Judge to Rule on Standing for Silverstein to Collect a Paid Berkshire Debit
At the opening of court, Mr. Gasio objected on the record, stating there was no valid debit between himself and the property owner. The owner had assigned collection rights to Berkshire Hathaway agent Hanson Le, as confirmed by written communication. Payment was acknowledged via text message, satisfying the lease obligation for that period. The owner’s subsequent claim that his agent had not paid him within twenty-one days was a dispute between owner and agent, not between owner and tenant.
In the second hearing, the judge stated she would decide whether a valid debit needed to exist before ruling on the alleged second June and July payments. This determination would decide whether Silverstein Evictions or the owner had standing to collect on a debt already settled through Berkshire Hathaway.
Prior to any filing, Silverstein Evictions was warned in writing that no valid debit existed between the tenant and owner, and that Berkshire Hathaway remained the sole party authorized to receive or account for funds. The firm received this warning multiple times—ten separate emails—and a formal letter stating explicitly that any attempt to collect under the owner’s private account would constitute fraudulent collection without standing.
This record establishes clear pre-litigation notice. Silverstein Evictions proceeded despite explicit warning that the owner had no standing to collect funds already transferred to Berkshire Hathaway’s control. The documentation below forms part of the chain of evidence demonstrating willful disregard of prior notice.