0

This question already has an answer here:

Owner's acceptance of rent with knowledge of any default by resident or waiver by owner of any breach of any term of this agreement shall not constitute a waiver of subsequent breaches. Failure to require compliance or to exercise any right shall not be constituted as a waiver by owner of said term, condition, and/or right, and shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any provision of this agreement.

This is a no waiver clause in my lease. My question is my boyfriend and I split up. Lease in both of our names. I haven't resided there since July 18 but he stayed. He wanted to break the lease and didn't pay September rent so she filsd for possession of the property. We had court this morning and he is to be out by next Monday. However, she is still making us both responsible for all damages and rent owed (I understand that, my name is on the lease) My question is her reasoning for filing for possession of the property is sub-letting. I guess he had a roommate move in. It clearly states in the lease that that is not allowed, however, we both have text messages from her confirming that the "roommate Marcus" (her exact words) answered the door and she spoke with him. This took place in July. She also stated in front of the judge today that at her inspection on July 18 she saw two people moving things in. Since she accepted august rent and knew of these thing in July but didn't pursue does that make our lease void? Just want to file a counter suit to dismiss but wanted to know if that's what this means thanks!

|improve this question

marked as duplicate by user6726, Nij, jimsug♦ Sep 20 '17 at 6:54

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • You probably have to say what jurisdiction this is. The effect of the clause depends on whether such a clause is allowed. – user6726 Sep 19 '17 at 21:19
  • @user6726 do you actually know of a jurisdiction where a no waiver clause isn't legal? – Dale M Sep 19 '17 at 23:41
  • Many states in the US disallow waiving of statutory tenant rights. – user6726 Sep 19 '17 at 23:46
  • See also Madison Ave. Leasehold v. Madison Bentley Associates, 30 A.D.3d 1; Simon & Son Upholstery, v. 601 West Assocs., 268 A.D.2d 359 – user6726 Sep 19 '17 at 23:55
0

The clause means that if you breach the contract (e.g. by having a roommate move in), and the landlord takes no action for the breach at the time, the landlord can take action over the breach anytime in the future for this or any other breach.

This does not give you grounds for a counterclaim.

As a co-tenant you are liable for anything done or not done by any of the other tenants. It doesn't matter that you moved out: you are still liable for all of the rent and all of any damages.

You can sue your co-tenant(s) if they were responsible but that is a separate action and doesn't involve the landlord.

|improve this answer

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