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.
Sounds like you would be money ahead to keep paying the $700/month for 4 more months to finish the lease. That would cost you only $2800 and you would be entitled to get your deposite back. So you would be out a total of only $2,300.
Otherwise you would be paying:
$1,400 lease break fee
$500 deposit
$1,600 reduced rent for 8 months
$3,500 total
Oh, I'm glad you said this. I had that thought while reading the post, then got sidetracked by other things and when I went to post, I had forgotten about it. I hadn't done the math, but wondered if just paying out the lease would be cheaper. It isn't straight up $2300, since they would also have to keep the utilities on at the place, but with no one living there, they shouldn't be too bad. If you have a yard, you also may have to pay for lawn care, since it would be in the spring/summer, and you would be living in a different state. Probably still the cheaper option, but maybe not as much cheaper as it appears at first glance.
However, the lease may have a clause that says the property has to be occupied. I know there was another discussion going on the forums about that just recently, that many leases do that, as the LL wants someone to be keeping an eye out for damage, like from a plumbing leak. So that could be a complication too.
Sounds like you would be money ahead to keep paying the $700/month for 4 more months to finish the lease. That would cost you only $2800 and you would be entitled to get your deposite back. So you would be out a total of only $2,300.
Otherwise you would be paying:
$1,400 lease break fee
$500 deposit
$1,600 reduced rent for 8 months
$3,500 total
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta
Oh, I'm glad you said this. I had that thought while reading the post, then got sidetracked by other things and when I went to post, I had forgotten about it. I hadn't done the math, but wondered if just paying out the lease would be cheaper. It isn't straight up $2300, since they would also have to keep the utilities on at the place, but with no one living there, they shouldn't be too bad. If you have a yard, you also may have to pay for lawn care, since it would be in the spring/summer, and you would be living in a different state. Probably still the cheaper option, but maybe not as much cheaper as it appears at first glance.
However, the lease may have a clause that says the property has to be occupied. I know there was another discussion going on the forums about that just recently, that many leases do that, as the LL wants someone to be keeping an eye out for damage, like from a plumbing leak. So that could be a complication too.
In my opinion they would have very little recourse to do anything to you if the property is not occupied. The landlord may want it to be occupied, but what can they really do to enforce that?
The reason I say it is double dipping...OP would be penalized/paying twice for breaking the lease early
penalty 1) 2 months rent as early termination fee
penalty 2) raise rent by $200 for all 8 prior month that lived there
Isn't that double jeopardy? Even though it is stated in the lease, I just wonder if such double dipping is legal.
There are lots of things that can be in leases, and they are not legal...because state law trumps the lease when clauses are illegal.
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.