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.
Would the OP signing the lease not be considered written consent? It seems like if there was an issue with the lease, then it should have been brought up before signing it, not 2 years later.
But if it's crossed out and not initialed, there is no proof that it was there when the tenant signed it. No way it would hold up in court if it got that far. Though I guess it is clouded by the tenant having the striken copy as well (at least I think that's what the OP is saying). If the tenant did not have a copy of the lease, it would be a slam dunk.
But if it's crossed out and not initialed, there is no proof that it was there when the tenant signed it. No way it would hold up in court if it got that far. Though I guess it is clouded by the tenant having the striken copy as well (at least I think that's what the OP is saying). If the tenant did not have a copy of the lease, it would be a slam dunk.
You can't just claim to not have a copy of the lease and be able to get out of what you signed off on.
Would the OP signing the lease not be considered written consent? It seems like if there was an issue with the lease, then it should have been brought up before signing it, not 2 years later.
Any changes have to be signed by both parties. That's WHY you get your own copy of the lease. This way if the LL or tenant want to change things they can't do it to both copies. OP should have his own copy. You do have your own copy right? Both copies would have to have the initialed change showing both parties agreed. If one copy has only one initial I would think it would be questioned.
Both copies would have to show the same initials and each reflect the changes made. Otherwise one party can change the terms as they please without the other party agreeing.
I would give notice as if you were leaving at your two year term f that's what your copy states and you want to leave. If he disagrees let him take you to court. You bring your copy he brings his.
Any changes have to be signed by both parties. That's WHY you get your own copy of the lease. This way if the LL or tenant want to change things they can't do it to both copies. OP should have his own copy. You do have your own copy right? Both copies would have to have the initialed change showing both parties agreed. If one copy has only one initial I would think it would be questioned.
Both copies would have to show the same initials and each reflect the changes made. Otherwise one party can change the terms as they please without the other party agreeing.
I would give notice as if you were leaving at your two year term f that's what your copy states and you want to leave. If he disagrees let him take you to court. You bring your copy he brings his.
He doesn't have a copy without the change because that is the original signed agreement. See post 4.
You can't just claim to not have a copy of the lease and be able to get out of what you signed off on.
I didn't say that. But, if the tenant had nothing and the owner had only a signed copy, with a strike through without initials, it would not hold up in court. So, because the owner failed to get the document properly executed, in this case, the tenant could do that, though it would be committing perjury most likely.
Even now, the tenant has a good argument that it is an error and since disputes over confusing terminology typically go against the one who drafts them, they still probably have a case given that three years is a much longer than typical residential lease term. There's a reason that when you sign a mortgage there are initials on every page and spots on key terms. Plus they have the little signature flags pointing to them and they go back and check them all.
I didn't say that. But, if the tenant had nothing and the owner had only a signed copy, with a strike through without initials, it would not hold up in court. So, because the owner failed to get the document properly executed, in this case, the tenant could do that, though it would be committing perjury most likely.
But the tenant does have his own copy that he signed, with the changes. Sorry, I just don't think it is very good advice to be telling people to just lie in court to get your way. The OP should have read the lease before he signed. Since he didn't, he'll have to deal with the consequences of either staying another year or breaking his lease.
I always read my leases before signing them. There have been times when I questioned things in the lease, and asked for changes. I had one where it was supposed to be a 12 month lease, but the dates were only for a 6 month. I pointed that out and had it changed. The OP could have done the same if he had bothered reading a legally binding document before signing.
But the tenant does have his own copy that he signed, with the changes. Sorry, I just don't think it is very good advice to be telling people to just lie in court to get your way. The OP should have read the lease before he signed. Since he didn't, he'll have to deal with the consequences of either staying another year or breaking his lease.
I always read my leases before signing them. There have been times when I questioned things in the lease, and asked for changes. I had one where it was supposed to be a 12 month lease, but the dates were only for a 6 month. I pointed that out and had it changed. The OP could have done the same if he had bothered reading a legally binding document before signing.
Good point but what if the OP signed it then the LL crossed out the date while making a copy or before handing it over to the OP? It isn't initialed by both parties therefore it shouldn't be legally binding since there is no proof it existed prior to signing. AND in fact, it would cause the LL to be in default and the lease invalid anyway. I doubt any judge is going to say that the change in date is binding when there are no initials. It can only become part of the lease if both parties agreed to it.
OP: Send a certified letter to LL stating that you did not (do not) agree to the handwritten changes to the lease and you consider the lease invalid. Include your notice that you are moving and be done with them!
Good point but what if the OP signed it then the LL crossed out the date while making a copy or before handing it over to the OP?It isn't initialed by both parties therefore it shouldn't be legally binding since there is no proof it existed prior to signing. AND in fact, it would cause the LL to be in default and the lease invalid anyway. I doubt any judge is going to say that the change in date is binding when there are no initials. It can only become part of the lease if both parties agreed to it.
OP: Send a certified letter to LL stating that you did not (do not) agree to the handwritten changes to the lease and you consider the lease invalid. Include your notice that you are moving and be done with them!
Agree 100% ^. Any/all changes should be initialed by all parties.
He doesn't have a copy without the change because that is the original signed agreement. See post 4.
Neither copy has both parties initials on the lease crossed/changed out date. That's my understanding. Both copies would need to reflect a agreement on changes to the lease either by both signing or addendum signed by both agreeing to changing a clause on the lease.
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.
