why does this seem wrong?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by MRT144
yeah, but also the costs of repair and fixing things up is changed by interest itself. so the cost of repairing a bathtub you and tubes broke while having sex in it (in theory) will cost more to fix than when you initially paid the deposit. The interest is a hedge against inflation.

i just dont get why you think it's "your" money without a document saying so. is it in his possession? is he going to spend it without your consent for repairs? you paid insurance on yourself while living there.

\

Isnt that what he is doing by using it for an investment? Not asking me is doing just what you said. that money is entirely mine until i move out of his house.

[MRT144]

there is an actual contract on the car, and this is where the difference begins. they dont have a contract that states what happens to the deposit and interest and the belief that it is "theirs" while there being no reason to believe that other than self serving interest, is just weak.

using their logic i should be able to get interest back on my insurance premiums i paid if i never used the insurance at the end of my enrollment.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
\

Isnt that what he is doing by using it for an investment? Not asking me is doing just what you said. that money is entirely mine until i move out of his house.

would you prefer a moving out fee that is inflation adjusted to cover repairs?

[Ben Kenobi]

there is an actual contract on the car, and this is where the difference begins. they dont have a contract that states what happens to the deposit and interest and the belief that it is "theirs" while there being no reason to believe that other than self serving interest, is just weak.

They do have a contract that says that the deposit is still hers. He can't just walk off with it without breaching the contract.

using their logic i should be able to get interest back on my insurance premiums i paid if i never used the insurance at the end of my enrollment.

You could if the insurance company were holding your money as collateral for something else. That's not the case. You are paying the insurance company money for their services which include registration and repairs in the case of an accident.

In this case, you have no service being performed for the landlord in exchange for the deposit. It's just collateral used to secure the place and protect against damages.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Isnt that what he is doing by using it for an investment? Not asking me is doing just what you said. that money is entirely mine until i move out of his house.

Money is fungible. He cannot damage it by its investment. By investing it he is not doing you any harm, so long as an equivalent sum is returned to you after your lease has expired.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


They do have a contract that says that the deposit is still hers. He can't just walk off with it without breaching the contract.



You could if the insurance company were holding your money as collateral for something else. That's not the case. You are paying the insurance company money for their services which include registration and repairs in the case of an accident.

In this case, you have no service being performed for the landlord in exchange for the deposit. It's just collateral used to secure the place and protect against damages.

does the contract actually say that? and he isnt just walking off with it if he put it in an account that recieves interest, he is making sure that he isnt out a lot of money for repairs and fixes when they move out due to inflation. why do they want to screw their landlord?

as for the insurance thing, i suppose youre right, it is different in practicality but the same in spirit. didnt think about the difference between services and goods and collateral.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You could if the insurance company were holding your money as collateral for something else.

Actually, no, you wouldn't. You don't have a ****ing clue here.

If there's no law and nothing in the contract to say that money held as collateral is to be returned plus interest then there's no obligation to return the money plus interest. Just the original sum.

Money cannot be damaged by its investment. As long as the full original sum is returned then she has no basis for complaint. The landlord is not forcing her to assume whatever risks come with the investment. He takes those on himself.

If the landlord held her car as collateral then he couldn't go driving it around (because he's introducing wear and tear on the vehicle).

Again, some jurisdictions require that the collateral be held in a bank and that interest be repaid to the renter. Some don't require anything of the sort.

Welcome to the free market.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You would still be able to drive your car if you used your car as collateral, you would just get it taken away if you failed to make the payments on time.

That's a lien, not a deposit. The two are completely different.

[KrazyHorse]

A lien entitles the owner to continue possession and use of the collateral. A deposit does not.

[Ben Kenobi]

If there's no law and nothing in the contract to say that money held as collateral is to be returned plus interest then there's no obligation to return the money plus interest. Just the original sum.

Exactly. The principle still remains her property just as much as before. I was only talking about the principle not the interest.

Money cannot be damaged by its investment. As long as the full original sum is returned then she has no basis for complaint. The landlord is not forcing her to assume whatever risks come with the investment. He takes those on himself.

True, but she seems willing to undertake that risk. I don't see why the landlord is obligated to refuse her that request. The landlord may say no.

Anyways, guys this thread isn't about what I believe it's about the question that Mrs. T asked.

Do you folks have any more suggestions about how she should go about getting the interest back?

[KrazyHorse]

?

Again, you don't understand the difference between a lien and a deposit.

The deposit does not entitle her to continued use of her property. It is held in trust by the landlord. He guarantees prompt repayment of the original sum (less damages...which is where you see a lot of bull**** claims).

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry for not being clear.

Yes I understand the difference between the two. The deposit is held because he can't damage the money. All I meant is that the money remains her property even if she is not currently entitled to it as she would with her vehicle.

Anyhow, any suggestions KH?

[KrazyHorse]

Do you folks have any more suggestions about how she should go about getting the interest back?

She has no right to any interest not specifically guaranteed in the contract or in law. Why should the landlord give her something she's not entitled to?

What I'd worry about (if I were her) is getting back some or all of her original deposit. Landlords tend to create a bunch of bull**** charges. I've never gotten more than 75% of my security deposit back, despite the fact that I'd created no actual damage by my occupancy.

Back in Montreal the law was far more protective of the renter. It is illegal there to require any security deposit.

[Kontiki]

I've rented a total of seven places in my life and never once had any problem getting my entire deposit back. Luck of the draw, I suppose.

[KrazyHorse]

Could also be the strength of the rental complaints board.

Plus, I've been renting from low-rent landlords in student-dominated areas (until current apartment). They might be a bit shadier with nickel-and-diming.