Quote:
Originally Posted by TSteven
Just because someone decides they no longer want to live in their current apartment does not mean they can disregard the lease. They may still have to fulfill their legal obligations (i.e. rent).
It seems that if there are financial obligations, IHQ and/or the chapter would have similar legal grounds to go after the guy. If the guy was simply allowed to turn in his pin and quit - without some sort of legal termination by IHQ - then it seems like he might be able to claim he no longer is responsible for any money owed. Simply because he is no longer a member.
Now if IHQ and/or the chapter elects to forgo any of the obligations (i.e. write-off the financial obligation) just to be rid of the guy (i.e. trim the fat), then there are no obligations on either side. And frankly, I would venture to guess that as long as there isn't a lot of money involved, the guy would be cut loose.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
She meant if an organization tried to collect fees and otherwise keep a member involved, even when he had tried to resign in the proper manner and notified the national office of his intentions, the organization would most likely be sued.
It would be like if you phoned, emailed, and wrote multiple letters to the gas company asking them to turn off your service and they kept on billing you.
|
Exactly 33girl. Thank you.
In addition, I never said the chapter/GLO in question was or wasn't entitled to the dues from an initiated yet resigned member since s/he did make an obligation. I merely stated that I anticipate a resigned member to file a lawsuit if s/he continues to be billed. The outcome of that lawsuit would be up to a judge and based on the interpretation of the GLO's membership agreement/obligation. But, it's worth pointing out that the resulting bad press that comes about would probably far outweigh any potential recouped finances.
As for TSteven's apartment lease analogy, true. It is a legally binding contract that one cannot simply walk away from if s/he changes their mind. However, a landlord is also expected to try to mitigate the loss by attempting to re-rent. If succesful, they may only sue the lease breaker for the actual lost rent and any costs incurred to do so (i.e. advertising, apartment showings, repairs, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Earp
----------------------------------------------------
Zillini, I am not sure where your post came from about a lawsuit but wonder how ignorant you seem to be?
If you do not know, then let it go!  |
My post came from being threatened by lawsuits from too many sorority members and parents over the years, often over things that were far more piddly than this. Ignorant? Not hardly.