90-day notification requirement to terminate a "month to month" lease - excessive and underhanded? (apartment, tenant)

[Econolodge-911]

I recently converted my lease to a "Month to Month" lease, and am may now need to terminate due to an unforeseen financial hardship.

Although the company officially calls this a "Month to Month" contract, it appears that the termination clause is the same as their standard annual contract. The company which manages the rental states that, per my contract, a 60-day notice of termination is required from the first day of the month following reception of the formal written notice.

Being that we're very early in the month of October, this means that I wouldn't be able to terminate my so-called "month to month" lease until December 31st (nearly a 90-day termination period)!

I realize that I should have better consulted the fine-print of the recent leasing amendment before signing, but all legalisms aside, do I have any recourse?

I have rented this apartment for the past 2 years now without incident.

[STT Resident]

Depends on the state in which you reside. Most require a written notice of quit of 30 days on a month to month lease but some states require 60 day notice. Google "(your state" landlord tenant laws) for details. Once a lease has run its term and goes from month to month, the basic lease terms prevail where occupancy and all other terms and conditions are concerned except those conditions where notice of quit is concerned.

If you're in a state which requires a 60 day notice of quit then that's what you have to abide by.

[PacificFlights]

Was the month to month a written month to month contract or just a month to month with an expired old lease? If you signed a new actual lease for a month to month term, you may have to abide by that signed contract

[STT Resident]

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

Was the month to month a written month to month contract or just a month to month with an expired old lease? If you signed a new actual lease for a month to month term, you may have to abide by that signed contract

State law prevails which is why the OP needs to see what's the case where he resides.

[Econolodge-911]

Last month I signed a "Month to Month Extension" of the lease.

The termination clause written on the extension states "The landlord/tenant may terminate the lease at the expiration of its term as specified in this amendment by providing 60 days written notice of termination; this notice period shall commence on the next rental due date following receipt of the notice."


However, District of Columbia (where the rental is located) law states:

§ 45-1402. Same – Month to month or quarter to quarter tenancy; expiration of notice.

A tenancy from month to month, or from quarter to quarter, may be terminated by a 30 days notice in writing from the landlord to the tenant to quit, or by such a notice from the tenant to the landlord of his intention to quit, said notice to expire, in either case, on the day of the month from which such tenancy commenced to run.
(Mar. 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1382, ch. 854, § 1219; 1973 Ed., § 45-902.)


Would DC law trump the signed agreement?

[PacificFlights]

Originally Posted by Econolodge-911

Would DC law trump the signed agreement?

Your reading old laws. But the new laws say the month to month notice is 30 days unless you agree in writing to longer or shorter. If you agreed in writing, that is what you agreed to abide by. Sorry, wish had better news.

[Econolodge-911]

I appreciate the responses so far.

As there may be no legal recourse for breaking the monthly contract before January 1st, are there any other options that I should be aware of?

Thanks.