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.
Hah! Looks like there are a lot of landlords on this forum who want an opportunity to make random assumptions/wrong comparisons/wrong factual statements about the situation and vent out their frustrations at the tenants . Understand that I am following the rules in the lease. I am questioning why there cant be a solution that works for everyone. When I had signed my second year lease, I had discussed with my landlord that I could be buying home around the end of the second year lease and we had discussed options (we didn't discuss the aspect I am questioning here - about being reasonable with the re-rent price). I think you all know how hard it is to "time" a house purchase perfectly. Again, I am not trying to screw over a landlord here - I am trying to understand if there is any law to prevent any party from taking advantage of this situation. Because I believe there could be ways in which everyone could be where they were supposed to be by the end of my lease.
1. I don't see an early termination fee clause as a privilege or something that landlord should be given credit for. The option always existed in the lease and was one of the reasons I chose to live here. If I choose termination clause I would be paying a hefty two months rent, and the landlord will very likely find someone in two months - early termination clause could be a good profit (not to say there is no likelihood of loss). My landlord is a corporate entity, btw, and apartments get rented easily in my area. All this to say that 2 months rent termination fee clause is probably calculated to prevent damage for the landlord.
2. I still do not have a good reason to why there shouldn't be a way for the landlord to (without going out of his way) rent out the place for the term remaining on my lease for something close to my current price - if no one rents I am of course going to pay the rent. It is okay if they don't allow me to sub-lease, they can manage the lease and evaluate the potential renters with the same high standards as other customers. I am not even asking the landlord to accept whoever I bring. But again, right now, there is just no option for anyone to have a lease term equal to my remaining lease (unless they want to pay exorbitant $4000+ per month).
Sigh...
You are not understanding, there is no obligation by the LL to rent the place out so you can avoid the early termination fee. There is an obligation to mitigate the rest of the lease when you are vacating, and there is no early termination clause. VA law addresses this, the LL does have a duty to find a person to lease, that however is when you the renter have no clause to early terminate. Having this termination clause however, means you can simply walk away and not be on the hook for the rest of the lease.
You are under the presumption that the LL is suppose to assist you in avoiding the early termination charge, which is false, they do not have to do it at all.
Consult a lawyer please, they can explain this to you, VA is a pretty LL friendly state also.
But to answer your question, yes, the LL can raise the rent for the new renters.
SO, options are;
-ask kindly, being mindful they are under zero obligation to find a renter so you can avoid the early termination fee or not have to pay each month till the lease is up.
-pay the early termination fee or finish the lease out.
-if no money for the termination/rent, then borrow in the form of a personal loan.
-if want to minimize the financial impact, toss some furniture in your new house, AirBnB that thing out until your lease is up.
in some states if the landlord is holding you to the lease claiming it is still your apartment until re-rented and is trying to re-rent on your behalf , you are entitled to the extra rent he gets until your lease expires because the mitigation is looked at as a sublet . once your lease expires then the landlord has the option of making the new tenant the lease holder .
.... here in ny landlords no longer have any duty to mitigate damages at all ... ny finally dropped that ambiguous clause because courts never defined what constitutes enough effort .. is a sign on the lawn on a dead end street enough effort ? so we no longer have any mitigation duty as a landlord ...
landlords can get caught up to in being deemed taking possession and not just acting on the tenants behalf mitigating a tenants damages .... that makes them unable to hold the tenant to the lease ... claiming it is still the tenants apartment , yet going in and painting , repairing and making betterment in many states is considered taking back possession .. the landlord can't claim it is still your apartment , yet go in to what he is claiming is your apartment still and doing work to rerent ... they can get written permission to act on your behalf , and explain the terms of the mitigation , but most landlords don't and drop the ball unknowingly letting the tenant off the hook .
my ex wife got out of the money due after she left just for that reason ...the mgmt company went in the next day to start work while still holding her to the lease ... our laws don't allow for double dipping but few realize it until a knowledgeable attorney uses it against them .....
the mgmt at a huge complex here got a new education with my ex when she broke her lease because she could no longer afford the apartment ..
a very knowledgeable attorney she knew had her send the mgmt company a certified letter that she would be surrendering the keys on such and such a date and gave them instructions as to where to send her security deposit ..
like most mgmt companies they never responded back saying if you do we will still charge you ..
instead as expected they threw the notice in the file ... well the day came , my ex went to the office , clearly "surrendered the keys with a letter explaining what she is doing . they accepted the keys and that was that ..
well 2 months later the charges start coming ... she notified them that they accepted her terms of surrender under new yorks operation of law , whether they understood that or not by not refuting her terms and besides that they took possession back by going in the next dy and painting ... so surrender and control laws can be very powerful .
the mgmt said that is ridiculous , they never heard of such a thing ... so they checked with their attorneys who confirmed , YEP , they blew it ... they were outsmarted by an attorney who knew his business and they gave her her full deposit back with no additional charges . . now they know better .
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-08-2019 at 04:29 AM..
OP, we were in your situation years ago with a single family home rental. We knew the out of state landlord would make no effort to re-rent, so I kept ads running on Craigslist, in the local paper and a sign outside with a flyer. The landlord was okay with this and had me take applications so he could run credit checks.
He was turning people down left and right, but I finally showed the house to the new tenants on my last day there and they moved in 15 days later.
I kept great records of everything and fought him on some of the deposit he kept, which he returned after I disputed his bogus charges.
Since you're in an apartment, I wonder if you'll have more trouble and if the apt manager will lease other vacant units before yours. I'd be promoting it on Facebook, Craigslist, maybe with corporate relocation companies, etc and promote your particular unit and the advantages. Keep good records and make sure they know to tell the apartment manager that they are interested in your unit.
Also, Mathjak's advice could also work, keep an eye on your unit once you move. We are in a commercial lease dispute right now for the same thing, landlord went right in our unit days after we vacated to renovate for the next tenant, yet they are suing us for rent for that month and the next (double dipping/unjust enrichment). We have tons of evidence as well as photos.
2. I still do not have a good reason to why there shouldn't be a way for the landlord to (without going out of his way) rent out the place for the term remaining on my lease for something close to my current price - if no one rents I am of course going to pay the rent. It is okay if they don't allow me to sub-lease, they can manage the lease and evaluate the potential renters with the same high standards as other customers. I am not even asking the landlord to accept whoever I bring. But again, right now, there is just no option for anyone to have a lease term equal to my remaining lease (unless they want to pay exorbitant $4000+ per month).
As to the bolded: Yes, that's the way the rental market works pretty much everywhere. If one wants a lease term less than 12 months, one is going to pay a premium for it.
Personally, I would imagine that your LL would have an easier time renting your apartment for 12 months at the higher rent than he would at finding someone to rent your place for 4 months, even at the lower price point. That's just a weird lease term and who wants to move that frequently? Maybe some contract worker would need the place for a few months in your area, but that would certainly diminish the renter pool.
You can rail on the LLs on the forum all you want, but they're just telling you the truth. This is a business contract between you and the LL. That's all it is. And, there's even less wiggle room since you're dealing with a corporate entity. It's not about being nice. It's not about helping you. It's not even about finding an "equitable" solution that is "good enough" for both of you. There is a legal document binding this business arrangement that has protections contained therein for both parties. You would like to terminate said legal document before its end-date. Follow the procedures for doing so and don't take it personal.
Hah! Looks like there are a lot of landlords on this forum who want an opportunity to make random assumptions/wrong comparisons/wrong factual statements about the situation and vent out their frustrations at the tenants . Understand that I am following the rules in the lease. I am questioning why there cant be a solution that works for everyone. When I had signed my second year lease, I had discussed with my landlord that I could be buying home around the end of the second year lease and we had discussed options (we didn't discuss the aspect I am questioning here - about being reasonable with the re-rent price). I think you all know how hard it is to "time" a house purchase perfectly. Again, I am not trying to screw over a landlord here - I am trying to understand if there is any law to prevent any party from taking advantage of this situation. Because I believe there could be ways in which everyone could be where they were supposed to be by the end of my lease.
1. I don't see an early termination fee clause as a privilege or something that landlord should be given credit for. The option always existed in the lease and was one of the reasons I chose to live here. If I choose termination clause I would be paying a hefty two months rent, and the landlord will very likely find someone in two months - early termination clause could be a good profit (not to say there is no likelihood of loss). My landlord is a corporate entity, btw, and apartments get rented easily in my area. All this to say that 2 months rent termination fee clause is probably calculated to prevent damage for the landlord.
2. I still do not have a good reason to why there shouldn't be a way for the landlord to (without going out of his way) rent out the place for the term remaining on my lease for something close to my current price - if no one rents I am of course going to pay the rent. It is okay if they don't allow me to sub-lease, they can manage the lease and evaluate the potential renters with the same high standards as other customers. I am not even asking the landlord to accept whoever I bring. But again, right now, there is just no option for anyone to have a lease term equal to my remaining lease (unless they want to pay exorbitant $4000+ per month).
Not really. The early termination clause costs are there to cover our expenses and to help reduce the amount of people who apartment hop, moving frequently.
You also mention timing the purchase of a house. I understand this completely. I also know that I've had no less than several dozen tenants over the years tell me they are looking at buying a house (then I remember their credit report and get a good laugh (we don't rent to, umm, top-tier tenants)). However, the early termination buyout would have been a pretty attractive option if you had 9 months left on your lease.
There is a door number 3 here. It's not a door I recommend opening but it's there. Quit paying and be evicted. I don't encourage this because it's a PITA for the landlord and your credit will take a pretty good beating, not to mention the court costs. You'll probably owe one month plus late fees and court costs. But, if I were the landlord and knew the situation, I would play your game and beat you at it, if I were so inclined to be a real jerk. There is no requirement for a landlord to file for an eviction the day rent is past due, if you catch my drift.
Since VA doesn't require much if there in an early termination clause, I'd suggest paying the termination fee or trying to negotiate a lower fee. You never know if someone will want your apartment. I'd not be too keen on rolling the dice.
ETA: You made a bold assumption in your post. You assume that apartments get rented easily. That's not always the case. The units I thought would be easiest have always been the most annoying to rent.
There is nothing prohibiting the landlord from renting at market value, which may be a significant increase above your rent.
If there's an early termination fee, it doesn't sound like you lose that option if the landlord fails to rent it in two months. Meaning, if you choose not to pay that now in hopes that he rents it in a few weeks, but it takes him more than two months, I don't think you'll be on the hook for more than those two months. I don't think a judge would side with the landlord trying to get more than two months' worth of rent out of someone with a two months' rent early termination fee just because the tenant didn't choose that option in week one. I would pay rent as it is due until you've paid two months' rent, then let the landlord know you are off the hook and good luck. This will be even more likely to stand up in court if you hand over the key now, proving you in no way had possession during those two months and complied with the landlord's lease.
By the way, any vagueness in the lease goes to the tenant's benefit since the landlord wrote the lease and had the chance to be more clear if he chose.
Also IF you new home is worth a couple thousand More you can ask the bank IF they can add the rental buy out to the homes purchase price on the loan. I knew several folks Including my son that did this. I once purchased a property with old Mobile home. Few years later when I found a Newer mobile home to update too. The Bank not only financed the whole thing land new MH they added the cost of move & disposal of the old MH they inc moving & setting up the Newer home!
if no one rents I am of course going to pay the rent.
Here's a question that nobody's thought of yet.
Are you still paying rent while you no longer occupy the rental?
If you are, then you aren't in breach and, as long as you aren't in breach, the LL has no duty to mitigate.
As long as he is collecting rent from you, he can just sail along doing what he is doing and you can't say boo about it.
What you need to do is quit paying him. That's when you'll be in breach. That's when the clock starts running on mitigation. That's when he will only be able to collect for the period from the date of the breach until he re-rents. And with no money coming in for an empty place, you can bet he will work a lot harder to re-rent, perhaps even reducing his asking rent back to how much he was getting from you.
The VA landlord tenant statute 55-248.35 requires the landlord to mitigate:
Quote:
Actual damages for breach of the rental agreement may include a claim for such rent as would have accrued until the expiration of the term thereof or until a tenancy pursuant to a new rental agreement commences, whichever first occurs; provided that nothing herein contained shall diminish the duty of the landlord to mitigate actual damages for breach of the rental agreement.
The statute doesn't define mitigation but the VA Supreme Court defined it back in 1930:
Quote:
Mitigation of Damages -- Duty of Injured Party. -- The law imposes upon a party injured by another's breach of contract or tort the active duty of using all ordinary care and making all reasonable exertions to render the injury as light as possible. If by his negligence or wilfulness he allows the damage to be unnecessarily enhanced, the increased loss, that which was avoidable by the performance of his duty, falls upon him. Hannan v. Dusch, 154 Va. 356 - Va: Supreme Court 1930
Asking an additional $450 per month is not mitigation. But since the tenant is still paying rent there has been no breach, therefore the LL can be comfortable in seeking the higher rent for as long as the tenant keeps paying and subsidizing his efforts.
Failure to mitigate is a DEFENSE against a lawsuit for breach of contract. It's useless to tell the LL "Hey, you aren't mitigating" because there has been no lawsuit, therefore no defense.
As long as you keep paying, the LL can drag this out until the end of the lease. If he manages to snag a new tenant at the higher rent, more power to him. Nothing you can do about that because you willingly continued to pay the rent.
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.
. Understand that I am following the rules in the lease. I am questioning why there cant be a solution that works for everyone. When I had signed my second year lease, I had discussed with my landlord that I could be buying home around the end of the second year lease and we had discussed options (we didn't discuss the aspect I am questioning here - about being reasonable with the re-rent price). I think you all know how hard it is to "time" a house purchase perfectly. Again, I am not trying to screw over a landlord here - I am trying to understand if there is any law to prevent any party from taking advantage of this situation. Because I believe there could be ways in which everyone could be where they were supposed to be by the end of my lease.
