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.
As a landlord I have had less control over lease breaking than in enforcing late fees, so much so that I have now stopped offering yearly leases unless they are specifically asked for, and all my rental contracts are month-to-month now. Everyone is happier. They give me a calendar month's notice and off they go. Just like they used to when they had a year's lease.
And the other thing is, I can also give them a month's notice when I don't want them there any more. I don't need to give a reason. I've done this with tenants who have had chronic late payment problems.
When you have a run of bad luck, which certainly can legitimately happen to anyone, its probably not a good idea to move. Add to all the stress described above a new security deposit and first month's rent at a different place. If you are pulling odd jobs off of Craigslist, why add to your burden with moving expenses? All this is of course hypothetical.
If you signed something that says "here is how you get out of this" and then don't want to or can't honor that, its a different issue than being told "you can't ever under any circumstances get out of this."
I would agree with you, that it is a bad idea to move in that situation, and I didn't move from there til a year and a half later, when I could swing it, and left according to my lease terms. But a divorce, medical issue, or job loss can cause force your hand so to speak, and I think people are usually looking to move somewhere much cheaper.
Also, it seems that most people here are experiencing issues and want to know how to get out of their lease. They range from "the pipe burst and I want to leave now even though the landlord is handling it promptly" to "I've been incapacitated due to a siezure disorder and need to move and the LL isn't recognizing it as a disability" to "The guy above me moves around late at night and it wakes me up" to "My DD needs to get off the lease due to a domestic violence situation."
Now, some of those examples need a sour dose of reality, and some of them need to know that they can break their lease without penalty because of exigent circumstances. And sometimes people decide to move in the middle of the lease and stick the landlord due to a technicality, as a friend of mine did after documenting the landlord came in without notice.
As a landlord I have had less control over lease breaking than in enforcing late fees, so much so that I have now stopped offering yearly leases unless they are specifically asked for, and all my rental contracts are month-to-month now. Everyone is happier. They give me a calendar month's notice and off they go. Just like they used to when they had a year's lease.
And the other thing is, I can also give them a month's notice when I don't want them there any more. I don't need to give a reason. I've done this with tenants who have had chronic late payment problems.
I used to be on a month to month, and oddly, I stayed there for 2.5 years.
Mathjak, I think you're complicating a really simple law. If the tenant doesn't surrender possession of the unit, and/or the LL doesn't take over possession of the unit, in some states, the LL can sit on his thumb and continue to collect rent. The LL does not have a duty to mitigate damages.
... In some states, where a LL is not required to mitigate damages, if the LL takes back possession of the lease, the lease is broken. However, from what I've read on these laws in these states, the LL still gets to collect rent until he gets the place rented, with reasonable effort. By taking possession, the LL just basically then is under a law with a duty to mitigate at that point..
.. States that don't required landlords to mitigate damages have bad laws, IMO.
Isn't it common law that a landlord has to mitigate damages, whether or not a state law specifically addresses it? Your second paragraph quoted here seems to indicate exactly that so I'm a little confused about the point you're making. I thought the specific "surrender" point which poster mathjack made was very interesting and rather simplified than complicated the point he was making.
some states just have a law the landlord is to help mitigate but they stop there and don't say what they have to do. a for rent sign on a dead end street may be enough.
others like ours say the landlord does not have to do a thing. the tenant has to handle it all.
it is in the landlords best interest to help but they don't have to by law here anymore.
a smart landlord will work with the tenant to get him out and someone else in asap regardless of the law.
As a landlord I have had less control over lease breaking than in enforcing late fees, so much so that I have now stopped offering yearly leases unless they are specifically asked for, and all my rental contracts are month-to-month now. Everyone is happier. They give me a calendar month's notice and off they go. Just like they used to when they had a year's lease.
And the other thing is, I can also give them a month's notice when I don't want them there any more. I don't need to give a reason. I've done this with tenants who have had chronic late payment problems.
You are indeed a wise person. Great idea and glad it works for you.
some states just have a law the landlord is to help mitigate but they stop there and don't say what they have to do. a for rent sign on a dead end street may be enough.
others like ours say the landlord does not have to do a thing. the tenant has to handle it all.
it is in the landlords best interest to help but they don't have to by law here anymore.
a smart landlord will work with the tenant to get him out and someone else in asap regardless of the law.
Interesting. Thanks for the edification. I've found the "mitigating" factor a little odd overall. A contract is a contract and although I can well understand that a LL certainly cannot double-dip on rent, it seems rather contrary to the whole concept of a contract when a landlord is bound by any law to mitigate his damages when a tenant breaks the contract.
My opinion is in no way to be assumed as anti-tenant. Of course things happen and sometimes a party to any contract gets stuck in a really bad predicament through no fault of his own, in which case it can more often than not be worked out between the parties if they sit down at the bargaining table. If it can't be worked out and things are deadlocked then court is sometimes the only recourse.
As a landlord I have had less control over lease breaking than in enforcing late fees, so much so that I have now stopped offering yearly leases unless they are specifically asked for, and all my rental contracts are month-to-month now. Everyone is happier. They give me a calendar month's notice and off they go. Just like they used to when they had a year's lease.
And the other thing is, I can also give them a month's notice when I don't want them there any more. I don't need to give a reason. I've done this with tenants who have had chronic late payment problems.
Amen. The place I managed in Santa Clara also did only month-to-month agreements, for all of the above reasons. There is one tenant there who is retired and she's been there since the 80's - literally. There are several others who have been there over 10 years.
Some will take advantage and say they want a long tenancy, but in fact, are looking for somewhere cheaper than an Extended Stay Hotel for a month or two. This is the price the owner pays for keeping the ability to kick out problem tenants with no muss no fuss.
And in the 8 years I worked there, we never went to court once.
Interesting. Thanks for the edification. I've found the "mitigating" factor a little odd overall. A contract is a contract and although I can well understand that a LL certainly cannot double-dip on rent, it seems rather contrary to the whole concept of a contract when a landlord is bound by any law to mitigate his damages when a tenant breaks the contract.
My opinion is in no way to be assumed as anti-tenant. Of course things happen and sometimes a party to any contract gets stuck in a really bad predicament through no fault of his own, in which case it can more often than not be worked out between the parties if they sit down at the bargaining table. If it can't be worked out and things are deadlocked then court is sometimes the only recourse.
the taking control issue exists in most states whether you are required to mitigate or not for one simple reason.
to keep landlords from holding a tenant hostage to the lease ,sprucing up the apartment and asking alot more money. why not? the landlord can hold out being he has the old tenant paying while he trys to get more money. .
in order to get more money the landlord really needs to take control of the apartment releasing the tenant because now he isn't mitigating but seeking betterment.
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.
