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.
Under CA law you have several options. First, your LL has to mitigate his damages with due diligence and seek a new tenant. Until such time as he finds a suitable new tenant you will be required to pay rent but once a new lease is in effect your obligation ends. You can assist in the process (if your LL agrees) by advertising yourself and finding a suitable applicant. You can seek a sublessee if your LL agrees.
The deal your LL has offered - to pay an additional month's rent and be relived of your further obligation - is an extremely fair one and you would be well advised to accept it. Even if the property is sold with a tenant in situ - either you or a new tenant - the buyer is mandated to honor the existing lease,
Take the offered deal. A break lease fee is usually at least two month's rent so this is really a no-brainer. You may want to read CA landlord tenant laws which you'll find linked in the first "sticky" on this forum. Good luck.
Thanks for the response. I agree it's not a bad deal, but at the same time it bugs me that the landlord is trying to exploit the fact that they wanted to sell anyways by having us pay after we're already gone. If we simply said no to their offer they'd probably have trouble selling it (with a lease still outstanding). On the other hand, re-leasing it would be pretty easy.
The lease ends in April 2015. Basically we want to move because the landlord made it known they plan to sell this house at the end of our lease. Our kids will be in school and our lives disrupted if we have to move then (kids changing schools), so we thought it best to find a place now before the school year starts. So we just found a place to buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound
No not really. You need to pay 9 more months according to your lease. If you pay another month's rent and move out in 2 weeks you have wasted 1 week of this month plus the additional month to be let out of your lease.
It sounds like a great deal to me. Any time after last day of school and before first day of school is a great time to buy or sell or rent a house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STT Resident
Take the offered deal. A break lease fee is usually at least two month's rent so this is really a no-brainer. You may want to read CA landlord tenant laws which you'll find linked in the first "sticky" on this forum. Good luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slantedview
Thanks for the response. I agree it's not a bad deal, but at the same time it bugs me that the landlord is trying to exploit the fact that they wanted to sell anyways by having us pay after we're already gone. If we simply said no to their offer they'd probably have trouble selling it (with a lease still outstanding). On the other hand, re-leasing it would be pretty easy.
You were on the hook for 9 more months, or until LL could get a new tenant. You found a place to buy -- presumably your new home. LH says 1 month buy out is a good deal. STT says it's a no-brainer.
Who is trying to exploit who? You got your new house, you got a better than usual buyout. You got a LL-tenant-lease lesson that is worth at least a month's rent IMO. Most people would feel fortunate to be in your position. Enjoy your new home!
You were on the hook for 9 more months, or until LL could get a new tenant. You found a place to buy -- presumably your new home. LH says 1 month buy out is a good deal. STT says it's a no-brainer.
Who is trying to exploit who? You got your new house, you got a better than usual buyout. You got a LL-tenant-lease lesson that is worth at least a month's rent IMO. Most people would feel fortunate to be in your position. Enjoy your new home!
Well let me put it this way....
If I take the sellers agreement I am out ~$1,000 (a few weeks rent for after I move out).
If I find a new tenant for this place before I move I am out $0.
The owner doesn't seem to want to re-lease it, and would rather me take the option where I continue to pay for a place they want to sell. Yes, as far as lease breaks go it's a fair option, but it's still likely costing me more than simply re-leasing the place before I move out. Am I right?
Thanks for the response. I agree it's not a bad deal, but at the same time it bugs me that the landlord is trying to exploit the fact that they wanted to sell anyways by having us pay after we're already gone. If we simply said no to their offer they'd probably have trouble selling it (with a lease still outstanding). On the other hand, re-leasing it would be pretty easy.
Well, I think you're looking at it a little too myopically. You stated the LL was looking to sell the place after your lease ended. I feel you're making a huge assumption that the LL would be looking to immediately place the house on the market upon your leaving. The LL may not be ready to list yet, and by the time they get it ready to be on the market, it might not be prime selling season anymore. They were most likely going to use the time you were in the place to get their ducks in a row, and were giving you somewhat of a courtesy in informing you of their intent to sell well in advance so you could plan for your own future; many LLs, in that situation, probably would not have told you anything.
So, now, from the LLs point-of-view, they're losing income they were banking on for the rest of your term and now have to weigh the cost of replacing you with another tenant (which, in turn, would delay when they could sell next year, unless they can get a tenant desiring a short-term lease), trying to sell now, or delaying until the start of prime selling season next year; either way, there is a huge negative opportunity cost to teh LL for each of those options.
The LL is being quite fair and reasonable in allowing you to break your legally binding contract by only charging you one month's rent, especially since you're breaking the lease so early into the term. You quite easily could be on the hook for the whole rest of the 9 months, or at the very least, another 1-2 months. You're receiving cost certainty in how much you will owe for the privilege of being allowed to leave your lease much earlier than expected, and in return, the LL is assured of being guaranteed the month's rent they were to be owed anyway, whilst they search for a new tenant. I'm uncertain why you view that as "exploitative."
Thanks for the response. See my previous comment above as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berniekosar19
Well, I think you're looking at it a little too myopically. You stated the LL was looking to sell the place after your lease ended. I feel you're making a huge assumption that the LL would be looking to immediately place the house on the market upon your leaving. The LL may not be ready to list yet, and by the time they get it ready to be on the market, it might not be prime selling season anymore. They were most likely going to use the time you were in the place to get their ducks in a row, and were giving you somewhat of a courtesy in informing you of their intent to sell well in advance so you could plan for your own future; many LLs, in that situation, probably would not have told you anything.
I wish it were so. We actually wanted to stay here long term as the owner said it was not their intention to sell. We only found out that they did intend to sell when one of the property managers let it slip accidentally. Basically, they blatantly lied to us about their intentions for the place while waiting for house's value to increase to where they wanted (which it now has) so they could sell it. Illegal, no. Unethical, probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berniekosar19
So, now, from the LLs point-of-view, they're losing income they were banking on for the rest of your term and now have to weigh the cost of replacing you with another tenant (which, in turn, would delay when they could sell next year, unless they can get a tenant desiring a short-term lease), trying to sell now, or delaying until the start of prime selling season next year; either way, there is a huge negative opportunity cost to teh LL for each of those options.
Potentially true, though not being able to find someone who wants to rent a place for ~9 months would be more my problem than the landlord's since I have a lease. Really, this is moot though since they seem to want to sell it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berniekosar19
The LL is being quite fair and reasonable in allowing you to break your legally binding contract by only charging you one month's rent, especially since you're breaking the lease so early into the term.
True if not for the fact that we were deceived into the lease by the landlord saying they never intended to sell. Needing stability for our family is the only reason we're leaving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berniekosar19
You quite easily could be on the hook for the whole rest of the 9 months, or at the very least, another 1-2 months. You're receiving cost certainty in how much you will owe for the privilege of being allowed to leave your lease much earlier than expected, and in return, the LL is assured of being guaranteed the month's rent they were to be owed anyway, whilst they search for a new tenant. I'm uncertain why you view that as "exploitative."
Fair enough, perhaps a harsh way of phrasing it, but keeping in mind that we were misled into signing up for what we thought was a long-term living situation for us, see my above post for the way I'm looking at it.
Thanks for the response. See my previous comment above as well.
I wish it were so. We actually wanted to stay here long term as the owner said it was not their intention to sell. We only found out that they did intend to sell when one of the property managers let it slip accidentally. Basically, they blatantly lied to us about their intentions for the place while waiting for house's value to increase to where they wanted (which it now has) so they could sell it. Illegal, no. Unethical, probably.
Potentially true, though not being able to find someone who wants to rent a place for ~9 months would be more my problem than the landlord's since I have a lease. Really, this is moot though since they seem to want to sell it now.
True if not for the fact that we were deceived into the lease by the landlord saying they never intended to sell. Needing stability for our family is the only reason we're leaving.
Fair enough, perhaps a harsh way of phrasing it, but keeping in mind that we were misled into signing up for what we thought was a long-term living situation for us, see my above post for the way I'm looking at it.
Sorry; wasn't trying to be harsh at all. More just pointing out the grim reality of renting, which is the uncertainty of knowing whether you'll remain in the same place year after year. Any owner can turn around and decide to sell at any time; it's the inherent risk in not owning.
Any new owner, unless they were using the Ellis Act, would have had to honor your lease until the end of term; so your living situation likely would not have changed, regardless of sale. One month's rent, which you would owe anyway, is a small price to pay for being allowed out of your lease and potentially not being on the hook for up to 9 months. It stinks that you're not being allowed to break your lease without penalty or paying anything extra, but it's not exploitative.
OP, as you have heard or already know, in CA you can break a lease, and then the LL has to make reasonable effort to re-rent it.
I completely get your frustration in paying for 2 weeks rent after you move.
But, 30 days is normally considered a reasonable amount of time to get a place re-rented, in a decent market. The reason is, any decent tenant is going to have to give notice. There will not be many tenants a landlord is going to want to rent to, who is ready to move in in 2 weeks time or less. Giant red flag.
Something you may not know, though, is that the 30 days notice in CA is calendar days. So, if you give notice today, July 12th, your 30 days notice is up August 12th. In CA, you don't have to give notice at the beginning of the month.
Not sure if that will make a difference in what you'd owe the LL, but I'd negotiate 30 calendar days from when you gave notice. If he balks, tell him a judge will probably figure 30 calendar days should be enough time to re-rent it. And if he doesn't agree, then let's ask a judge.
But, expecting to give notice and only have to pay 2 weeks is really not reasonable. This is a business deal and fair is fair for both sides. You can always tell him you will use up the full 30 days to finish your move-out then, if you want to get your true money's worth
About your security deposit though - In CA, the LL must give you written notice of your right to a pre-move out inspection, called an initial inspection. It must contain the language of your rights in the letter. If he does do this, be sure and do an inspection.
Then, he must do the inspection before you move out. He must give you a list of everything you have to do to get your FULL deposit back. No non-refundable fees of any kind are allowed in CA.
Then, you do what's on the list, and he MUST send you your full deposit back within 21 days. The only exception is if there was damage that he couldn't see because your furniture was in the way.
If he doesn't do ANY of the above, then you are entitled to your FULL deposit back, even if you left the place trashed.
So, don't give him a heads-up. If he doesn't do these things right, you can demand your full deposit back, and if it goes to court, you will get your court fees back, too.
I'm telling you this in case he tries to keep some or all of your deposit. Here's the full law on the matter:
I completely get your frustration in paying for 2 weeks rent after you move.
I don't at all. A contract was entered into and the OP wants to break that contract just three months into it because a property to purchase came along. The OP is missing so many relevant points and seems adamant that the LL is somehow trying to put one over on him/her which is certainly not the case at all. The LL may for whatever reason have decided in 2015 that he would not renew the lease but because the LL has given the tenant advance warning (well in advance which he absolutely did not have to do)) that he plans to sell the property when the lease comes to an end, the OP has arbitrarily decided that the LL is being unfair.
I agree that the OP is looking at this very myopically and I trust will have an epiphany and understand that the LL's offer is way more than fair.
OP, as you have heard or already know, in CA you can break a lease, and then the LL has to make reasonable effort to re-rent it.
I completely get your frustration in paying for 2 weeks rent after you move.
But, 30 days is normally considered a reasonable amount of time to get a place re-rented, in a decent market. The reason is, any decent tenant is going to have to give notice. There will not be many tenants a landlord is going to want to rent to, who is ready to move in in 2 weeks time or less. Giant red flag.
Something you may not know, though, is that the 30 days notice in CA is calendar days. So, if you give notice today, July 12th, your 30 days notice is up August 12th. In CA, you don't have to give notice at the beginning of the month.
Not sure if that will make a difference in what you'd owe the LL, but I'd negotiate 30 calendar days from when you gave notice. If he balks, tell him a judge will probably figure 30 calendar days should be enough time to re-rent it. And if he doesn't agree, then let's ask a judge.
So am I off the hook at the time that a new lease is signed or when a new tenant moves in? In theory the owner could lose some income in the time between?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe
But, expecting to give notice and only have to pay 2 weeks is really not reasonable. This is a business deal and fair is fair for both sides.
That's a good point. I have no problem paying through 30 days since we gave notice, but we gave notice almost 2 weeks ago and are still waiting for the owner to take action, which as I've been told, they seem to want us to sign a new agreement agreeing to pay for another 30 days while they try to sell it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STT Resident
I don't at all. A contract was entered into and the OP wants to break that contract
The contract says I'm on the hook for the lease duration. I'm fine with that and am happy to pay what I owe until it is re-leased (which as I pointed out would probably cost me the least money). The difficulty is that the landlord seems to want to sell. They're not currently trying to re-lease it, but instead want me to pay another 30 days (from whenever they send me this agreement) which will probably altogether cost me more money than re-leasing it (if what I understand is correct, that I am off the hook when a new lease is signed).
You are on the hook until the landlord can find a suitable new tenant. The landlord must make a good faith effort to find a suitable new tenant. You are on the hook until the landlord finds a suitable new tenant. I'm not aware of what constitutes "good faith effort" but it seems to me that would have to be decided by the court should it come to litigation.
You have no way of knowing if the landlord made his decision to sell after you moved in. I don't see how you can prove that whether way it goes, since nobody can read his mind. Getting proof would be difficult or impossible.
Landlord may have to disclose to prospective new tenants that he intends to sell the property in 9 months. There is a way to prove that, since he told you, and you can be called into court to testify if new tenants get a raw deal. Now think about this, really THINK about this: If he has to tell new tenants he's going to sell in 9 months, how many would take that deal??? IMO nobody in their right mind! Just what is that going to do to your obligation to pay the next 9 months rent? Landlord can make a good faith effort to rent a property and tell everybody he's going to sell it in 9 months, and do flip-flops and hand stands and nobody is going to rent it.
You are getting off easy. Take the deal and get out of there... And what about your new house? Do you want to be paying lease payments and house payments at the same time???
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.
