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.
Suppose a landlord and tenants have signed a two year lease deal, and the tenants decide a year in that they want to leave. It's my understanding that, ideally, a lease deal exists to provide a degree of stability and predictability to both sides, for which both parties give something up--the landlord giving up potential future raises in rent for the duration, and the tenant giving up, theoretically, the freedom to leave without notice or penalty.
I say "theoretically", because in a market of rising rents, does the landlord really mind if the tenant wants to leave a year early? Presumably the landlord can now get new tenants and charge them more rent, which they can't do if the original tenants stay on. So it seems like it wouldn't be any skin off the landlord's nose, as they say. Quite the contrary, it seems the owners would be glad to see the original tenants go.
Now the non-hypothetical--this is in California, San Diego County specifically. We actually have such an offer in hand, although specifics such as penalties for early termination are not spelled out. Personally, I think we'd be fools not to take it, but I'm not the only one making the decision.
It costs money to turn a unit and time to place a tenant. You have a lease which obligates a tenant to pay rent until a new tenant is placed. However you can't hold a tenant to stay through the end of the lease so I'm confused what you are actually asking.
Yeah, that is why I just posted the link with actual facts and laws for breaking a lease because all I saw in OP was someone thinking out loud with their theories and hypothetical thinking.
QUOTE=Those Who Squirm;41077126]Suppose a landlord and tenants have signed a two year lease deal, and the tenants decide a year in that they want to leave. It's my understanding that, ideally, a lease deal exists to provide a degree of stability and predictability to both sides, for which both parties give something up--the landlord giving up potential future raises in rent for the duration, and the tenant giving up, theoretically, the freedom to leave without notice or penalty.
Yes a lease is both positive and a negative depending which side of the table you're on and specifics.
Quote:
I say "theoretically", because in a market of rising rents, does the landlord really mind if the tenant wants to leave a year early? Presumably the landlord can now get new tenants and charge them more rent, which they can't do if the original tenants stay on. So it seems like it wouldn't be any skin off the landlord's nose, as they say. Quite the contrary, it seems the owners would be glad to see the original tenants go.
Theoretically yes you're right. Why keep a guy at 2000 when rent went up to 2100. There is downtime. what happens if you are taking a good solid tenant who paid on time and are exchanging it for a new one who isn't as good, doesn't pay on time and is messy? I don't rock the boat with my tenants. I don't care about a extra 50-100 a month 6 months into their lease (if I did apply your theoretic situation) because it takes time to show screen and turn over a unit. That 50-100 bucks will be eaten up today and hopefully made up in the future. That's if the tenant pays and doesn't decide to play games.
If the tenant doesn't rock the boat, pays on time, keeps the unit clean an and isn't a pig, I'll forego that extra 50-100 bucks. I may do a raise two years into a lease but I usually do a cost analysis and look back on how good the tenant was. Was I dealing with Justin Beiber or Business man tenant. Basically how much did I have to work to keep that tenant in line. How much is thst extra 50-100 bucks worth to you? Who is breaking the lease? You or tenant?
Quote:
Now the non-hypothetical--this is in California, San Diego County specifically. We actually have such an offer in hand, although specifics such as penalties for early termination are not spelled out. Personally, I think we'd be fools not to take it, but I'm not the only one making the decision.
[/quote]
Early termination is (should be) spelled out in every lease. If it isn't you fall back in what state laws say must be done in case of a early termination.
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.
