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.
My wife and I are moving to a new city and found a great apartment, but the only catch is that they require a 12 month lease, which is fine, but then they require you to renew in 12 or 24 month increments after that rather than going month-to-month. And there is no option to break the lease.
We might live in this place 1 year, we might live in this place 5 years. I don't want to be on the hook for 10 months rent if we move in October 2022 because life happened and we weren't able to move in August. Am I being unreasonable? I feel like landlords see it as a red flag when i convey this concern.
I've run into this in the past, too, and it's my least favorite thing about renting. I can understand an initial 12 month commitment, but beyond that it just seems unnecessarily restrictive to commit tenants to only being able to move at a very specific time of year or face a large financial burden.
...but then they require you to renew in 12 or 24 month increments after that
rather than going month-to-month. And there is no option to break the lease.
Find a different owner or management company and a different apartment.
These sorts of plain stupid policies WILL end up costing you.
Quote:
I've run into this in the past, too, and it's my least favorite thing about renting.
I can understand an initial 12 month commitment, but beyond that it just seems
unnecessarily restrictive to commit tenants...
You understand the issues very well.
Find a landlord who also does... MOST do.
That will probably NOT involve a big time prop mgmt company.
Depends on the state or the region. In my state there are very few leases that renew as a MTM lease. They mostly renew as annual leases year after year. So yeah, it can be a pain in the rear but it is common place in my state/area and can, for various reasons, be to your advantage (below).
And just because a lease does not mention a lease break option or fee it does not mean that a person can not break a lease. No one can force a person to stay. "Normally" if there is no lease break option then it most likely is a state where LLs have a duty to mitigate. So if you need to break a lease then a LL has a duty (state law) to do everything possible to re-rent the apt once you vacate. Once it is re-rented then your obligation to continue paying rent for the rest of your lease term is over. In other words, the LL can not double dip. So in some cases you may not end up paying anything extra if you break a lease and there is no clause with a lease break fee and the apt is rented right away. Usually happens in areas where rentals are hard to come by.
You can also try to negotiate when a renewal comes due if you know that you will be leaving that following year for sure and see if the LL/PM will allow you to go on a MTM. But always be prepared because converting to a MTM, in the majority of cases, could mean a rent hike of anywhere from 10 - 30% a month and they can raise that rent anytime with just a 30/60 day notice on a MTM. Whereas an annual lease term locks your rent in for that year until the next renewal. So there are pros/cons to both a MTM and an annual lease term.
So bottom line is it depends on the individual leases and state laws. (and some city-specific rental laws if it is a larger metropolis like NYC, Chicago, etc where those cities may have their own rental laws that differ from that state's actual rental laws.)
It is not unusual for landlords to only rent on year long leases. A vacancy Dec 1 isn't any more fun a year and a half after you move in than it is 6 months after you move in. Landlords don't want winter vacancies, which is why they have year long leases.
Just keep searching until you find a landlord that goes month to month after the first year.
And just because a lease does not mention a lease break option or fee it does not mean that a person can not break a lease. No one can force a person to stay. "Normally" if there is no lease break option then it most likely is a state where LLs have a duty to mitigate. So if you need to break a lease then a LL has a duty (state law) to do everything possible to re-rent the apt once you vacate. Once it is re-rented then your obligation to continue paying rent for the rest of your lease term is over. In other words, the LL can not double dip. So in some cases you may not end up paying anything extra if you break a lease and there is no clause with a lease break fee and the apt is rented right away. Usually happens in areas where rentals are hard to come by.
Thanks, the state does have a "duty to mitigate" law, and I dug deeper with the property mgmt company and found out I would also be allowed to find my own replacement tenant. That makes me feel a little better about it, but I'm still not 100% sold on renting from them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke
So, rent from someone else.
I was also asking so that I could understand it from the landlord's side. What you said about winter vacancies makes sense.
Which is exactly why most rentals here in the Midwest have only annual leases that renew in the non-winter months. If we end up with a lease break in the winter months we will prorate the first year of the lease so that it expires in the warmer months from then on.
They can't even make you find your own tenant, though, if you look at the rules regarding mitigating damages. The landlord has the duty to use reasonable means to find a decent replacement tenant as soon as is reasonable - note the word reasonable :-)
What I'd do, is give as much notice as possible, in writing, and in that letter say that you will cooperate fully in allowing the landlord to show the unit to applicants. Then, you can only be on the hook for rent between when your rent stopped, and the new tenant's rent begins. If it's somewhere like i live, in San Jose, CA, the courts figure 30 days is plenty, from my understanding, which is easily accomplished now. The landlord would have to show the court the effort they made to mitigate damages. And this means your damages, by the way. They're supposed to be reasonable about not ripping you off.
Then, of course, they would take the rent out of your deposit, first.
They like to try and scare tenants into thinking they have no options, or they have to parade applicants before them to say yay or nay to - hah. I'd only do that if I had nothing else to do, and expected to use that info in court when I sued them. Of course, you also have to keep in mind if you're going to be moving really far away and wouldn't be able to easily sue them - which of course, they'd know, too :-) But, no matter what, negotiating is much easier when you know the laws.
Thanks for the advice everyone. I found several reviews for this company specifically complaining about them not making efforts to rent apartments after a break lease, and just collecting the remaining rent each month. Yes, that's probably something I could fight in court, but why voluntarily get involved with a company like that? I didn't see any red flags when dealing with them personally, but the vibe was a little off.
I'm going to trust my gut and we're going to go with our #2 choice since it has a more flexible lease and we got a much better vibe from them. It was a close second, so it's not a big sacrifice.
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.
