deposit. Good luck.
Moving Storage Services in Tampa Bay Area, Sam’s Movers
The Conservation Policies Of Presidential Candidates
We all know our Earth is in serious trouble. If there is one person who can really turn around things in our country it is the president. With elections round the corner and a line-up of presidential candidates, don’t all of us want to know who truly supports the green movement? Here’s a run down on the top candidates and their perspective of the environment:
Hillary Clinton
She has been known for citing serious environmental hazards in all of her speeches. However, it wasn’t until late 2007 that she actually drafted a comprehensive solution to the problem. This plan is essentially more like a cap trade mechanism which aims at reducing emissions by as much as 80%! A two-pronged approach focusing on investment and efficiency seems to be the primary strategy as of now. While the efficiency focus deals with elevating standards on vehicles, buildings etc. investment would focus on aspects like hybrids that are pluggable and also ensuring carbon seizures. Plans are also in the initial stages to form a NEC (National Energy Council) of sorts in order to segregate the responsibilities amongst agencies of the federal government. Clinton’s plan is pretty similar to the other presidential candidate lineups. However, it remains to be seen if any real implementation happens.
Barack Obama
Barack has been seen touting the usage of liquefied coal at one point which earned him a black mark amongst the green movers. Throughout his campaign he did not really devote time to focus on aspects about the environment or energy. It was only later during October 2007 that he finally released a detailed plan on energy conservation. In addition to the cap trade system promoted by Clinton, Obama also cited an investment of 150 billion to facilitate more green employment opportunities. His detailed plan also enlists aspects on improving efficiency creating a smarter electricity grid system and promoting public transportation.
John McCain
John McCain has been one of the few presidential candidates to truly voice his opinion on global warming issues. In 2003 he brought out the Climate Stewardship Act which was produced in 2005 and yet again in 2007. This proposal also focused on cap trade mechanisms while also cutting down emissions by 65%. He believes fuel efficiency must be raised in a gradual fashion instead of taking dramatic steps to change the existing system.
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is an Independent but has managed to carve a name for himself as far as environment protection measures are concerned. In the initial days of his career he started a movement that aimed at getting consumer protection and environment laws passed in parliament. He was also instrumental in getting acts such as Clean Water and Clean Air passed. Till date Nader has voiced his opinion strongly against the funding in favor of nuclear supplies. In addition Nader is also strongly against industries that pollute the environment. He believes aspects like imposition of carbon tax will help protect the environment to a certain extent. He also advocates the usage of solar power as an alternative fuel source.
About the Author
Modernecohomes.com, offers a wide range of eco friendly office furniture and certified organic products. To stay up to date with the latest eco-friendly news, please visit this great eco friendly blog.
International Movers – International Shipping – Movers.com
Tony Blair had started his new job as special envoy of the Quartet – the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations – even before he had been appointed.
He stated mantra of the Quartet to the House of Commons in his speech output:
"The only way to bring stability and peace to the Middle East is a two-state solution, which means a state of Israel that is secure and confident in their safety and a Palestinian state is viable not only in terms of its territory but in terms of its institutions and the government. "
Are you really Seriously – the "only way"? No other options at all? What a doomsday forecast.
After 14 years of attempts and failures miserably to create a State between Israel and Jordan, it seems that it is poor policy objective will be at least until Mr Blair is replaced by another person eminent position of a former U.S. President, the Prime Minister or head of the World Bank.
George Bush or Condoleezza Rice is probably like a job within two years.
If Mr Blair is serious in his pronouncement and believes that "two-state solution is the only way, then it must first to be an immediate change of attitude of the Palestinians before the start of any new negotiations to achieve that goal.
You will need the support of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. His advisor, the chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Abbas told AFP that Mr Blair had given an assurance that he will work with Mr Blair, to reach a peaceful solution based on two states.
Abbas – the leader of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority – immediately convene a Palestinian National Council meeting to amend or repeal the offensive and offensive following provisions of the Charter of the PLO – which totally contradict the "solution of two States "for the Quartet is so inextricably linked and a mockery of any peace process" to be held by Mr. Blair:
Article 1: "Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people."
This should be amended to state the country is also the Jewish people. What does a two-state solution mean otherwise?
Article 2: Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is an indivisible territorial unit. "
British Mandate of Palestine covers Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. This clause should be repealed. It is a total negation of the state solution "two."
Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine "
If this is allowed to stand, the Quartet and Blair may be as well go and fly kites now.
Article 10: "The action command is the core of the liberation war Palestinian people "
How does this kind of official approval gel conduct a peace process?
Article 15: "The liberation of Palestine … aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine"
This is totally incompatible with state solution "two" and must be repealed now.
Article 19: "The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time "
How does this permit a "two states "solution to be negotiated?
Article 20: "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them are considered null and void. "
Total disregard for international law and the rule of law, including Resolution 242 of the Security Council have no place in negotiations being conducted by the Quartet. If Mr Blair wants his authority to be respected and treated seriously, this clause must disappear.
"Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history .. "
Offensive – not only for Jews – but for Christians too. These ideas need to be deleted.
"Judaism, being a religion, not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity;
Let this position makes the two-state solution impossible to attain.
Article 22: Shows a state racist and anti-Semitic attitude of mind and totally contrary to any peaceful settlement must be completely erased.
It takes a majority two-thirds of all members of the Palestinian National Council in a special session convened for that purpose to amend the previous articles.
In 2003, the Council had 669 members, 88 of the Palestinian Legislative Council, 98 representing the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza and 483 on behalf of the Palestinian diaspora (Source: Wikipedia).
Such numbers now represent a fair and representative cross-section of movers and shakers of the Palestinian public. Measures taken by them to amend these articles offensive would send a powerful message to voters that the day of hating Jews, armed struggle, resistance and terror are over.
This meeting can be called in 60 days to see if members of the Council is really serious in wanting to end the conflict by adopting innovative such and historic decisions.
There would be those who would ignore the change of direction and continue to participate in terror. They should be treated as ruthless and more effectively as possible.
Oslo and everything that has followed has not had any chance of success since this quantum leap in thinking is not required before any talks was carried out. A handshake on the lawn of the White House was not enough.
The farce that Mr Blair can play games of peace while the body policy can play war games and participate in the pathological hatred of his "partner for peace" must end.
If Mr Blair does not press for this Palestinian National Council meeting, then your mission – like many of those before him – only have a certain outcome – a lot of flyer points often, lots of photo opportunities, and a couple of kilos extra weight placed on the luxurious banquet held in his honor.
No changes are allowed now to the Charter PLO = no new negotiations, no State.
The equation for advancing the "two state solution" is really as simple as that.
About the Author
David Singer is an Australian Lawyer and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International — an organization calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine
