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.
1. Four people rent a house in DC. Two of them get married and move out, leaving two, who decide to find two more roommates so that they can continue to live in house. The two that remain have been there for two years.
2. Lease says that tenants must notify them 60 days prior to the end of the lease that they will continue or leave. Tenants are on good terms with landlord, who has professed herself to be happy with tenants care of home, behavior and on-time payments.
3. At 60 days, two remaining roommates indicate that they plan to stay, and are working on getting two additional roommates (the same scenario happened the previous year with no issues.) Landlord indicates that they want to make sure that home is rented as of June 1st. There is no time deadline in the lease by which they have to sign a new lease (i.e., 30 days prior to the end of the lease, etc.)
4. 35 days prior to the end of the lease, tenants contact landlord to tell them they have roommates lined up. Landlord says it's too late, they have already taken a lease from a couple with two kids and current tenants must leave at the end of the lease.
They have talked to DC housing authority, and it looks as if the landlord panicked and pulled the trigger on the new lease too quickly. Current tenants feel that they are getting shafted because the landlord has deduced that the married couple with kids is more likely to sue them for non-performance than the two tenants.
Has anyone had any experience with this kind of rental issue and how to successfully combat it? Tenants are unwilling to move, but do not want to raise the kind of fuss that would lead to an adversarial relationship with the landlord. They apparently could go month-to-month after the end of the lease. It has been my understanding that tenant-in-place has rights, and can't be evicted except for 10 reasons, none of which apply in this case. Ideally, the landlord goes to the most recent tenant and says, "I made a mistake, the property is not for rent," -- but that's probably not going to happen. Suggestions?
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.
