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.
But I was thinking, even with a written contract, he has no right to the rent himself. The rent goes to the landlord, not him. So only the landlord would be able to sue me. There was no contract with the land lord to sublease the place, so technically I owe him no money.
Actually, in NC, a verbal lease is enforceable in court. Of course it will be a classic case of he said/she said, but I do see a potential issue. Here's what I have a problem with. There is one leaseholder, correct? And you were listed as an occupant? When the leaseholder signed the lease, he/she did so with you on as an occupant. That tells a judge that since he/she placed you on the document, it would seem that you both entered into an agreement that you would remain there through those terms. Now, when you were removed from the lease, legally, the leaseholder would have had to re-sign the document to make the change legal. Did he/she do that? If so, then they are basically saying they're ok with you not remaining in the apartment through the end of the lease. But if the real estate company just removed you at your request without getting the leaseholder to acknowledge the change, then that's a big problem and the change isn't legal.
Why would the tenant have to re-execute the lease to reflect the fact that one of the occupants wasn't living there anymore? On a lease, listing someone as an occupant only means that the landlord agrees that person may occupy the premises. The occupant has no legal duty to the landlord, nor does the occupant have any duty to the tenant to remain living there throughout the lease. There would be no need to re-execute the lease after one or more the acceptable "occupants" moves out.
I was reading the Uniform Commercial Code, and one of the things I cam across was:
UCC Statute of Frauds
All contracts for the sale of goods costing $500 or more and lease contracts involving payments of $1000 or more must be in writing under this rule. Exceptions include:
Specially manufactured goods.
Admissions in pleadings or court.
Part acceptance.
Folks, the UCC has absolutely nothing to do with real property and is completely inapplicable here. First of all, the UCC is not the law, anyway. It is a model code for transactions in "goods," which does not include something like an apartment lease.
First off, let me say you really need to hire an attorney. Your case is far from simple and it seems you have several complaints. I don't know what county you're in, but in my experience in front of magistrates (judges) in Wake and Durham Co. small claims courts, it's highly subjective. The magistrates each may interpret the law differently. It's not so black and white. The last thing you want to do is go in to court talking about laws and such only to be incorrect or interpreting it incorrectly. You won't look very convincing.
So, here's my opinion of the situation based on my experience and knowledge of the industry and landlord tenant law in NC. For your main complaint, my understanding of the Statute of Frauds as it applies to residential lease agreements is that any lease less lasting less than 3 years from the date of contract are not required to be in writing. And from what I can tell, the $1,000 limit mentioned in the UCC is for goods, not real estate. There are thousands of verbal leases out there and I have a hard time believing they're all under a total of $1,000. I think you're grasping at straws with this argument. As I mentioned before, a judge is going to see that you occupied the premises, you have an established rental payment history and your name was on the lease agreement for the length of the entire lease. As I asked before, did the leaseholder acknowledge your name being removed from the lease with the rental company? If not, then he did not agree to you moving out early and a judge may see that as you defaulting on your obligations. Now it certainly could go the other way, but I'm just trying to show you your case isn't cut and dry and you really need to be represented by an attorney.
Second, as far as the utilities, you need to file a seperate lawsuit if you want to recover utilities. You'll have to have copies of every bill breaking down each person's share and a ledger showing his payment history. You can't claim anything else. You can only recover actual damages, the amount you are actually out.
As far as his obligation as a tenant, that's between him and the landlord. If the landlord chooses to persue him for his unauthorized occupants, he can, but there's nothing you can do about it. Same thing with the utilities. It doesn't really matter whose name they're in as long as they're not in the landlords. Lots of times a college student will have utilities in their parents names. The landlord really could care less as long as he's not paying for them.
If it's true that a verbal lease for a year is enforceable in NC (and I'm not saying it is - I'm not a North Carolina lawyer), then the suit may have some merit. The question is whether one breach (the tenant's refusal to pay his share of the utilities) excuses another (the OP's decision to terminate the sublease).
There are two leases here - a written lease between the "tenant" and the landlord. And an oral sublease between the tenant (as landlord) and the OP. Though the lease may have some language that helps the OP, it's not at issue here. What's at issue is the oral sublease between the tenant and the OP.
And no, the OP doesn't have to file a separate lawsuit - in fact, if the tenant owes the OP money arising out of the lease, the OP MUST (in my state) raise the nonpayment of utilities as a defense in that case.
You were never on the lease as anything but an approved occupant. That has no legal significance.
Quote:
In addition, I am thinking about inviting the Real Estate Agency and the Owner of the house to the trail. The tenant as a number of HOA voliations on the house, amounting to about $600 and also has a large late fee amount owed to the real estate company, about another $600 dollars.
And this will accomplish what, exactly? The other guy's character isn't at issue - neither is the fact that he may owe money to someon else. This is a contract dispute. The only issue is whether there was a contract, what its terms were, and whether you breached (or he breached it). Bringing in a bunch of extraneous, irrelevant info is not going to help your case, and in my experience is likely to hurt.
Why would the tenant have to re-execute the lease to reflect the fact that one of the occupants wasn't living there anymore? On a lease, listing someone as an occupant only means that the landlord agrees that person may occupy the premises. The occupant has no legal duty to the landlord, nor does the occupant have any duty to the tenant to remain living there throughout the lease. There would be no need to re-execute the lease after one or more the acceptable "occupants" moves out.
Because no changes can be made to the document without both parties (landlord and leaseholder) consenting. NC judges are very strict about document changes, and that's a change. True, it doesn't change the duties to the landlord, but it's a change nonetheless and it would be illegal for the landlord to make changes to the agreement after the leaseholder has signed it unless those changes were mutually agreed upon.
Highly unlikely that the agency and owner will show up. I'm sure they don't want to sit in court all day waiting for a 10 minute hearing that they get nothing out of (that's how small claims court works-everyone on the docket for that day shows up at the same time and you all sit in a room listening to one anothers cases until yours is heard-you could be there a while). If you're trying to prove he was an unfit person to live with and want the owner's input, have them write a letter and have it notorized. I'm guessing they won't want to get involved though. Landlords typically want to stay far away from roommate disputes. Also, the landlord acted illegally by removing you from the lease without the consent of the leaseholder. I doubt they'll want to answer questions about that and I'm sure you don't want that brought up.
You have a lot of things you're trying to prove. Get an attorney.
If you want the owner to testify, bring him to court. Although it is possible the court would accept an affidavit in lieu of testimony, it's very weak because the owner would not be subject to cross-examination. As I've said before, there is absolutely no significance to the fact that the landlord took your name off the "approved occupant" list. Being on that list gave you no rights or duties to the landlord or the tenant.
But I was thinking, even with a written contract, he has no right to the rent himself. The rent goes to the landlord, not him. So only the landlord would be able to sue me. There was no contract with the land lord to sublease the place, so technically I owe him no money.
Not true. As the pp mentioned, there are 2 leases here. In question is your verbal lease with him. The landlord can't sue you for rent as you have no legal obligations to him.
You can't just dodge your responsiblities and say you owe no one money. You were clearly living there and with that comes responsibilities. The extent of your responsibilities are now in the hands of a judge.
Because no changes can be made to the document without both parties (landlord and leaseholder) consenting. NC judges are very strict about document changes, and that's a change. True, it doesn't change the duties to the landlord, but it's a change nonetheless and it would be illegal for the landlord to make changes to the agreement after the leaseholder has signed it unless those changes were mutually agreed upon.
How in the world would it be "illegal?" What crime would have been committed? Even if it were a breach of the contract to erase the OP's name as an approved occupant, how in the world would the tenant have been damaged by that breach?
My bigger question is why you keep trying to give this guy legal advice?
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.
