Can my landlord legally increase rent this much

[ChicagoMeO]

Originally Posted by Freefall18

You can't use basic algebra to figure it out?

Not without my calculator. I suppose i could when i go back to work monday.

off the top of my head i would say that $250 is 15% of $2,000.

i wanted to know what neighborhood he was paying that much rent so if it was like the ones i mentioned, i would not be surprised.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO

off the top of my head i would say that $250 is 15% of $2,000.

More like $1550. At a 16% increase, it would go up to about $1800.

[ChicagoMeO]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

More like $1550. At a 16% increase, it would go up to about $1800.

ah thanks, i needed my calculator … yes that is TOO huge of a rent increase… that is ridiculous.

[Madchester]

Sounds like an M. Fishman increase!

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by chet everett

I am not a lawyer but I have been a landlord and an real estate agent. I do not agree with the advise of chicagobear above. That said I do not think anything in Chicago's tenants rights would require the landlord to renew the lease with you but as per the contract, if you agree to a second year it should be at the specified rate. You may want to talk an attorney as this may not be the wisest things to "push" as you would likely have to make an argument to a judge that you would suffer some financial loss and that is hard to really see...

I, too, am not a lawyer but I have been a landlord. The wording of the lease is flagrantly unclear, to the point of seeming intentionally deceptive. "Subject to approval" seems to undo the tenant's right to renew at a 5% increase that was conveyed just a few words earlier. A judge might enforce the 5%, enforce the "subject to approval" (i.e. allow any increase the landlord wants), or decide that the whole lease is invalid because it misleads the tenant into thinking he has contracted for a right that does not exist.

I am not sure why the judge would have to be convinced there is a financial loss. The case is about what rights and responsibilities are conveyed by the language of the contract, not whether it's fair, burdensome, affordable, etc.

[chet everett]

I have been in court a few times over tenant issues and my attornies have successfully argued that if a tenant suffers no financial loss they cannot expect to have something adjudicated by the courts -- courts don't generally force a landlord to do something, they make them pay / refund money.

I just don't see the OP prevailing in seeking monetary redress...

[Peer79]

Originally Posted by holl1ngsworth

There are no laws restricting the amount a landlord can increase rent -- aside from the laws of free market economics. Your landlord is only required to give you > 30 days notice.

I would suggest doing a little research on market values for similar units in your neighborhood. If the price after the landlord's proposed increase is too high for the market, suggest that to the landlord. No matter what, I would attempt to negotiate -- and freely offer the 5% more you were already willing to pay. Don't try to get legal right away or be confrontational. Be polite and cordial; explain that the 16% increase will force you to move out. The landlord might prefer to take the 5% increase instead of putting the unit "back on the market" at a 16% higher price, and then having to go a month or two waiting for a new tenant -- not collecting any checks at all.

This is sound advice and accurate in my opinion. I am a current landlord (100+ units) and a real estate agent, but not a lawyer. The landlord is allowed to raise the rent as much as he wants and the tenant has three options: accept, reject and move out, or negotiate. Do some research in your area, what are apartments renting for? Is his proposed increase realistic?

The tenant option is horribly written and unlike any option I have ever seen. I'm sure the landlord added that in, and it seems to invalidate the option altogether.

Almost every time a tenant goes before a judge they wind up losing. I don't see any real injustice perpetrated by the landlord in this instance. Judges deal with hundreds of cases a day and do not have much patience for stories. Especially, if the only 'grievance' the tenant can claim is that the landlord is exercising his right to propose a rent increase. The judge may scold the landlord for creating a fake option, but probably not much else.

[squishy506]

Did the law change from what it was before the economy crashed? In 2008 I was dating a landlord and working as a leasing agent. My employer had said that they legally can't increase rent more than 8 or 12%. I forget which it was. Then I moved to Nevada, and rent dropped dramatically. Working in property management in Nevada, I can tell you our leases don't have a stipulation of a maximum rent upon renewal. We just renew based on comparatives for the area. I'm having a hard time believing that in one year, the average rent in your neighborhood increased by that much.