Real Estate Management Group

Dear Revdex.com: We are in receipt of Mrand Mrs [redacted] 's complaint Please review details and timeline below in response to their complaint REMG advertised the property in question May of this year The property's exact advertising description is copied below: Miller Creek Home - bed, bath, country feel, pets considered - Missoula Located off of Upper Miller Creek Road, this private three level home has a country feel but is just minutes from townFeaturing beds, baths, 4,square feet of living space, kitchen with stainless steel appliances including a dishwasher, dining room, living room, family room, gas fireplace, ample storage, washer and dryer hookups, underground sprinklers, hot tub on the beautiful deck overlooking the nearby creek, large fenced yard, and an over sized two car garage SPECIAL TERMS: Tenants are responsible for gas, electric, lawn care and snow removalOwner provides trash and well waterPets may be considered upon owner approval with additional rent and security depositNon-smoking unitRenter's insurance required*All applicants must qualify on their own[redacted] Mr [redacted] viewed this property on 5/26/ Following the showing, both Mrand Mrs[redacted] applied for said property Once their applications were approved, on 06/06/the [redacted] s submitted a security deposit to hold and reserve the property After the security deposit was received, REMG removed the property from advertising By removing the property from advertising, it was no longer available to prospective tenants The [redacted] s reserved this property with knowledge that the homeowners were in the process of moving out of the home Therefore, the home would not be moready until August It is not uncommon for prospective tenants to reserve a property before it is moready When the [redacted] s submitted their security deposit, Mr [redacted] signed a form titled "Notice of Intent to Rent" The form was signed on 6/06/ The Notice of Intent to Rent specifically includes the following verbiage, which the [redacted] s agreed to by signing the form(a copy of the Notice of Intent to Rent will be provided upon request): I understand if I choose not to rent the above property after a security deposit has been submitted, I agree damages may be deducted from my security deposit (advertising, administrative fees, unpaid rent, etc.) “Security Deposits are subject to the provisions of the Montana Code Annotated 70-25-101, etseq In the event that, after placing your security deposit, you choose not to move into the dwelling and complete the lease term, we will deduct charges representing the actual costs involved in re-renting the dwelling from the security deposit." Two months later, on 8/03/2016, Mrs [redacted] viewed the property On the same day, the [redacted] s submitted a retraction notice for a refund of their security deposit Their reasoning for the retraction was because a small bonus room in the basement was locked with the homeowners' personal items This room was not locked when Mr [redacted] viewed the home on 5/26/2016, but was locked when Mrs [redacted] viewed the home on 8/03/ The [redacted] s argued that the advertisement was inaccurate, as they believed the locked room was considered one of four sleeping/bedrooms REMG explained the locked room is not a legal sleeping/bedroom and instead a bonus room REMG disputes that tenant use of this bonus room was not advertised, which is why REMG did not feel there was a discrepancy in the advertisement When the [redacted] s retracted their security deposit, they were reminded of the verbiage in the Intent to Rent Although REMG did not feel the retraction by the [redacted] s was in good faith, it refunded the full security deposit on 8/12/ Per Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 70-25-List of damages and refund -- delivery to departing tenant- a landlord has up to days to return the security deposit if no damages apply, and days if damages do apply REMG acted in compliance with MCA 70-25- At the time the full security deposit was refunded, the [redacted] s were informed that REMG would be covering lost advertising costs, which are generally the responsibility of tenant(s) who retract a security deposit In addition to covering the $in advertising costs, REMG offered to cover half of the lost prorated rent Therefore, the [redacted] s would only be responsible for $and REMG would cover the remaining $in charges Mind you, all charges are specifically a product of the [redacted] 's notice of retraction REMG attempted to take a more empathetic approach, but unfortunately it proved unsuccessful (NOTE: The [redacted] s have not paid the $ REMG had only informed them to expect an invoice.) In response to the [redacted] 's desired settlement, although REMG feels the [redacted] s are responsible for (at minimum) the $in lost prorated rent, REMG has chosen to absorb the entire cost of the retracted security deposit REMG agrees to release the [redacted] s of any further obligation, and they may pick up their applications at any time during business hours Lastly, REMG will honor the [redacted] 's wishes of having no further contact REMG maintains its position as having advertised the property accurately, but it understands there is always the possibility for misconception Sincerely, Real Estate Management Group

Dear Revdex.com:
We are in receipt of Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]'s complaint.  Please review details and timeline below in response to their complaint.
REMG advertised the property in question May of this year.  The property's exact advertising description is copied below:
Miller Creek Home - 4 bed,...

3 bath, country feel,  pets considered - Missoula
Located off of Upper Miller Creek Road, this private three level home has a country feel but is just minutes from town. Featuring 4 beds, 3 baths, 4,000 square feet of living space, kitchen with stainless steel appliances including a dishwasher, dining room, living room, family room, gas fireplace, ample storage, washer and dryer hookups, underground sprinklers, hot tub on the beautiful deck overlooking the nearby creek, large fenced yard, and an over sized two car garage.
SPECIAL TERMS: Tenants are responsible for gas, electric, lawn care and snow removal. Owner provides trash and well water. Pets may be considered upon owner approval with additional rent and security deposit. Non-smoking unit. Renter's insurance required. *All applicants must qualify on their own.*
Mr. [redacted] viewed this property on 5/26/2016 .  Following the showing, both Mr. and Mrs.[redacted] applied for said property.  Once their applications were approved, on 06/06/2016 the [redacted]s submitted a security deposit to hold and reserve the property.  After the security deposit was received, REMG removed the property from advertising.  By removing the property from advertising, it was no longer available to prospective tenants. 
The [redacted]s reserved this property with knowledge that the homeowners were in the process of moving out of the home.  Therefore, the home would not be move-in ready until August.  It is not uncommon for prospective tenants to reserve a property before it is move-in ready.
When the [redacted]s submitted their security deposit, Mr. [redacted] signed a form titled "Notice of Intent to Rent".  The form was signed on 6/06/2016.  The Notice of Intent to Rent specifically includes the following verbiage, which the [redacted]s agreed to by signing the form. (a copy of the Notice of Intent to Rent will be provided upon request):
I understand if I choose not to rent the above property after a security deposit has been submitted, I agree damages may be deducted from my security deposit (advertising, administrative fees, unpaid rent, etc.).  “Security Deposits are subject to the provisions of the Montana Code Annotated 70-25-101, et. seq.  In the event that, after placing your security deposit, you choose not to move into the dwelling and complete the lease term, we will deduct charges representing the actual costs involved in re-renting the dwelling from the security deposit."
Two months later, on 8/03/2016, Mrs. [redacted] viewed the property.  On the same day, the [redacted]s submitted a retraction notice for a refund of their security deposit.  Their reasoning for  the retraction was because a small bonus room in the basement was locked with the homeowners' personal items.  This room was not locked when Mr. [redacted] viewed the home on 5/26/2016, but was locked when Mrs. [redacted] viewed the home on 8/03/2016.   The [redacted]s argued that the advertisement was inaccurate, as they believed the locked room was considered one of four sleeping/bedrooms.  REMG explained the locked room is not a legal sleeping/bedroom and instead a bonus room.  REMG disputes that tenant use of this bonus room was not advertised, which is why REMG did not feel there was a discrepancy in the advertisement.
When the [redacted]s retracted their security deposit, they were reminded of the verbiage in the Intent to Rent.  Although REMG did not feel the retraction by the [redacted]s was in good faith, it refunded the full security deposit on 8/12/2016.  Per Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 70-25-202. List of damages and refund -- delivery to departing tenant. -  a landlord has up to 10 days to return the security deposit if no damages apply, and 30 days if damages do apply.  REMG acted in compliance with MCA 70-25-202.
At the time the full security deposit was refunded, the [redacted]s were informed that REMG would be covering lost advertising costs, which are generally the responsibility of tenant(s) who retract a security deposit.  In addition to covering the $150 in advertising costs, REMG offered to cover half of the lost prorated rent.  Therefore, the [redacted]s would only be responsible for $275.08 and REMG would cover the remaining $425.08 in charges.  Mind you, all charges are specifically a product of the [redacted]'s notice of retraction.  REMG attempted to take a more empathetic approach, but unfortunately it proved unsuccessful.  (NOTE: The [redacted]s have not paid the $275.08.  REMG had only informed them to expect an invoice.)
In response to the [redacted]'s desired settlement, although REMG feels the [redacted]s are responsible for (at minimum) the $275.08 in lost prorated rent, REMG has chosen to absorb the entire cost of the retracted security deposit.   REMG agrees to release the [redacted]s of any further obligation, and they may pick up their applications at any time during business hours.  Lastly, REMG will honor the [redacted]'s wishes of having no further contact.  REMG maintains its position as having  advertised the property accurately, but it understands there is always the possibility for misconception.     
 
Sincerely,
Real Estate Management Group

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Mrs. H[redacted] may have been “surprised” at our dispute, but we are frankly astonished at her rebuttal which contained numerous outright falsehoods.  For example:  throughout her rebuttal Mrs. H[redacted] refers to the property owners as a third party and in fact stated in regard to the construction that “this project was entirely out of the control of property management company”.  Yet the deed of trust to the property at [redacted] shows ownership by Karli and Brian H[redacted].  And the deed of trust to the property behind [redacted] Central, [redacted] Central (where the construction took place), also shows ownership by Mrs. H[redacted]. In addition the construction deed of trust is in the H[redacted] names.  This is yet another example of the type of falsehoods stated throughout Mrs. H[redacted] rebuttal.  This clearly shows that Mrs. H[redacted] had absolute knowledge and control over decisions related to the new construction on the property and failed to disclose information about the construction to the tenants. This type of outright deception was common throughout the duration of the rental contract.Mrs. H[redacted] indicated that the tenant was told prior to signing the lease that there could be construction on the property directly behind the duplex.  This is absolutely untrue.  The tenant was never told this verbally or in writing.  In fact, the tenant, on the initial walk-through and prior to signing the lease, was told by Ryan G[redacted], an employee at REMG, that he believed the back fence on the property at [redacted] Central was going to be extended to increase the size of the back yard.  That was one of the biggest selling points for the tenant to want to rent the property.  Also on the initial walk-through,  the tenant explained to Ryan that she did not know if her cat would be living with her because he was currently with her parents, but asked if she wanted to have him there, would she be able to.  He replied, yes, she could add the cat at a future date. We agree that the lease called for written approval of pets; however, since an REMG employee had initially assured the tenant that she could add the cat, she brought her cat to the apartment, and called REMG to report it.  At that time she spoke with Ryan G[redacted] and he responded, “Okay, no problem, I’ll add it to your file”.  He did not say anything further about coming in to sign any additional paperwork.  After Mrs. H[redacted] found out about the cat and the tenant’s conversation with Ryan, she told the tenant that this was not the first time Ryan had messed up and that he was not going to be there much longer. We agree that the tenant’s boyfriend visited and a few times he brought his dog, but the dog did not live there.  And, since the upstairs tenant had two large dogs living with them, and since the tenant had received verbal approval for her pet, the tenant did not view the occasional visit of her boyfriend’s dog as a huge issue, however, the tenant takes full responsibility for having had the dog visit unauthorized.  We agree that Mrs. H[redacted] offered a small discount on rent for the months of April and May which we appreciated. However, the degree of inconvenience and invasiveness due to the construction work and noise, loss of parking, loss of storage, and loss of normal access to their front door was so intolerable the property became nearly unlivable.  Mrs. H[redacted] stated that the tenants “felt 8 to 10 hours of cleaning was excessive”.  This is yet another misrepresentation.  The tenants believed that 8 to 10 hours of cleaning was reasonable, but that to charge $400 for 8 to 10 hours of cleaning that REMG quoted was an excessive amount.  Had the cleaning charge been quoted at a more realistic rate the tenants would have gladly used the REMG cleaning service.  Mrs. H[redacted] also states that the cleaning service showed up after they cleaned and spent 2 to 3 additional hours helping them clean.  Again, this is an absolute lie.  The cleaning service showed up to inspect the tenants’ work and told them “it looks perfect”.  She stayed about 30 to 40 minutes, not anywhere near 2 to 3 hours.  She was chatting with the tenants and showing them some cleaning products she liked, but did not have to do any additional cleaning (other than taking less than one minute to remove a small spot in a toilet that was missed).  The REMG statement of cleaning charge clearly shows a minimum charge of $25 for coming out, not a charge for 2 to 3 hours of additional cleaning. We are not trying to get something we don’t deserve; we are merely seeking compensation for what were unreasonable and excessive charges against our deposit for the minor repairs that had to be made to the unit.  Our motivation in filing this complaint is not to enrich ourselves but to prevent this type of excessive charging and misrepresentation to other decent people who work hard for their income. As stated in our original complaint, we agree that there were minor damages and are willing to pay for them.  We are not asking for the full rental deposit back, just a refund for the charges that were unfairly and excessively overcharged.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]