landlord is forcing us to end the lease and showing our place before we gave notice.

[Rabrrita]

Originally Posted by STT Resident

Most residential leases are one year. The LL gave the OP 53 days notice (April 9-May 31) and under any scenario I doubt that would be insufficient.

If the lease is in fact for a 1 year, (a full 365 days of renting) the landlord missed their state right to void the 35 day renewal clause they placed in the lease. Therefor, the tenant can now give notice of renewal before the expiration of the 35 days and the landlord is forced BY THEIR OWN CLAUSE to accept that renewal. If the tenant does not give notice to renew before the 35 days, the landlord is free to terminate at the end of the lease. The mistake was the landlord giving the 35 days instead of leaving it as a non renewal to be negotiated at will. Once the landlord wrote in a renewal option, they had to excercise their ability to void it by a certain date and now have to wait to see if the tenant excercises their rights by a certain date.

[STT Resident]

Originally Posted by Rabrrita

If the lease is in fact for a 1 year, (a full 365 days of renting) the landlord missed their state right to void the 35 day renewal clause they placed in the lease.

How did they do that? They gave the OP written notice of intent not to renew on April 9th and the lease expires on May 31st. It's simply illogical that just because a tenant says they want to renew a lease with a set termination date within a certain time frame the landlord is then legally bound to accept them as continuing tenants. In fact the exact wording of the lease clause hasn't been given, only a lay summation.

[Rabrrita]

Originally Posted by STT Resident

How did they do that? They gave the OP written notice of intent not to renew on April 9th and the lease expires on May 31st. It's simply illogical that just because a tenant says they want to renew a lease with a set termination date within a certain time frame the landlord is then legally bound to accept them as continuing tenants. In fact the exact wording of the lease clause hasn't been given, only a lay summation.

Because this is a legal process that is confusing when looked at as a whole, let me just go through the steps involve and hopefully it becomes clearer.

1. The landlord has the right to add provision in the lease regarding renewals. Because the laws don't address renewals, what the landlrod and tenant agreeed upon (with certain limits) is what the courts will accept.
2. When providing a provision, the landlord is providing the tenant with a reasonable assurance that that provision will be honored as stated. The courts tend to lean more favorably to the tenant where confusion arises because the landlord drafted the lease and should have made it clear in their own favor if thats what they wanted.
3. In this case the landlord gave the tenant an assurance that they (the tenant) can decide up to 35 days prior to lease ending if they wanted to renew. By having that provision as written, the tenat had every right to assume that if they failed to act by the 35 day limit, renewals are only in the hand of the landlord.
4. However, state law recognizes that a landlord (for whatever reason) may decide they do not want the tenant to have that renewal right. Since the tenat is under the assurance that they can decide up to 35 days before the lease expiration, the law requires that if a landlord is going to terminate the lease and recind that renewal clause, they MUST notify the tenant at least 90 days prior to lease ending (if a full 1 year lease) so the tenant now is not finding out at the end of the lease where the assumed they still had the ability to renew.
5. Had the landlord not included any wording giving any renewal option, the lease would automatically terminate on the last day. Any renewal would have to be negotiated between the landlord and tenant.

So, as you hopefully can see, the renewal clause (as simple as it is) that the landlord included in the lease, is what triggered the required at least a 90 day advance (30 days if the lease in less than 1 year) notice of non renewal. In this case, the landlord failed to meet that The reason this is overlooked by most landlords in that state is it's not within the traditional landlord tenant laws but within the court procedures for evictions. It essentially outlines the notice and timelines required in order for an eviction to be accepted for court action.

[samanthayakobchuk]

Obviously, Colorado laws are much different than NJ's (which are very tenant-friendly), but I saw that the point about the landlord just showing up unannounced was barely mention. Is there no law on the tenant being given any notice before a showing? And as OP said, wouldn't it have been better for the landlord to give notice about the lease (legally valid or not) BEFORE showing the apartment the first time??

[STT Resident]

Originally Posted by samanthayakobchuk

Obviously, Colorado laws are much different than NJ's (which are very tenant-friendly), but I saw that the point about the landlord just showing up unannounced was barely mention. Is there no law on the tenant being given any notice before a showing?

See Post #13.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

OP. No. The LL can't just show up without giving you notice. I don't care what your lease says or what is missing from CO law. No judge is going to say that the LL can just waltz in at any time of the day or night with strangers whenever he feels like it.

As far as can your LL terminate your lease? What does that section of your lease say, exactly? I bet it says that if "either" party wants to terminate, they give the other party 35 days notice.

If you truly believe your LL is terminating your lease only because you have another child, then you need to contact fair housing for CO for discrimination. But, don't count on winning. The LL can probably come up with other reasons she's not renewing. If you want to talk with someone who can advise you on fighting this on discrimination, here's the link:

Colorado Department of Local Affairs - Fair Housing Resources

Click on "Contact Us."

The feeling I got from your OP, though, is that you DID intend to give your notice to move. You just don't like the LL doing it first, and showing your apt without notice.

If that's the case, then get over the first part, and tell your LL you will need at least 24 hours notice to show the place. Or come up with something that will work for you - the LL can show at such and such a time or whatever.