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.
I thought you said your lease states you owe 1 month rent as lease break fee.
Send him the 1 month rent as 'lease break fee' and include a copy of the lease portion that specifies that in the mailing with the check. Highlight that portion of the lease with yellow highligher and put '1 month rent lease break fee' in the comments of the check.
Send 'proof of delivery' with USPS.
He should be returning your security deposit soon per state law. Make sure you pay that lease break fee pronto.
I agree. Then let the LL sue you for more. Then you show up with his written offer to have you pay for 3 months rent or until he finds someone, which says to me loud and clear that he wasn't intending to mitigate damages at all. He doesn't get out of having to mitigate damages because it's inconvenient to rent to someone for 7 months. Stuff happens. Who says he can't wait to move in 12 months?
I moved out. Landlord says that I am responsible for either:
1) Rent until he finds a new tenant
2) 3 months rent and he doesn't try to find a new tenant
He is trying to push me to choose option #2 because that way he doesn't rent out the house again (no wear and tear) and he just moves back in next year after 7 months. His compromise is that he's going to eat the other 4 months of rent. Of course he could take my 3 months, move back into his house tomorrow, and now he's made 3 months of rent off me while he's just living there.
His logic is that since it's only a 7 month lease it will be hard to find a new tenant so I should take his 3 month deal rather than me risk the possibility of him trying to rent it out but not finding a renter and me being stuck with having to pay for 7 months.
Does this sound right?
Were you able to find a copy of your original lease? What does that say? Do you have 3 months worth of rent laying around to pay him all at once? That 5k a month is not chump change. It sounds to me like he has no intentions of even trying to re rent to someone and would rather just have some cash.
I could be wrong but I also bet he will probably just move right in after you give him the three months rent. If your lease says that you pay one month rent as a penalty that is what I would give him.
He can't have it both ways. He can't not make any attempts to mitigate his damages. Even if the lease says you have to pay until he finds another renter. He can't just sit back and do nothing not even making any attempts to rent out the place and collect 7 months worth of rent from you and then move into the house. It doesn't work that way.
See first post. In event of early termination, one month's rent is forfeited PLUS rent is payable until a new tenant is found.
It can't be both ways. There is a problem with the lease.
You either forfeit money to break the lease early OR you keep paying rent each month untll a new tenant is found/or lease expires. Not both.
Since both options are listed in the lease, if I was the renter, I would pick the one that suits me best...the 1 month payment.
Then sit back and let the landlord try to sue me for the monthly rent if he wants to try to get it. And when he comes to court, he'll have to bring proof of trying to rerent the place. Which we know he won't do. Also when it goes to court, how is the landlord going to explain a lease that has 2 conflicting statements. the judge will see that the lease is messed up. The judge will see that the tenant following the lease by paying a 1 month lease break fee.
I don't see the landlord filig a lawsuit in this case. And if they did, I think the tenant would win.
This landlord does NOT want to rerent this place and already decided he's not going to do it.
He'll take the 1 month fee and won't do anything more, IMO.
The landlord also needs to return the security deposit or send timely notice.
It can't be both ways. There is a problem with the lease.
You either forfeit money to break the lease early OR you keep paying rent each month untll a new tenant is found/or lease expires. Not both.
This is where I'm very unsure as it depends on the wording and so far the OP hasn't come up with the wording in the lease. That's why I suggested earlier he seek legal advice (obviously with lease in hand).
It can't be both ways. There is a problem with the lease.
You either forfeit money to break the lease early OR you keep paying rent each month untll a new tenant is found/or lease expires. Not both..
Yes it can be both ways if properly written. The forfeiture fee is intended to reimburse the landlord for the extra work necessary as the result of the broken lease. The tenant is still responsible for paying the rent until a new tenant is found.
All the landlord has to do to show a good faith effort to find a new tenant is advertise and take applications, odds are he won't find be able anyone who will want the place for only 7 months, so the previous tenant is still on the hook.
I basically said that he could keep my 1 month security deposit and I sent him a check for 2 months of rent. I said that I won't pay anything more such as landscaping, minor repairs, etc. and he was ok with that.
The place was a bit dusty when I moved in (although relatively clean) since it had been on the market for about 4 months before I moved in. When I left, it was spotless.
The lease basically stated that I am responsible for rent until he finds a new tenant. It was confusing because there is also another area that stated that I need to pay a 1 month penalty for breaking the lease early but it looks like I would owe that as a minimum (meaning that if he finds a new renter the day after I move out, I'm still liable for 1 month rent). The risk was fairly high that the longer it takes to find a tenant, the more probability that I would be stuck paying the entire 7 months.
Yes it can be both ways if properly written. The forfeiture fee is intended to reimburse the landlord for the extra work necessary as the result of the broken lease. The tenant is still responsible for paying the rent until a new tenant is found.
All the landlord has to do to show a good faith effort to find a new tenant is advertise and take applications, odds are he won't find be able anyone who will want the place for only 7 months, so the previous tenant is still on the hook.
Actually, I think it's likely that a judge would see it Sware2cod's way. The idea that a landlord could require a renter to continue paying rent while the house is unoccupied and also pay a month's rent as pure penalty is pretty odd and would likely be seen as a needless attempt at "piling on" and unjustifiably lining one's pockets. As it stands, the WA state statute provides for everything a landlord could potentially need to recover costs associated with a broken lease.
I had a lease until 3/2014. I moved out on 8/31/2013 and gave my LL 2 months notice. He didn't try to find a new tenant.
At 9/1, the house was vacant. Rent was $4k/month. I paid him 3 months of rent so $12k as a penalty for breaking the lease early. His logic was that I would owe $4k X 7 months or $28k so $12k is good.
He later put the house up for rent and it got rented in mid November.
Looks like the owner came out about 1/2 month ahead. Oh well.
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.
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.
