0

First let me say I have no legal experience...

I currently rent from a large property management company on Long Island (NY). About 1.5 years ago, I decided to pay month-to-month since I entered the housing market in search of a house (of course, not knowing that it would take this long to find a house). I found a house and I'm closing next month (August 15). The last short-term lease I signed with the company has a clause in the contract that states I must guarantee the month of September even though the contract is only valid through August. Basically it states that if a tenant can be secured for the month of September, the additional fee will be waived (the fee is equal to 1 months rent which is approx $2,500) if not, I will be required to pay it.

Is this legal? Would this hold up in court if I decide not to pay and let it go to small claims? This clause seems self fulfilling and unreasonable. Unreasonable b/c they are passing off the cost to the previous tenant because they can't find a tenant for the next month. Self-fulfilling b/c it is extremely unreasonable to assume that you can fill the apartment immediately for the next month since typically apartments are repainted, carpets cleaned/replaced, and not to mention the normal process of vetting and securing a new tenant (e.g. my contract expires August 31 and next month begins September 1; 1 day to clean, paint, replace carpets and find tenant). In addition, paying month-to-month comes with a 20% increase in rent. So I feel they are already absorbing their liabilities with the increase in rent.

If I fail to pay the Guarantee, can the property management company report my delinquency to the credit bureaus (e.g. will this effect my FICO score)?

Thanks in advance!

2

Let's assume that you are right and the clause is unreasonable (personally, I don't think it is).

So?

You agreed to the clause. Contract law permits people to sign up to unreasonable obligations: it's called freedom to contract. The time to take issue with the clause is before you enter the contract, not after.

The law will only interfere if the clause is unconscionable: so egregious that no reasonable person would agree to it. This clause is nowhere near unconscionable.

However, this is a residential real estate contract and state law may give you additional rights that may make this unlawful. Also, as a consumer, there may be consumer protection law that interferes in the freedom to contract. I am not familiar enough with NY law to say: hire a lawyer.

  • I agree that it's not unconscionable. On the other hand, you assume freedom to contract, but they might not have freedom to make that contract - places like New York might have rent controls, and making the person pay an extra $2500 on a short-term lease is pretty much the same effect as increasing the rent. – D M Jun 14 '18 at 0:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.