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.
Well, I disagree wholeheartedly. Do you have experience working in the industry? I have managed numerous large apartment communities over 7 years and now work with hundreds with what I do now and that is not how a professional office is run. No reputable manager will lease an apartment that they don't have available. Plain and simple. It creates a lot of problems with both the old tenants and the new ones. Plus it's illegal to offer to rent something that isn't available. As far as collecting double rent, that's illegal as well. Give property managers a little more credit. While of course they want to make a buck, they're going to do it the legal and ethical way.
I didn't say that they will have "leased" the apartment until it was available. What I said was they "may" have a tenant lined up, not signed sealed and delivered. Nor did I say that they would offer something that wasn't available. What they would say was "we expect to have something available", but not finalize anything until it was available. And this is not unusual from what I have seen while apartment searching.
I don't manage apartments but I've lived in them large and small. The large apartment complexes I have dealt with have people looking to rent coming in at all times during the month, checking for availability, no need to advertise, and some that do run generic advertisements for their complex. I have been told "We are expecting such and and such apartment to become vacant......." Obviously no intelligent property manager would have a prospective tenant sign a lease w/out something in writing from the tenant that is leaving.
Regarding the legality of collecting double rent, are you saying that if the OP leaves Jan 25, pays the rent because he failed to give 30 days notice, that the landlord is not allowed by law to rent that apartment until February 25, even if they have a tenant willing to move in?
Tenant A is leaving. Tenant A did not give notice, therefor tenant A must pay rent anyway. Prospective Tenant wants to move in right away. Manager really really wants to have the apartment occupied and worries that if he loses prospective tenant he might not be able to fill apartment immediately. Manager wants to keep apartment occupied. So rather than get one months worth of rent from Tenant A, and lose prospective tenant, they may agree to allow tenant A to break his lease w/out paying the rent, and then rent to prospective tenant right away. This is the scenario I am saying might be a possibility and might get the OP to not have to pay rent for the month.
That is all I am saying.
Can you tell me more about this "double rent" law? So, for instance if a person is moving Feb 1., and fails to give his notice, he still pays Feb. Rent, moves Feb. 1, and the apartment cannot by law be rented to another tenant until March 1? Can the manager enter the apartment during February?
In any event, if the office is saying he has to pay rent for the month because he didn't give notice, then he should send them the letter, and if he isn't moving cross country, he should keep the keys, and not allow them in to make repairs, re-paint, clean carpets, etc (no point in conveniencing them on his dime). He is paying rent for the month therefor if possible he should stay on the premises or keep his keys. This is my main and most important point on the situation.
Double rent the way I understand it is that you cannot collect rent for the same apartment from two different people. So if I paid rent up until the 30th of this month but I moved out say jan 2. Management rerents the apartment and new tenant moves in on the 15th. I would be due a partial reimbursement for the 15 days that someone else lived in the apartment.
Contracts not only protect the landlord, they also protect the tenant. If the landlord was trying to put you out without proper course, you'd be fighting it. When it's written in a contract that the landlord is required to give 30 days notice, you would not be expected to move just on a verbal request. Why would it be different the other way around?
As far as being given verbal notice, I ALWAYS told my tenants that written notice was required and that the 30 days started on the day that I RECEIVED the letter; not when they told me or when they typed the letter but on the day that I received it. Keys were due no later than the 30th day and rent would not be pro-rated as we would not enter the premisses to paint, repair and clean until the 30 days were up.
That is nice of you, really, it is just the right thing to do (if not necessary by law), and doesn't take but a second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatmancomics
Yes, your landlord should have told you that she needed written notice as a courtesy to you but you should have gone over your lease the moment you decided to move out so you knew exactly was was expected of you and what you could expect from your landlord.
Yes, people need to be aware of their obligations.
I'm not trying to discount everything you're saying, but unless you've worked in a leasing office, then you truly don't understand the industry standards for how these situations are handled. While some of what you're saying is correct, alot of it isn't and could lead to false hope for the current tenant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommytotwo
I didn't say that they will have "leased" the apartment until it was available. What I said was they "may" have a tenant lined up, not signed sealed and delivered. Nor did I say that they would offer something that wasn't available. What they would say was "we expect to have something available", but not finalize anything until it was available. And this is not unusual from what I have seen while apartment searching.
When we say "leased" in the industry, it means that an application has been submitted for a unit and that the unit is now off the market. It has nothing to do with the lease agreement actually being signed. When a prospective tenant comes in to look at apartments, they're going to be offered every apartment that is "on the market," or in other words, that notice has been given for. A community these days has several vacant units, so they're not going to try to lease one that they don't have yet. That wouldn't make any sense. If on the off chance that they did mention to a prospective tenant that perhaps something may come available, it would be highly unlikely that the prospective tenant will wait around until something is "final." When people are ready to make housing decisions, they want something to be firm. They're not going to sit around and wait for a unit that "could" be coming available. They're either going to take what already is or move on to the next place.
Quote:
Regarding the legality of collecting double rent, are you saying that if the OP leaves Jan 25, pays the rent because he failed to give 30 days notice, that the landlord is not allowed by law to rent that apartment until February 25, even if they have a tenant willing to move in?
This all depends on the OP. He is legally obligated to pay rent through his 30 day notice. If he wants to stay, he can. If he wants to give the landlord an opportunity to find a new tenant so he can get out early, he can, but in this case, he's going to have to move out and turn in his keys and give management the opportunity to turn it and show it. If a new resident does move in before the notice period ends, the OP will receive a refund check for the rent from when the new tenant moves in to the end of the notice period. So regardless of what he chooses, he will definitely have to pay his rent up front.
Quote:
Tenant A is leaving. Tenant A did not give notice, therefor tenant A must pay rent anyway. Prospective Tenant wants to move in right away. Manager really really wants to have the apartment occupied and worries that if he loses prospective tenant he might not be able to fill apartment immediately. Manager wants to keep apartment occupied. So rather than get one months worth of rent from Tenant A, and lose prospective tenant, they may agree to allow tenant A to break his lease w/out paying the rent, and then rent to prospective tenant right away. This is the scenario I am saying might be a possibility and might get the OP to not have to pay rent for the month.
I get what you're saying, but it's really not how things work, generally. As I mentioned before, a property probably has many vacant units, especially in this economy. So why on earth would they try to rent a rent producing unit when they have ones available that they are already taking a loss on? If by some stretch of the imagination this scenario works out, then yes, "tenant A" could move out under the circumstances I already outlined above. But he will most certainly have to pay rent up front as it is due next week (I'm assuming on the 1st) and it is virtually impossible to turn the apartment and get it re-rented in that amount of time.
Quote:
Can you tell me more about this "double rent" law? So, for instance if a person is moving Feb 1., and fails to give his notice, he still pays Feb. Rent, moves Feb. 1, and the apartment cannot by law be rented to another tenant until March 1? Can the manager enter the apartment during February?
Not quite. In the scenario you mention, as soon as the current resident turns in his keys to management, it becomes their apartment. So they can do with it whatever they see fit. But that doesn't release the resident from their obligation to pay. If a new resident does in fact move in, then management will have to refund the old resident any rent paid from the date the new resident moves in till the end of his notice period.
Quote:
In any event, if the office is saying he has to pay rent for the month because he didn't give notice, then he should send them the letter, and if he isn't moving cross country, he should keep the keys, and not allow them in to make repairs, re-paint, clean carpets, etc (no point in conveniencing them on his dime). He is paying rent for the month therefor if possible he should stay on the premises or keep his keys. This is my main and most important point on the situation.
So your point after all of this is that he should stay? I thought it was that a new tenant could come in and relieve him of some of his rental obligations?!?! If that's the case, then he DOES need to turn in his keys and allow management to turn the unit to have the best possible chance of getting it re-rented. It's not about "conveniencing them on his dime." It's not shirt off their back if they get it rented while he's paying or not. It's about putting him in the best possible scenario for a possible re-rental. Slim chance of it happening, but that's the best way to go about getting it done.
I have read in the Fl statutes for tenants and LL that when a tenant doesn't pay (example) last months rent and you already rented it to another person...you can't get the previous tenant to pay and collect from the new tenant for the same month.
I am saying that he should just stay if he doesn't feel like they are going to make any effort to turn the apartment around sooner and get him his money back. It would be very easy for an apartment owner to collect his rent and use the whole month to clean up the apartment and get it ready for the next tenants. Especially if they have all these other vacant apartments like you mentioned. So, if it's not likely that he is going to see his money back, then why bother pay and give up the keys so the owner can leisurely prepare the apartment for the next tenant?
I once had an apartment (in a complex) that I had to leave with short notice. The management told me that I would still have to pay rent for the month, but they were pretty sure they could find a tenant, and if they got someone in there they would refund me my money. They did find someone, and I only had to pay about a week's worth of rent. So, above all, if the OP feels like there is a good chance they will rent out the apartment, he should pay the rent and give them the opportunity to get someone else.
When I read the OP's story, forgive me and this is no reflection on you, but it seemed that the rental office was just taking the guy for a bit of a ride, you know getting a couple of phone calls that he was moving then playing dumb later on. When I hear something like that, my trust level falls like a brick. At the very least, they could have been up front and said, yes, I remember the conversation, but not having received your letter of intent we were not able to act. They acted like they didn't remember the conversation, and to me there's just something wrong with that. I wouldn't trust them. You sound trustworthy, but two people having NO RECOLLECTION of my conversation with them would just irritate me. However, I would never have this problem because I would have read my lease and would have known exactly what I needed to do.
btw, once I was supposed to move into an apartment in Brooklyn. One week before the move, I found out that the people were not moving after all! Talk about scrambling to find another apartment (and let me tell you apt. hunting in NY was a disaster to start with). So even if people give you a letter, it doesn't mean crap to the incoming tenant until the vacating tenant actually vacates! What a fiasco that was. My DH had to live in a friend's basement for 3 weeks until finally we found out another acquaintance had an apt. available.
I don't know where you work, but Brooklyn was a nightmare from a renters perspective (probably from a landlords perspective too, I imagine, lol)
I could never be a property manager in Brooklyn! Or a renter for that matter! LOL
Ya, it's never fun when the resident doesn't move out when they're suppossed to. We have a few ways of combating that here. First, I would always send them an acknowledgement of the receipt of their notice and in that, I would remind them of the clause in their lease that states if they don't turn in their keys in time, they're subject to pay 3 times the daily rate for that unit! Second, I always did a "pre-move out inspection" of the unit about 2 weeks before their actual move out. This was mainly to check on the condition of the unit to know which contractors to call to turn it, but I would also take note of their packing status and if it didn't look like they were gearing up for a move, I'd make contact with them to reaffirm their plans. Those two things always worked wonders and it was never much of an issue for us.
I agree that perhaps this management office isn't on the up and up, but I'd also like to leave some room for some basic human error. When you have hundreds of residents, it is sometimes very difficult to remember conversations you have with people. As professional as I hope I am, I will certainly admit there were times I would completely forget something I talked about with a resident. It's just tough sometimes, especially if they catch you in the middle of something. Not making excuses for them, but you just never know. I like to think the best of people.
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.
