U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2016, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica, CA
37 posts, read 21,217 times
Reputation: 45

Advertisements

I'm fine with leasing for the term, but it shouldn't be legal to try and force a tenant for the the full term in the event of a layoff or other means of job loss. A lot of leases have early termination clauses that state you're only off the hook when someone else moves in. That's bull****. This isn't a car or other luxury we're talking about here. A roof over your head is a necessity. (Though a car in LA is as well... ). It just adds a lot of unnecessary stress early on in the lease.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2016, 08:33 AM
 
3,780 posts, read 2,396,036 times
Reputation: 2743
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
I have had rental property longer than some of you have been alive, and I still rent month to month in all my properties.
There is a reason for that.
It benefits both the tenants,and me.
If for unseen circumstances a tenant needs to move, it only takes a thirty day notice from them.

If I wound up with a lousy tenant (which has never happened), I could get them out with a thirty day notice.

So it works well for both sides.

Bob.
It's an interesting point. The market is oversaturated with buyers, so I wouldn't think that you'd need more than those 30 days to find new tenants. Really, the only major issue, besides the whole PITA that is the process of marketing your unit multiple times a year is is tenant variability. So, there's a good argument to be made for these, but since month-to-month has become such a premium business (in some places a 3-month lease, on a per-month basis, can be 2x more expensive than a 12-month), it's both sellers and buyers who are driving this business model into the ground.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2016, 08:54 AM
 
3,780 posts, read 2,396,036 times
Reputation: 2743
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenext88 View Post
I'm fine with leasing for the term, but it shouldn't be legal to try and force a tenant for the the full term in the event of a layoff or other means of job loss. A lot of leases have early termination clauses that state you're only off the hook when someone else moves in. That's bull****. This isn't a car or other luxury we're talking about here. A roof over your head is a necessity. (Though a car in LA is as well... ). It just adds a lot of unnecessary stress early on in the lease.
Actually, a provision of some kind for early lease breaking is perfectly reasonable. The details can actually vary: you can be responsible for the balance of the lease (or the balance until a new tenant is found, which is really six of one, half dozen of the other because if there's this provision, 100% of which benefits the landlord, (s)he has no incentive to even look for a new tenant because I'm fairly certain that from a legal standpoint the landlord cannot collect a double income stream, though I'm sure it actually happens all the time), or it could be just your security deposit, or it could be two months' rent's worth...etc. If you don't like the terms, negotiate or don't sign the lease. Nobody is forcing you to live in any given apartment.

A landlord should not have to bear the consequences of his tenant losing his job. There's actually such a thing as job loss insurance if you are that concerned, but shifting the burden to the landlord is completely unfair. What's next, letting you live there free just because you don't have an income stream? Remember, not everybody who loses his/her job is blameless for said loss, either.

From the other side, if you lose your job and are in such dire straits that you need to move house, worst case scenario is you don't tell your landlord you are moving, lose your security deposit and leave him stranded anyways. If you don't have the money to pay or are moving out of state and will be difficult to track down, most landlords won't bother suing you because, really, what are they going to get from you? You do bear the consequences in that there's a blemish on your rental record, but that's small potatoes compared to being on the hook for thousands of dollars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2016, 12:44 PM
 
14,986 posts, read 8,543,320 times
Reputation: 24955
Where I am now, I originally signed a 6 month lease (1 year lease also an option). After the 6 month I am now on a month to month.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2016, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Downtown Los Angeles, CA
1,886 posts, read 1,248,261 times
Reputation: 2167
I wouldn't say it's dead.
I'm apartment hunting right now and just about every building I've contacted allows month-to-month renting.
It's just significantly more expensive.

From a landlords perspective I can't imagine it's all that unappealing as they can alter lease pricing more frequently to keep up with the rising rental market. For example, I've been at this hunt for a month, and can call the same building each week for and the price will vary +/- $25 every time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2016, 04:40 PM
 
Location: The city of champions
1,830 posts, read 1,595,017 times
Reputation: 1314
That's the good thing about my Inglewood apartment. I rent a one bedroom currently that's month to month and $875 month. Not the nicest location, but it's close to work and allows me to save money. Can't beat it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2016, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,921 posts, read 1,781,859 times
Reputation: 2450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy View Post
Where I am now, I originally signed a 6 month lease (1 year lease also an option). After the 6 month I am now on a month to month.
I was told that it's the law that after a year the landlord MUST offer the option of month to month. Of course they can also offer another lease. Has anyone heard of this law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2016, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Downtown Los Angeles, CA
1,886 posts, read 1,248,261 times
Reputation: 2167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-Bucks View Post
I was told that it's the law that after a year the landlord MUST offer the option of month to month. Of course they can also offer another lease. Has anyone heard of this law?
Many landlords include the option for month-to-month after a 12 month lease, but I do not believe this to be required...at least I haven't found anything on the subject. Per recent conversations with 9 property managers (I was on the hunt), landlords do this because LA has a very transient population and tenants are often looking to relocate by the time the lease expires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2016, 02:22 PM
 
4,212 posts, read 6,365,171 times
Reputation: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-Bucks View Post
I was told that it's the law that after a year the landlord MUST offer the option of month to month. Of course they can also offer another lease. Has anyone heard of this law?
Not the law but the lease is as long as it states it is. It can be a 10 year lease, a 2year lease, a 6 month lease. But a year is very standard in LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2016, 07:47 PM
 
145 posts, read 283,578 times
Reputation: 135
I'm renting month to month a very nice 2 BR in Sherman Oaks.

I noticed that crappy places are more likely to force 1-year leases. Good places are more flexible. No reason a tenant would want to move out if everything is okay, and it's also better for them if a tenant is lousy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top