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.
You all need to go look up a landlord's duty to mitigate damages. Some states require it, and some don't. So, depending on your state's law regarding the duty to mitigate, is whether or not the tenant remains on the hook for the entire lease or "just" until you find a new tenant using reasonable means.
As far as any majority of posters on this forum saying the same thing equaling correct law - uh, rarely. You can grab a giant bunch of people who all agree on something - and they can all be wrong.
Kinda like two wrongs don't make a right. Or five wrongs, or ten wrongs...
You all need to go look up a landlord's duty to mitigate damages. Some states require it, and some don't. So, depending on your state's law regarding the duty to mitigate, is whether or not the tenant remains on the hook for the entire lease or "just" until you find a new tenant using reasonable means.
As I said, in Idaho, our rental attorney has said we can charge for up to 30 days only, and only if we don't find a tenant. According to your theory here, that means that Idaho must have a law requiring landlords to mitigate. We don't. Last I looked, it wasn't even in the state "LL/Tenant guidelines". So your theory that duty to mitigate determines how long you can charge for is either wrong, or at the very least, has exceptions.
As I said, in Idaho, our rental attorney has said we can charge for up to 30 days only, and only if we don't find a tenant. According to your theory here, that means that Idaho must have a law requiring landlords to mitigate. We don't. Last I looked, it wasn't even in the state "LL/Tenant guidelines". So your theory that duty to mitigate determines how long you can charge for is either wrong, or at the very least, has exceptions.
Your attorney is right. You should listen to him/her. Because Idaho DOES have a duty to mitigate damages, and that's why he said what he did.
"Idaho: In Industrial Leasing Corp. v. Thomason, 532 P.2d 916, 919 (1974), the Court concluded that the "best rule" was to require mitigation because it
would discourage idleness of productive property and would be in keeping with the other generally accepted damages rules in other commercial law transactions. E.g., in the rental of real property, most jurisdictions place a duty upon a landlord to seek new tenants when the lessees have refused to pay rent as provided for in the lease agreement and have vacated the property. Martin v. Siegley, 123 Wash. 683, 212 P. 1057 (1923); Wright v. Baumann, 239 Ore. 410, 398 P.2d 119 (1965).
In Consolidated AG of Curry, Inc.,912 P.2d 115 (Idaho 1996), the Supreme Court of Idaho concluded that it is consistent with the jurisprudence of this state as reflected in Industrial to require a lessor of real property to mitigate damages if the lessee has refused to pay rent and has abandoned the property." This is a commercial lease case and the case did not distinguish between commercial and residential leases, even though a commercial lease was at issue. The court's language indicates the duty applies to all leases."
--------------
I really don't get why you are arguing this. Why would you think your attorney says you have to mitigate damages - if you don't have to mitigate damages? This baffles me.
The landlord-tenant book is either poorly written, or is just not intended to cover every possible aspect of contract law. Because it's not in the landlord-tenant handbook, does not mean it's not in the legal statutes of the state.
The silly thing here is that your experience and my opinion coincide, so I don't understand why you are arguing with me.
Last edited by NoMoreSnowForMe; 12-23-2014 at 11:30 PM..
Your attorney is right. You should listen to him/her. Because Idaho DOES have a duty to mitigate damages, and that's why he said what he did. ... Why would you think your attorney says you have to mitigate damages - if you don't have to mitigate damages? This baffles me. ... ... I don't understand why you are arguing with me.
Maybe because in Ohio the duty to mitigate apparently does not apply if the lease includes language relieving the landlord of this duty? Be baffled no more.
Maybe because in Ohio the duty to mitigate apparently does not apply if the lease includes language relieving the landlord of this duty? Be baffled no more.
Ohio? Idaho?
Leases that say the landlord doesn't have to follow law?
It's true that laws in Ohio don't necessarily apply in Idaho.
Your post is baffling.
Our discussion was about a lease that her lawyer wrote that says she will mitigate damages (by saying they will only charge for 30 days or until a new tenant is found - this is the length of time the court will normally use to show a landlord has mitigated damages - the lawyer has written the mitigation of damages into the contract). Yet, she is saying the law in her state says she doesn't have to. Which was incorrect.
Last edited by NoMoreSnowForMe; 12-24-2014 at 03:00 PM..
Your attorney is right. You should listen to him/her. Because Idaho DOES have a duty to mitigate damages, and that's why he said what he did.
"Idaho: In Industrial Leasing Corp. v. Thomason, 532 P.2d 916, 919 (1974), the Court concluded that the "best rule" was to require mitigation because it
would discourage idleness of productive property and would be in keeping with the other generally accepted damages rules in other commercial law transactions. E.g., in the rental of real property, most jurisdictions place a duty upon a landlord to seek new tenants when the lessees have refused to pay rent as provided for in the lease agreement and have vacated the property. Martin v. Siegley, 123 Wash. 683, 212 P. 1057 (1923); Wright v. Baumann, 239 Ore. 410, 398 P.2d 119 (1965).
In Consolidated AG of Curry, Inc.,912 P.2d 115 (Idaho 1996), the Supreme Court of Idaho concluded that it is consistent with the jurisprudence of this state as reflected in Industrial to require a lessor of real property to mitigate damages if the lessee has refused to pay rent and has abandoned the property." This is a commercial lease case and the case did not distinguish between commercial and residential leases, even though a commercial lease was at issue. The court's language indicates the duty applies to all leases."
I really don't get why you are arguing this. Why would you think your attorney says you have to mitigate damages - if you don't have to mitigate damages? This baffles me. The landlord-tenant book is either poorly written, or is just not intended to cover every possible aspect of contract law. Because it's not in the landlord-tenant handbook, does not mean it's not in the legal statutes of the state.
The silly thing here is that your experience and my opinion coincide, so I don't understand why you are arguing with me.
I wasn't arguing that we shouldn't mitigate. I was arguing that we don't have a legal requirement to mitigate. There are basically no rental laws in Idaho. Semantics, and you're right, not worth arguing further about.
The points I was originally trying to make are:
1. Even in a very landlord friendly state, like Idaho, you typically can't get away with charging for the rest of the lease.
and 2. Regardless of what your state law/guidelines/lease say, you aren't going to get any money from someone you have to evict in at least 90% of cases, so the entire argument is a moot point anyway.
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.
