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.
...a. The only thing that could happen is if you stop paying he might start eviction process and get a judgement. ...
Eviction is used to remove the tenant from the property - force them to move out and return possession of the property to the landlord. Since the tenant has already moved out and returned the rental to the landlord, eviction would not apply.
However, landlord could sue the tenant for past due rent for the period that is still on the lease that has already passed. However, if tenant has proof that the landlord isn't trying to rerent, then I think the landlord would lose the court case if TX has duty to mitigate. The tenant should not be paying rent for a unit that is not being marketed for new renters.
I don't think the former tenant should be paying utilities since the landlord already has taken the keys. At this point the landlord should be paying for utilities.
OP - I would have a chat with a real estate attorney if I was in your shoes. Check around and see what they would charge for a consultation on this matter. Likely 30-60 minutes of their time to review your lease and discuss with you and give you guidance.
That's what is confusing to me. I'm still paying rent and utilities on the property. Thus the question. I'm not trying to get out of paying my liabilities to the landlord (as some of you have graciously implied) but instead pay all at once when it is said and done. It seems the landlord has no real motivation to re-lease the house if I am still paying the rent on time. No motivation to re-list the house and that was the crux of my original question.
I'm still paying rent. So assuming they rent the unit in a month or two, I will have still payed rent that entire time so I don't see how I "owe" since I am still paying. The landlord is not "out" anything (save for listing costs and that IS covered in the lease that I am responsible for that as well.)
Again, not trying to avoid it.
So the landlord still does not (it would seem) need to prove anything, they could just claim I destroyed the house and Bill me a flat bill without itemizing it and I have no recourse?
UNLESS - by continuing to pay the rent on time I am not giving away the security deposit and the "damages" would come out of that first and I would be responsible for only above that AND would get an itemized list of "damages" I can dispute if need be? I took pictures.
You shouldn't still be paying utilities on the property, but rent? Absolutely. Remember, you signed a legally binding contract to do so; that's your lease. Not paying rent is going to violate the terms of that lease, which not only is going to surely result in your losing your security, but also a legal judgment and the rest of the rent owed plus more in damages.
And yes, the landlord is out something because you broke the lease. They had your monthly rent factored into their cash flow and budget for the year; now, that's all gone because you've vacated ahead of time and they can't be sure when they will be able to get someone in to try to recoup that lost income. Even if they rent it for Feb 1st right now, that's still a month of income they were counting on they will now never receive and not be able to recoup.
You shouldn't still be paying utilities on the property, but rent? Absolutely. Remember, you signed a legally binding contract to do so; that's your lease. Not paying rent is going to violate the terms of that lease, which not only is going to surely result in your losing your security, but also a legal judgment and the rest of the rent owed plus more in damages.
And I am still paying the rent. Every month and on time.
Quote:
And yes, the landlord is out something because you broke the lease. They had your monthly rent factored into their cash flow and budget for the year; now, that's all gone because you've vacated ahead of time and they can't be sure when they will be able to get someone in to try to recoup that lost income. Even if they rent it for Feb 1st right now, that's still a month of income they were counting on they will now never receive and not be able to recoup.
Again. I am still paying the rent. The landlord (up to this point) has lost NOTHING. ZIP. ZILCH.
THe entire point of the original post was to see if it made sense to stop paying rent since I was no longer in the property and argue the final bill once it came because it felt as though the landlord was not making a reasonable effort to re-lease the property since I was still paying like a normal tenant. They have no motivation to get it leased since I am still paying rent. I'm about 99% sure if I had stopped paying rent (and was evicted) they would have hustled to get the house back on the market ASAP to recover the lost cash flow.
But given the circumstances they have dragged their feet and why not, they are getting rent still.
The consensus here seems to be (outside of the unnessary comments) is that the landlord is well within their rights to drag their feet and since I broke the lease (but am still paying rent and utilities as if I was still in the house so still not sure I broke the lease) they have no obligation to document or itemize any damage they wish to charge me for since I broke the lease.
Sucks for me the tenant but it's an expensive lesson learned. The laws tend to favor the landlords in this situation and I get it, fair enough. They have the most risk in this deal. I was only trying to see if my financial responsibility (are late fees charged on rent once a tenant has broken the lease and moved out - applied - that's all I wanted to know) is the same if I continue to make rent payments to the unmotivated landlord or if I stopped and just dealt with the final bill.
Also no one ever in the history or ever should be allowed to break a lease since it is an iron clad legal contract this absolutely no provisions in that legal contract for breaking....the lease.
And that brings me full circle back to I've not broken anything at this point since I am still paying for it as if I were there (even still have renters insurance) and basically just given the landlord a totally empty house to show, assuming they were motivated to do so. A point I think was totally missed by all the amature landlords here who took this question as a personal attack on their own livelihood.
Eviction is used to remove the tenant from the property - force them to move out and return possession of the property to the landlord. Since the tenant has already moved out and returned the rental to the landlord, eviction would not apply.
However, landlord could sue the tenant for past due rent for the period that is still on the lease that has already passed. However, if tenant has proof that the landlord isn't trying to rerent, then I think the landlord would lose the court case if TX has duty to mitigate. The tenant should not be paying rent for a unit that is not being marketed for new renters.
I don't think the former tenant should be paying utilities since the landlord already has taken the keys. At this point the landlord should be paying for utilities.
OP - I would have a chat with a real estate attorney if I was in your shoes. Check around and see what they would charge for a consultation on this matter. Likely 30-60 minutes of their time to review your lease and discuss with you and give you guidance.
Thanks! You seemed to have read my post!
I think at this point I am just out the rent for December (already paid) and prob Jan (also paid) but if the house isn't on the market by mid Jan (I was out Dec 1) then I probably have a good case of the landlord not making the "reasonable effort".
And I am still paying the rent. Every month and on time.
Again. I am still paying the rent. The landlord (up to this point) has lost NOTHING. ZIP. ZILCH.
THe entire point of the original post was to see if it made sense to stop paying rent since I was no longer in the property and argue the final bill once it came because it felt as though the landlord was not making a reasonable effort to re-lease the property since I was still paying like a normal tenant. They have no motivation to get it leased since I am still paying rent. I'm about 99% sure if I had stopped paying rent (and was evicted) they would have hustled to get the house back on the market ASAP to recover the lost cash flow.
But given the circumstances they have dragged their feet and why not, they are getting rent still.
The consensus here seems to be (outside of the unnessary comments) is that the landlord is well within their rights to drag their feet and since I broke the lease (but am still paying rent and utilities as if I was still in the house so still not sure I broke the lease) they have no obligation to document or itemize any damage they wish to charge me for since I broke the lease.
Sucks for me the tenant but it's an expensive lesson learned. The laws tend to favor the landlords in this situation and I get it, fair enough. They have the most risk in this deal. I was only trying to see if my financial responsibility (are late fees charged on rent once a tenant has broken the lease and moved out - applied - that's all I wanted to know) is the same if I continue to make rent payments to the unmotivated landlord or if I stopped and just dealt with the final bill.
Also no one ever in the history or ever should be allowed to break a lease since it is an iron clad legal contract this absolutely no provisions in that legal contract for breaking....the lease.
And that brings me full circle back to I've not broken anything at this point since I am still paying for it as if I were there (even still have renters insurance) and basically just given the landlord a totally empty house to show, assuming they were motivated to do so. A point I think was totally missed by all the amature landlords here who took this question as a personal attack on their own livelihood.
No, I get what you're saying but I think you're missing the point: while you have not technically broken your lease yet, by continuing to pay your rent, once you stop doing so, you violate the terms and that opens up a whole can of worms for you. You've indicated you would like to leave the terms of your lease early, and your landlord has a duty to re-rent it in order to mitigate your damages, but once you stop paying rent, that can stop being the case, as the case then shifts to your being in default. You would need to check your state laws but a landlord's duty to mitigate might no longer be applicable once you default on your lease.
As well, no, the landlord can't just drag their butt trying to re-rent the unit; they must attempt to rent it utilizing the same methods as when they tried to rent it when you took the unit. Unfortunately, you can't just ask for a final settlement once the unit is rented.
Have you considered trying to find a tenant yourself to rent the place? Would be some time and effort on your part, but could be well worth it, in terms of getting this issue off of your plate. In most states, landlord can't reasonably refuse a qualified tenant you bring to the owner, and if they persist in doing so, you can sue THEM for damages.
No, I get what you're saying but I think you're missing the point: while you have not technically broken your lease yet, by continuing to pay your rent, once you stop doing so, you violate the terms and that opens up a whole can of worms for you. You've indicated you would like to leave the terms of your lease early, and your landlord has a duty to re-rent it in order to mitigate your damages, but once you stop paying rent, that can stop being the case, as the case then shifts to your being in default. You would need to check your state laws but a landlord's duty to mitigate might no longer be applicable once you default on your lease.
As well, no, the landlord can't just drag their butt trying to re-rent the unit; they must attempt to rent it utilizing the same methods as when they tried to rent it when you took the unit. Unfortunately, you can't just ask for a final settlement once the unit is rented.
Have you considered trying to find a tenant yourself to rent the place? Would be some time and effort on your part, but could be well worth it, in terms of getting this issue off of your plate. In most states, landlord can't reasonably refuse a qualified tenant you bring to the owner, and if they persist in doing so, you can sue THEM for damages.
Yea I think we're on the same page here. Keep paying rent is my best option and then I don't forfeit my deposits - that can be applied to the "damages" including the costs to re-list the house.
Honestly I would lawyer up. We were in a very similar situation a little over a year ago. We purchased a house, moved out and told the landlord. He was very sketchy about the deposit. Finally I got a lawyer who sent a demand letter and we settled.
The biggest mistakes I read you have made is holding on to the keys, thus having possession. Did you give written notice you were moving out? Ask for a walk through?
Yea I think we're on the same page here. Keep paying rent is my best option and then I don't forfeit my deposits - that can be applied to the "damages" including the costs to re-list the house.
That seems the be best case.
Pretty much, sorry. Seriously consider trying to find a tenant on your own though; would probably get the place rented more quickly than if you relied solely on your landlord, and would bolster any case you might bring against them if they refuse your applicants (provided anyone you present is qualified to rent the apartment).
Pretty much, sorry. Seriously consider trying to find a tenant on your own though; would probably get the place rented more quickly than if you relied solely on your landlord, and would bolster any case you might bring against them if they refuse your applicants (provided anyone you present is qualified to rent the apartment).
What if the landlord listed the property for $100 more a month than I was paying?!!!?
As they just did that?
I understand they don't have to list it for less and take a loss but can they list it for more (above market value) and hold me responsible for it not leasing? Average value in the area is 1400-1450 (I was paying 1500) and they listed it for 1600.
I mean, if it rents then great for the landlord but that price is more than the neighborhood will fetch.
What if the landlord listed the property for $100 more a month than I was paying?!!!?
As they just did that?
I understand they don't have to list it for less and take a loss but can they list it for more (above market value) and hold me responsible for it not leasing? Average value in the area is 1400-1450 (I was paying 1500) and they listed it for 1600.
I mean, if it rents then great for the landlord but that price is more than the neighborhood will fetch.
Yeah, unfortunately, they're allowed to list for a higher rent; their duty to mitigate doesn't require them to keep the rent the same, and that's not such an unreasonable increase that a judge will say they're not doing their duty. Sorry.
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.
