60 days notice + additional notice for month-to-month?

[katnc]

Because my entire issue rests on the complex saying that I need to provide a new 30 day notice at the start of the MTM lease (obligating me to 77 days of notice) The following is pretty important to examine.

I have been in communication this afternoon with the regional manager. She said "Once the contract rolls to a month-to-moth, the contract is based on a 30 day basis"

I wrote her back and asked if she could tell me where this is written on the lease, and she could not. She stated: " A Month-to-Month is defined by the Real Estate Commission as a periodic tenancy that goes on 30 day basis."

She then went on to say "The month-to-month is written on the lease agreement. As a stated a month to month is defined a periodic lease that goes on for 30 days. It is an implied term just like the definition of 12 month lease, you would imply that it goes for 12 month a month-to-month is implied that goes on period of 1 month."

Shouldn't a lease define this in the agreement? My 12 month lease is clearly defined. It states: The initial term of the lease contract begins on the 6th day of January, 2014 and ends at midnight on the 5th day of January, 2015. "Month-to-month" is not defined on the lease. I shouldn't need to find outside sources or take her word for month-to-month being an "implied" term. This shouldn't be legally binding, simply because 30 days is "implied."

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I'm sorry, OP, but I think the manager is right. I think it's unfair, for sure. But, legal.

The thing is, contracts don't have to spell out all of the pertinent laws that apply to a contract.

I'm afraid that a judge would say, well, you know you didn't meet the 60 day requirement. Didn't you think there would be some type of consequence for that?

And the contract is clear that once you are on a month-to-month agreement, you are required to give 30 days notice.

By giving notice that you won't be out until you're into a month-to-month agreement, it does make sense that notice would have to be given for thirty days after that contract begins.

From the landlord's point of view, he wants to get past the holidays when it will be easier to find a new renter, no doubt. Or maybe they're afraid of setting a precedence - if they let you do it, they'll have to let others do it.

I'm sorry they aren't being more fair with you on this. But, I'm just not seeing an argument you can win with in court here, and I'm honestly sorry to say that.

[katnc]

I agree that I am probably just going to have to deal with it and I appreciate all of you who have helped. It just boggles my mind that it has taken me so many emails and monitoring this thread daily in order to get advice from other sources to begin to understand this. As I mentioned before, I am not stupid, but I am no expert either.

Even though the manager may be correct, I am looking at this as a real social justice issue. The average joe should be able to understand his obligations under the law. When I first wrote my notice to vacate, there was no question in my mind at the time that I would be out in 60 days with part of that at a higher price. I was totally blind-sided and it has been eating at me for a month now.

But, I guess it is about time I let it go

Again, thank you to all of you who were able to provide constructive criticism or provide supportive remarks. At least I have learned something through this experience, but it was an expensive lesson!

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

You're absolutely right. I believe our high schools should teach basic contract law. I was only able to analyze your situation because I took contracts law in college. And I was in my 40's.

Lawyers would really hate it if we actually all knew these kinds of things, wouldn't they? Think of all those lost consulting fees...