Breaking a lease?

Parent Cafe
21

<p>this is the OP. The problems are more than ‘found a better place’, tho I can see how I may have implied that (but it’s not health code violations either!). </p>

<p>But the crux of the matter is whether a lease is imposing a penalty or offering a buy-out where it mentions the 2 months rent and deposit forfeit. I have to admit, to my naive non-landlord eyes, the it certainly reads like a buy-out, and that’s why she is considering this. Why can’t a lease just be clearer on that. </p>

<p>In any case, I talked to her yesterday and she said she has firmly decided to hang in there until May. At least she won’t be using the A/C during that time, the source of a constant slow drip, drip, drip…</p>

<p>I like the sublease idea, but I’m sure if she’s unhappy enough to leave, she would be opposed to trying to impose it on someone else!</p>

<p>Thanks for all your replies!</p>

22

<p>I would strongly recommend tenant document in writing with dates, any problems in the unit. Not all problems are necessarily LL’s obligation to fix(as sometimes tenants mistakenly think) but just the same, it is good to document problems and all correspondence w/ LL, just as I document correspondence to tenants.</p>

<p>We don’t know here, if it’s a buyout or a penalty, but it was you that used the wording “penalty” so naturally, comments here were based on that. A buyout is costly, but should leave the tenant on good terms in the future. A “penalty” as you have described would not be legal in my state, even if a tenant agreed to it. Here, a LL can only get his actual loss, as someone else mentioned before. I won’t bore these good readers with details, but send pm if more info desired.
I know it’s repetitive, but I’d ask Op to remind tenant there is no charge for discussing negotiating an early end. Maybe LL would take less $ if he was offed a one-time lump sum payment? Surely there could be no harm discussing it with LL?</p>

23

<p>My leases do have a “cancelation clause”–30 days written notice and a full month’s rent. I’ve had a couple of people take advantage of it. Much prefer that to the ones that move in the dark of night. </p>

<p>If a new landlord called for references, I would say they left early but did pay the lease-break fee. If I called and someone gave that reference, I don’t know that I would hold it against the person (their lease did have the option), but all factors being equal, I probably would rent to someone who had not done so. See next paragraph…</p>

<p>I may remove the out-clause. I hatehatehate re-renting a place. They never clean adequately so I have to do that and fix the little things that renters are incapable of (screwing in a screw that pops loose, etc.) Then I waste a lot of time taking calls, showing the place, checking references, etc. Have to pay the utilities in the meantime. Major pain.</p>

<p>I took a renter to court once. Never, ever again. There is no sense winning a judgment against someone who will never pay. Waste of time, money, and emotional energy.</p>

24

<p>

</p>

<p>I guess I did use the word ‘penalties’ in my original post, but I was using the term loosely, probably too loosely. It still read like a buy-out to me, and I know it’s unreasonable to expect to get off ‘scott free’ in any case, thus the ‘penalty’. </p>

<p>finding a better place wasn’t the reason - D didn’t start looking for one until she’d decided she didn’t want to stay; once she found one, she had to make a decision, and that’s when I posted. If it’s truly a simple buy-out then it would be worth it, but otherwise, she’d decided her reasons probably weren’t good enough. And now she’s decided to wait it out either way. Good choice, now i think.</p>

25

<p>She’s fortunate to have a parent who is a sounding board, does some helpful silent research here to be a better sounding board…and then respects whatever is her final decision.</p>

<p>By the way, I wonder, in general, about subleasing. You’d said she wouldn’t impose an unappealing apartment onto the next person, but I think it’s important not to make another person’s decision. As long as she discloses whatever was bothering her, her conscience should be clear. One person’s trash is the next person’s treasure. For example, your D’s obnoxious “drip” noise (can be maddening!) is another person’s great opportunity to get into a better neighborhood, have sunlight, or whatever the next person might find appealing in the same apartment. </p>

<p>I know she’s decided not to move, rather to stay put until her currrent lease ends. I do appreciate hearing younghoss’s solution of discussing things with any LL to agree to an early conclusion. Thanks for a good idea - I’ll remember it.</p>

<p>I would like to know from all the knowledgeable people here – if a subletter moves in, but then out, during a long leftover time of a lease, is the first tenant still fiscally responsible for that rent? Or do sublettors sign a brand new lease with a landlord?</p>

26

<p>I think for a college student to be a sub-lessor is adding a level of stress and aggravation to their lives that they really don’t need.</p>

<p>

In a true sub-letting situation, the first tenant is responsible. The landlord may not even know the unit has been sublet.</p>

<p>I don’t allow subletting in my apartments because then I have less control over who is living in the building. I am willing to let a tenant try to find a person to take over their lease, but the new person still has to fill out my application and pass my screening, and then they sign a new lease with me.</p>

27

<p>agree with notrich 100% post 26.</p>

<p>Subletting tenant(tenant 2) has contract with first tenant, not with LL. First tenant still has contract w LL. First tenant still responsible to LL, 2nd tenant responsible to 1st tenant.
So if 2nd tenant did big damage, 1st tenant would owe LL for #2’s damages, and 1st tenant would then have to go after 2nd tenant to get reimbursed. Mighty risky, particularly for a college age person to take on.</p>

28

<p>My nephew had to move out of state unexpectedly last year and he found someone to sublet. My sister said the new person is now responsible to the LL and nephew is out of it, and that the LL had to approve the new tenant. So it wasn’t really a sub-let, but a lease-reassignment. This seems to make more sense all around than true sub-letting. </p>

<p>Neither D or nephew are students or in college towns.</p>

<p>The thing about the drip was that D knew how to fix it (she said) - simply get the condensation to flow down the outside of pipes, instead of having elbow joints that cause it to drip!</p>

29

<p>Many leases require LL’s consent to either a sublease or an assignment.</p>

<p>I think she should definitely talk to the LL, however. Whatever the lease says, LLs will sometimes accept a tenant’s offer of surrender of the lease. If there’s mutual agreement between LL and tenant, it’s always possible to supercede an existing lease with a new agreement (in this case, an agreement to terminate the tenancy). This may sound unusual, but in fact it happens quite a lot in residential tenancies in some markets, and it happens all the time in commercial leases. It all depends on market conditions. With home prices unstable or still falling in some markets, and with banks much warier about mortgage lending, a lot of people who in previous decades would have been first-time homebuyers are now sticking with rental housing, with the result that demand for rental housing is actually quite strong in many markets. That means rents are rising in some markets. If the LL has no vacancies and a waiting list of prospective tenants, and is looking at the prospect of renting under a new, higher-priced lease (and potentially for a term extending farther into the future), it may be in the LL’s interest to let her out of her lease. That’s not “breaking the lease,” that’s terminating the lease by mutual agreement, and any honest LL would need to say she complied with all the lease terms if they’re ever called for a reference.</p>

<p>The problem, of course, is that some LLs get greedy in that situation; even if they’re secretly glad to have the opportunity to re-rent at a higher rent and with a term extending farther into the future, they think they can still stick it to the departing tenant for the penalties specified in the lease. Especially if it’s a tenant who’s willing to pay those penalties. So I think in negotiating, she shouldn’t just flat-out offer to pay the penalties right off the top; that’s putting money on the table that the LL gets just by sticking to his guns. If it’s not clear whether she’ll pay without a court fight, accepting her offer to surrender the lease may look like the more attractive alternative to the LL (if market demand is strong, that is).</p>

<p>If the LL doesn’t accept the offer of surrender, a fallback position is to ask if the LL would accept a reasonable assignment of the lease. (She should check to see if the lease requires the LL’s consent to an assignment first; if not, and if she comes up with an assignee to take over the balance of her lease, that’s not breaking the lease terms, either). Some LLs will accept an assignment to a good, credit-worthy assignee with a good rental history rather than insisting an unhappy tenant stay, in part because the LL doesn’t want to risk the unhappy tenant’s simply abandoning and refusing to pay. An assignment arranged by the tenant saves the LL the cost and aggravation of re-renting. On the other hand, if the tenant brings in a credit-worthy potential assignee with a good rental history, many LLs at that point would prefer to re-rent to that tenant–potentially at a higher price, and for a longer lease term—rather than simply having that person be an assignee, filling out the balance of the original tenant’s lease term at the original rent (which is what an assignment is). What is crucial to understand, though, is that if the LL and the new tenant agree to a new lease, that terminates the original tenancy. Some LLs may not understand that, and feel they’re entitled BOTH to the penalties specified in the original lease AND the full advantages of the new tenancy. Not so. As long as your D is current in her rent and otherwise not in breach of lease covenants and hasn’t abandoned the place, the new tenancy in that circumstance operates as the LL’s acceptance of your D’s offer of surrender. Then she has fully complied with her lease, and she is free to leave at the agreed-upon date.</p>