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.
CAUTION
The following is going to open one heck of a can of worms!
California law does not require a landlord to mitigate when a tenant moves out before their lease expires. It's an often cited myth. The law allows a landlord to just sit on the vacant unit and keep charging the tenant rent until such time as the lease naturally expires. The law only requires mitigation when and if the landlord is seeking damages from the tenant. So, the question of when a landlord has to mitigate depends on if they are seeking damages.
Huh. That's interesting; why would a LL in CA ever try to seek damages from a tenant then?
Is it an attempt to try to "double dip" from tenants who are hopefully unaware of the law?
Seems like it would be much easier to just continue getting rent from a vacant unit: no maintenance needed and lower utility costs as no one is living there.
Huh. That's interesting; why would a LL in CA ever try to seek damages from a tenant then?
Actual damages to the unit not covered by the security deposit, and unpaid rent. The latter of course opening up the door to the mandate that the LL mitigate his damages ... the merry-go-round of the judicial system.
Actual damages to the unit not covered by the security deposit, and unpaid rent. The latter of course opening up the door to the mandate that the LL mitigate his damages ... the merry-go-round of the judicial system.
CAUTION
The following is going to open one heck of a can of worms!
California law does not require a landlord to mitigate when a tenant moves out before their lease expires. It's an often cited myth. The law allows a landlord to just sit on the vacant unit and keep charging the tenant rent until such time as the lease naturally expires. The law only requires mitigation when and if the landlord is seeking damages from the tenant. So, the question of when a landlord has to mitigate depends on if they are seeking damages.
Rabrrita, there is no can of worms. What you wrote is not true.
Go. Read. The. Law.
Mitigation means precisely that the landlord can not sit on his rear and continue to collect rent.
It's all about continuing to collect rent without making a reasonable effort to re-rent the place.
Damages are a completely different issue from continuing to collect rent.
Perhaps the morphed understanding of the law you are talking about, is saying that there is no mitigation required if the landlord just lets the tenant go. Perhaps they are calling the rent think they should still be able to collect - "damages." But, if a landlord tries to continue to collect rent from a tenant in CA, without making a reasonable attempt to find a new tenant, and 30 days has been considered enough time by the courts in CA, then he is breaking the law by failing to mitigate the tenant's damages.
But, the law is very clear.
OP, I've tried to help you here by explaining actual California law. Believe me or not. Good luck.
Huh. That's interesting; why would a LL in CA ever try to seek damages from a tenant then?
Is it an attempt to try to "double dip" from tenants who are hopefully unaware of the law?
Seems like it would be much easier to just continue getting rent from a vacant unit: no maintenance needed and lower utility costs as no one is living there.
For the purpose of early lease termination, damages are monies owed. It can be rent owed or actual damage to the property. Only when a landlord is seeking damages before the actual lease termination, do they have a duty to mitigate. If a landlord chooses not to seek damages when the person terminates early, they just invoke the provision of CA's Landlord Tenant law that allows them to refuse the early terminations, and if the tenant moves out, the landlord sits on the vacated unit, the tenant still owes rent each and every month until the lease ends. Under the law, the landlord has NO DUTY to mitigate. The landlord does not have to perform any inspection before the person moves out and they do not have to account for the security deposit unit the natural expiration of that lease. Once again, the duty to mitigate only comes into play when the landlord is seeking damages before the natural expiration of the lease.
Rabrrita, there is no can of worms. What you wrote is not true.
It's called a Nineteen Fifty-One Four lease.
Ask your business attorney to explain the pros and cons if using that lease. A nineteen fifty-one four lease removes the landlord's duty to mitigate. It imposes some new duties on the landlord, but so long as they stay within the law, the tenant is on the hook for paying the complete and full term of the residential lease and the landlord has no duty to mitigate. As a matter of fact, even under the additional avenues for the tenants, the landlord doesn't have to lift a finger besides the normal requirement of approval to assist that tenant lessen their financial liability. The nineteen fifty-one four lease shifts all the burden to the tenants who want to end their lease early. Its pretty niffty; check it out!
For the purpose of early lease termination, damages are monies owed. It can be rent owed or actual damage to the property. Only when a landlord is seeking damages before the actual lease termination, do they have a duty to mitigate. If a landlord chooses not to seek damages when the person terminates early, they just invoke the provision of CA's Landlord Tenant law that allows them to refuse the early terminations, and if the tenant moves out, the landlord sits on the vacated unit, the tenant still owes rent each and every month until the lease ends. Under the law, the landlord has NO DUTY to mitigate. The landlord does not have to perform any inspection before the person moves out and they do not have to account for the security deposit unit the natural expiration of that lease. Once again, the duty to mitigate only comes into play when the landlord is seeking damages before the natural expiration of the lease.
For future readers of this thread...The above is completely wrong.
Here is the actual code.
1951.2. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 1951.4, if a lessee of real property breaches the lease and abandons the property before the end of the term or if his right to possession is terminated by the lessor because of a breach of the lease, the lease terminates. Upon such termination, the lessor may recover from the lessee: (1) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination; (2) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided; (3) Subject to subdivision (c), the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and (4) Any other amount necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee's failure to perform his obligations under the lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom. (b) The "worth at the time of award" of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) is computed by allowing interest at such lawful rate as may be specified in the lease or, if no such rate is specified in the lease, at the legal rate. The worth at the time of award of the amount referred to in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) is computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time of award plus 1 percent. (c) The lessor may recover damages under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) only if: (1) The lease provides that the damages he may recover include the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award, or for any shorter period of time specified in the lease, exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; or (2) The lessor relet the property prior to the time of award and proves that in reletting the property he acted reasonably and in a good-faith effort to mitigate the damages, but the recovery of damages under this paragraph is subject to any limitations specified in the lease. (d) Efforts by the lessor to mitigate the damages caused by the lessee's breach of the lease do not waive the lessor's right to recover damages under this section. (e) Nothing in this section affects the right of the lessor under a lease of real property to indemnification for liability arising prior to the termination of the lease for personal injuries or property damage where the lease provides for such indemnification.
------------------
Referenced above as an exception:
1951.4. (a) The remedy described in this section is available only if the lease provides for this remedy. In addition to any other type of provision used in a lease to provide for the remedy described in this section, a provision in the lease in substantially the following form satisfies this subdivision: "The lessor has the remedy described in California Civil Code Section 1951.4 (lessor may continue lease in effect after lessee's breach and abandonment and recover rent as it becomes due, if lessee has right to sublet or assign, subject only to reasonable limitations)." (b) Even though a lessee of real property has breached the lease and abandoned the property, the lease continues in effect for so long as the lessor does not terminate the lessee's right to possession, and the lessor may enforce all the lessor's rights and remedies under the lease, including the right to recover the rent as it becomes due under the lease, if any of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) The lease permits the lessee, or does not prohibit or otherwise restrict the right of the lessee, to sublet the property, assign the lessee's interest in the lease, or both. (2) The lease permits the lessee to sublet the property, assign the lessee's interest in the lease, or both, subject to express standards or conditions, provided the standards and conditions are reasonable at the time the lease is executed and the lessor does not require compliance with any standard or condition that has become unreasonable at the time the lessee seeks to sublet or assign. For purposes of this paragraph, an express standard or condition is presumed to be reasonable; this presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof. (3) The lease permits the lessee to sublet the property, assign the lessee's interest in the lease, or both, with the consent of the lessor, and the lease provides that the consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or the lease includes a standard implied by law that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. (c) For the purposes of subdivision (b), the following do not constitute a termination of the lessee's right to possession: (1) Acts of maintenance or preservation or efforts to relet the property. (2) The appointment of a receiver upon initiative of the lessor to protect the lessor's interest under the lease. (3) Withholding consent to a subletting or assignment, or terminating a subletting or assignment, if the withholding or termination does not violate the rights of the lessee specified in subdivision (b).
It's called a Nineteen Fifty-One Four lease.
Ask your business attorney to explain the pros and cons if using that lease. A nineteen fifty-one four lease removes the landlord's duty to mitigate. It imposes some new duties on the landlord, but so long as they stay within the law, the tenant is on the hook for paying the complete and full term of the residential lease and the landlord has no duty to mitigate. As a matter of fact, even under the additional avenues for the tenants, the landlord doesn't have to lift a finger besides the normal requirement of approval to assist that tenant lessen their financial liability. The nineteen fifty-one four lease shifts all the burden to the tenants who want to end their lease early. Its pretty niffty; check it out!
Nineteen Fifty-One four refers to the section I cut and pasted above. California Civil Code Section 1951.4. This type of lease would contain the exception to the mitigation law IF the lease contains a provision allowing the tenant to sub-let. The tenant remains on the hook for rent, BUT has the right to sub-let the unit. The landlord must allow the tenant to find someone else to complete the lease under this exception.
So, does the OP's lease contain this provision? Not likely. Most landlords don't allow sub-letting.
OP, if your lease says you can sub-let, then go for it.
For future readers of this thread...The above is completely wrong.
So explain how it's wrong especially since you cited the laws and they said what I said????????
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.
