91视频

To bond or not to bond? That is the question behind a class action lawsuit that Oregon tenants are bringing against a Northwest property management firm.

The lawsuit challenges Vancouver, Wash.-based ‘s practice of allegedly requiring tenants to purchase nonrefundable bonds in lieu of providing security deposits.

Portland-based filed the original complaint on behalf of the plaintiff, Alexcia Batiste, who lives on a Gresham property managed by Quantum. The Multnomah County Circuit Court recently decided that the lawsuit could proceed as a class action suit, and Steve Larson, the plaintiff’s attorney, said more than 2,000 people have been charged what his firm believes is an illegal fee.

鈥淭he law is supposed to be a mechanism for both sides to state their position,鈥� Larson said of Oregon’s landlord-tenant law. 鈥淭his bond is a nonrefundable premium and it doesn’t give the tenant an opportunity to dispute anything. All of a sudden the collection agency is coming after them for whatever amount the landlord is saying is (owed).鈥�

The bond is a product offered by New Jersey-based . Instead of a large security deposit, the service allows tenants to pay a considerably smaller, nonrefundable premium as a guarantee on their performance of lease obligations. If damages occur, or rent payments are missed, SureDeposit pays the landlord and then pursues the tenant for the balance.

Joel Wilson of Portland-based y, the defendant’s attorney, said the bond is not a requirement, but rather an option offered to help tenants who are unable to afford a large, lump-sum security deposit.

鈥淭he bond is a significant benefit to many tenants who can pay a relatively small premium to the bonding company, and avoid having to go out of pocket for a much larger security deposit,鈥� Wilson wrote in an email.

He said 95 percent of tenants given the option between a security deposit and the bond have opted for the latter. And because payment for the bond premium goes to a third party in exchange for a service 鈥� and is not a fee charged by the landlord 鈥� it is not a violation of the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act, according to Wilson.

In 2009, changes to the act specifically outlined when and how landlords may charge tenants nonrefundable fees. Those situations include things like bounced checks, late rent payments and tampering with fire detectors.

Jim Straub, legislative director for the , said that before those changes took place, landlords could charge tenants for numerous things 鈥� such as not mowing their yards.

鈥淚t was that sting that motivated them to get out there and do it,鈥� Straub said. 鈥淪ome landlords abused that, so that was taken away from us. Very few landlords (abused it); but the few that did, abused it greatly.鈥�

Straub, who also owns in Eugene, said he could see why a third-party bond would be attractive to a landlord because security deposits often don’t cover total costs of damages made by a tenant. For instance, Straub said, replacing carpet in a 1,100-square-foot house can cost as much as $3,500.

鈥淭here’s been more dispute in the last few years 鈥� as oil prices have risen, landlords have seen their replacement costs double, triple, quadruple,” Straub said. 鈥淎nd the amount that we can ask a tenant to pay moving in to cover that risk 鈥� we’re having to increase to cover our actual costs, or risks of actual costs down the road.鈥�

Collecting money for damages at the end of a lease, especially during the recession, has also been exceedingly difficult. He said that if a collections agency has to pursue money on his company’s behalf, he doesn’t ever expect to see it again.

鈥淵ou can’t squeeze blood out of a rock,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f they don’t have the money, they don’t have the money.鈥�

According to one national collections agency, SureDeposit has proven to be an effective tool for tracking down lost dollars. ResidentCheck/ResidentCollect reported in June 2010 a 40 percent increase in collection results for files with a SureDeposit bond.

But Larson contends that the SureDeposit service unfairly unleashes collection agencies on tenants without giving them an opportunity to dispute claims.

Wilson argues the service is a valuable option for tenants unable to afford costly security deposits.

The next step in the case is to mail out notices to the class, which Larson said, should take place by Feb. 22. Those identified then have 90 days to drop out if they wish. Larson said both sides have requested a trial date of Aug. 27, 2012.