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.
I am having some issues with my landlord. Any advice is appreciated.
We have a lease from June, 2014-May, 2015. We found a house we want to buy last month and are currently about to close escrow. Unfortunately, the original owner of our rental died Dec. 24th and the property has since passed to his son, who is very unreasonable.
I gave my notice to vacate about 40 days before we needed to move. The new landlord had very strict requirements to move in. When the property management company found replacements he either denied them or waited to long to reply and the renters found a different house to rent. The house has been shown probably 12 times, with numerous applications, most of which are denied.
Here is the other part. The landlord is telling the property management company he wants to sell the house in June. He wants the prospective tenants to know they are just finishing my lease and then have to move out. Who in their right mind would move into a 3 bedroom house for 3 months? It is very obvious at this point that the landlord wants the house to remain vacant to work on it before selling it.
Should I still be responsible for rent given these circumstances? What are my options?
I understand I initiated this problem, but life happens. Did the landlord make reasonable attempts to re-rent the unit is my main concern.
Here is the Cal. Civil Code regarding this situation: (Cal. Civ. Code § 1951.2)
Thank you so much for your time and consideration!
Should I still be responsible for rent given these circumstances? What are my options?
Here is the Cal. Civil Code regarding this situation: (Cal. Civ. Code § 1951.2)
Do whatever it takes to get the landlord's instruction to the management company about only finishing your lease as that can establish your landlord's failure to properly mitigate. Additionally, if you produced a willing and able tenant but through the actions of the landlord, their approval was unnecessarily delay, you also have a case of mitigation improprieties.
However, first grab your actual lease and read it. Look to see if it states you are governed by CA, CC 1951.4. If it does, you are liable for the lease payment until the contractual termination date.
I just heard the landlord will only hold us accountable for one month's rent. This is not optimal, but a decent concession. I've spent a lot of time in court, but only as a LEO. Not sure I want to risk losing and owing much more than a month of rent.
Does this resolution sound adequate?
Edit: The property management company is how I found out about the landlord's failure to do a new lease with tenants. They have been pretty open about his actions.
I am having some issues with my landlord. Any advice is appreciated.
We have a lease from June, 2014-May, 2015. We found a house we want to buy last month and are currently about to close escrow. Unfortunately, the original owner of our rental died Dec. 24th and the property has since passed to his son, who is very unreasonable.
DOESNT MATTER. THE SON IS BOUND TO THE EXISTING LEASE. JUST BECAUSE HE IS THE NEW OWNER MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. HE HAS TO HONOR THE LEASE AGREEMENT.
I gave my notice to vacate about 40 days before we needed to move. The new landlord had very strict requirements to move in. When the property management company found replacements he either denied them or waited to long to reply and the renters found a different house to rent. The house has been shown probably 12 times, with numerous applications, most of which are denied.
YOU ONLY NEED TO GIVE 30 DAY NOTICE. BUT AS LONG AS YOUR LAST DAY COINCIDES WITH YOUR LEASE LAST DAY YOU SHOULD BE OK. AND IF YOURE PAYING FOR ALL THE DAYS OF YOUR LEASE WITH PROPER NOTICE I DONT SEE THE ISSUE. OR DID YOU MEAN YOU GAVE NOTICE 40 DAYS BEFORE YOUR 30 DAY NOTICE? SO YOU TECHNICALLY GAVE 70 DAY NOTICE?
Here is the other part. The landlord is telling the property management company he wants to sell the house in June. He wants the prospective tenants to know they are just finishing my lease and then have to move out. Who in their right mind would move into a 3 bedroom house for 3 months? It is very obvious at this point that the landlord wants the house to remain vacant to work on it before selling it.
YEAH HE HAS TO MITIGATE BUT ITS SORT OF CRAPPY THAT YOU GIVE NOTICE, HE WANTS TO SELL BUT EXPECTED YOU TO FULFILL YOUR CONTRACT. I CANT SAY I BLAME HIM FOR TURNING DOWN APPLICANTS. BUT HE IS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE WEATHER HE LIKES IT OR NOT.
Should I still be responsible for rent given these circumstances? What are my options?
I THINK YOU PUT THE LL IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION. HES NOT GONNA FIND A TENANT THAT WILL TAKE THE PLACE FOR 3 MONTHS. BUT HE HAS TO MITIGATE. IF HE CAN ORIVE THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE NOT UP TO HIS STANDARDS YOU CAN STILL BE LIABLE. HE WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT A SIMILAR TENANT AS YOU WERE. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT A LESSER TENNANT IF THEY DO NOT MEET HIS STANDARDS. FIND IT PRETTY HARD TO BELIEVE HE CANT FIND A LIKE REPLACEMENT TENANT
I understand I initiated this problem, but life happens. Did the landlord make reasonable attempts to re-rent the unit is my main concern.
IF TENANTS ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO RENT FROM HIM AND HE IS STILL LOOKING THEN HE IS MAKING ATTEMPTS TO FIND TENANT. GRANTED HE SHOULD OF FOUND AACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT BY NOW. I REALLY. DONT BELIEVE HE IS DOING HIS BEST TO MITIGATE AT ALL TRUTHFULLY.
Here is the Cal. Civil Code regarding this situation: (Cal. Civ. Code § 1951.2)
Thank you so much for your time and consideration!
Not yelling just responding.
Imo what I think you should of done. Paid your next to last month. Then give notice pay last month and walk. You placed him in a bad spot. But sometimes that happens and he has to figure it out. There is no way he will find a tenant for three months. I paying two months us too much I would try for a buyout end negotiations. He could come after you if you don't pay
Read your second post
I would say paying one month rent and walking is a good concession. Make sure you get a written release of liability from the initial lease agreement. This way he can't come back on you
Last edited by Electrician4you; 02-23-2015 at 10:04 PM..
My main concern at this point is, can he just rent the place for three months and expect me to pay the difference if he cannot? He has turned down two people who wanted leases similar to mine after they finished mine, or a year starting immediately. I understand his point of wanting to sell it, but that does not sound reasonable.
My main concern at this point is, can he just rent the place for three months and expect me to pay the difference if he cannot? He has turned down two people who wanted leases similar to mine after they finished mine, or a year starting immediately. I understand his point of wanting to sell it, but that does not sound reasonable.
Yes he can rent the place for three months. Finding someone fir that short a time won't be easy. His wanting to sell is inconsequential to what the law states he must do. He has to mitigate. Even if it's 3 months. Selling afterwards is his decision. Right now the property is a rental and falls under renting laws. Which means actively search for a new tenant. That means applications advertizing running checks. The law is pretty clear on this. In California it's unreasonable to expect you to pay 3 months rent without any mitigation on his part. If he does not mitigate you shouldn't have to pay. I understand you broke the lease and it's not a optimal situation but it happens. I've had it done to me and I simply moved on. It's not worth freaking over it. But its his respondibility to mitigate, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
If he is turning down or perfectly good tenants that's his problem. I would try for a one month rent as a settlement. If he won't do that and will not mitigate then I would send him a certified letter explaining him his responsibilities as LL and let him take you to court if he feels that strongly about it.
I mean technically if you're paying rent, haven't released occupancy then you should occupy the place. He can't go do the work he wants do he would have to wait till you moved out or buy you out of the lease agreement. hes trying to benefit from getting your rent payment and doing his repairs while under your rent payment coverage. Doesn't work that way.
Have you returned keys to the LL and relinquished occupancy? If you haven't you're still the legal resident and he has to follow the kaw on entering premises or LL to tensnt conduct
Last edited by Electrician4you; 02-24-2015 at 08:48 AM..
It seems like expecting a 3 month lease and then kicking them out, and telling them this now, would be unreasonable. Otherwise we just found a loophole. Whenever someone breaks their lease, any landlord could just tell them they will only re-rent for 3 months. No one would re-rent, so the original renter would have to pay for three months. There has to be more to this.
Like I said, people have applied and agreed to rent with a year lease, and he is saying no.
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.
