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.
We are in MA and are moving out of our apt 2 months before the lease expires but we found replacement tenants. The new family had been accepted by the apt owner and they are about to sign the lease.
There is no Security or other deposit. The owner wants us to sign an Early Termination Agreement (ETA). We are not completely comfortable with the wording so haven’t signed it yet. But why even sign it rather than going on our merry way?
Really, all we want to know is if our obligation to our lease ends when a new one is signed. If so, the ETA serves no purpose correct?
I don't really want to make this about the ETA or it's wording. Even if it were perfect, how would it benefit us if another lease has already been signed? As I see it, our obligation is over because the landlord can't come after us for the 2 months of lost rent if he is paid for that rent by the new tenant correct? Can she have her cake and eat it too?
I don't really want to make this about the ETA or it's wording. Even if it were perfect, how would it benefit us if another lease has already been signed? As I see it, our obligation is over because the landlord can't come after us for the 2 months of lost rent if he is paid for that rent by the new tenant correct? Can she have her cake and eat it too?
If they have signed a lease(have they signed it, or are they about to sign it?), then your lease is terminated, and there is no need to sign an early termination agreement.
I"m not sure if your still on the hook if the tenant defaults on his obligation, I do not think so since the guy is not subleasing from you.
I would revise or draft a termination agreement(don't call it early termination either, call it mutual termination) that is to your liking and sign it, and refuse to sign anything else. This is of course if the landlord has already signed a new lease and if you can prove it in court.
That depends. Does the new tenant's lease say it is a sublease under you for the first 2 months? In other words, if the new tenant doesn't pay, and they get evicted and do a ton of damage, are you still responsible because you were in a lease for that period.
Absolutely, if you are breaking the lease, you need to have it in writing clearly stated whether you are being released from future obligations or not.
Manderly: We definitely want to cover ourselves - can you be more specific about what that means for you? Assuming that there is a new lease signed and the new tenants do not default on their first 2 months rent, what other protection would you want an ETA to provide? Or why would you not feel 100% covered and released? Thanks.
Lacerta: This would not be a sublease for the first 2 months. It is a straight 1 yr lease for the new tenant. They are taking over the apt the day after we leave - there is no gap. This is a 3k+ rent/month place that is not student housing or anything. Everyone involved has good careers and are professionals so we don't anticipate any wild parties or holes in the wall. We met the person who is moving in several times and have gotten to know her - she is someone we would be friends with and doesn't seem like she would skip out on the rent. So we aren't concerned about her breaking stuff even if it were a sublease.
I know we don't know her intimately but accepting the above as true, why would we need to have any other documents signed when a new lease has been signed. Are you saying that her signing a lease for the apartment deos not release us and we may therefore still have future obligations? If so, what would those be?
If the next person is signing a straight new lease than you are completely off the hook, except for the security deposit if the owner hasn't said something, it might be that he keeps that. After all you are breaking the lease so he can either give it back if you leave the place in good condition or take it because he has to fix the place (repaint, etc...) sooner then expected.
That is something between you and the Landlord to discuss.
In my state, if you break the lease, it is legal for the landlord to require the deposit be forfeit. I believe some other states may not allow this, so you would have to look into it.
As for the document, look at it this way. If you are wanting to break the lease, don't you want to make the landlord as happy as possible? If they are wanting you to sign a release, that will let you off the hook, why not sign the release? If you anger the landlord, and you don't have a signed release, they are more likely to keep your deposit, and may not give you as good of a reference.
If they are already keeping your deposit, and you don't care about references, and you are confident the new tenant will behave, then no, I can't think of any other reason you would need to sign the release.
Edited to say: However, we don't know what this form says. You said you weren't comfortable with some of the wording, so it may be that there is a catch you haven't told us about. All we can do is respond to the information you have given us. If the letter says "conditional on" or "if such and such happens then.." or something else, they may not be agreeing to let you completely off the hook. Without knowing why you are having heartburn signing a form that really should be in your interest to sign, we can't give you very good advice.
That depends. Does the new tenant's lease say it is a sublease under you for the first 2 months?
The landlord cannot sublet on the tenant's behalf without the tenant's permission and agreement.
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.