Thought our lease covered everything, but I guess not. Thoughts? (renters, house)
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.
When I was renting every lease I ever signed said that tenant was required to have utilities active in their name for lease duration or it is considered a breach of lease terms. This is also common in commercial leases. This allows one more avenue for getting them evicted if they stop paying the bills and move out in the middle of the night and covers your situation as well.
This isn't that sort of situation. The tenant and the landlord have reached an early termination agreement, the tenant has a move-out date and at that time will hand over the keys and will neither be a tenant for the lease duration nor be using any of the utilities thereafter.
The house has been on the market since the SAME DAY we heard they were moving. We have gone above and beyond in terms of trying to help them move on.
Sadly not everyone can afford a rental over $5000/ month and it's the wrong time of year to lease it in our area. When the lease was due to end would have been much better.
When these tenants moved in we had multiple offers.
I guess I just don't understand why we should be negatively financially impacted by their decision to move out early.
I guess I just don't understand why we should be negatively financially impacted by their decision to move out early.
Utilities are expensive on houses.
Being a LL is a learning process and why I suggested earlier that when you next rent out the house you amend your lease to include an early termination clause. With nobody living in the house the cost of utilities should be minimal and you can take steps to keep them down by reducing the temperature on your water heater (or shutting it off), shut off fridge - in fact the suggestions which poster swaretocod mentioned in an earlier post. On a day to day basis invest in energy efficient appliances, light bulbs, etc. I live in a US territory where the electricity rates are the highest under the US flag and by gradually replacing energy-eaters reduced the bill at my business by 40%. Even though my utilities are included in my residential rent I replaced light bulbs with energy-saving alternatives and practice frugality where consumption is concerned generally.
If this were my situation, I would be happy that the tenant is agreeing to honor the rent commitment until I find a tenant. I would get the utilities in my name so as to end that disagreement. If I were to continue fighting with the tenant over that issue, they could get angry and just turn the utilities off, without me knowing about it, and refuse pay the rent.
Getting the rent while trying to re-rent the home would be my biggest concern.
I have been a landlord of various properties since I was 18 so actually my experience of being a landlord is reasonably good.
I'm inclined to agree with Captain Bill. Of course it's easy for them as his former company is picking up the tab. I still feel pretty firmly that they are wrong on the utilities however I'm unconvinced that it's worth fighting over.
However I am now less inclined to bend over backwards to accomodate them in the way we have been.
Lease is in place with tenants paying rent plus utilities.
At the end of the original lease an extension was agreed upon through April 2013.
Lease break is covered as tenant responsible for rent until the end of the lease or until a new tenant can be found. Landlord to make good faith attempt to market property.
Notice of lease break was sent to landlord on 8/31/2012. House will be vacated 9/29/2012.
Lease runs through April. Who is responsible for utilities?
The lease states that tenant is responsible for rent through April unless house is sold or rented before. Utilities are not mentioned in the lease break language, only in the original lease.
Landlord believes tenant to be responsible for rent and utilities as agreed in original lease.
Tenant believes that they are no longer tenants once furniture is removed from the house on the 29th and while they agree they are responsible for rent, do not agree that they are responsible for utilities after the 29th.
Who is right?
You are responsible for rent up to the end of your lease....but not for utilities since you are paying the lease break fee.
If the owner/LL is not actively is trying to get a replacement tenant then you are off the hook for any additional rent under the lease break fee since no owner/LL is allowed to sit back and just leave the property empty for month's unless he really can't find anybody.
You are responsible for rent up to the end of your lease....but not for utilities since you are paying the lease break fee.
If the owner/LL is not actively is trying to get a replacement tenant then you are off the hook for any additional rent under the lease break fee since no owner/LL is allowed to sit back and just leave the property empty for month's unless he really can't find anybody.
House has been actively listed since the day notice was given. Almost zero rental interest but a bunch of sale showings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
I think the LL in this case is responsible for the utilities. How much can they be for a vacant house anyway?
Don't know, but a lot of people with older row homes pay upwards of $600/ month for gas in the winter, plus electric, plus water.
This house is well insulated though and the worst bills were less than half that and if we keep it at 63 ish it shouldn't be too bad.
It guess it's just bad timing - we thought we were all set until spring which is a great time to lease or sell and now this on top of everything else.
You need to make sure your homeowners insurance covers the vacant home. Most policies have a definition of what they call "vacant" on the detailed provisions of your policy. Then they list what is excluded and usually vandalism and some other perils are excluded if home is vacant. Sometimes fire is excluded and who knows what else. It varies by policy and carrier.
Read your policy. You might need to consider getting a policy that covers a vacant home if needed. It usually costs more.
Usually the standard carrier definition of vacant is when someone does not live there for 30 or 60 consecutive days. It doesn't matter if someone stops by often to check on the place or if there is furniture in the home. Carriers have been known to refuse to pay claims for homes that were vacant and folks have lost cases even when they were in the home daily to remodel during a major renovation. It pretty much has to be lived in within that X days to meet their definition.
While I feel for you OP, I also see the renters side. They'd have no control on how much would be used, so it wouldnt be fair for them to pay. For all they'd know, you could have a grown kid living there and running the utilities up. While this isnt fair to you, it'd be less fair to charge them when they arent using any of it.
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.