I live in Nevada and my lease agreement for my apartment ends today (Aug 31). In July, I verbally agreed to renew my lease for 6 months with the management company (landlord). I was told they would send me a new lease to sign.

After a week of not receiving an email, I followed up to let them know I had not received the new lease yet.

Another week went by and, again, no lease. Followed up AGAIN.

Here we are, last day of the month and no lease.

Now, I could follow up again but I'm kind of over it. THIS IS THEIR JOB and I feel I have done my due diligence.

In all honesty, I wanted to go month-to-month but they said 6 months was the minimum and as I don't feel like moving so I agreed.

Now, it is my understanding that if a lease does not exist, Nevada State Law says the landlord or tenant must give a 30 day notice of eviction or leaving.

If I just never receive a lease from them and continue to pay my rent, do I still have the legal right to live in my apartment and if I choose to leave at any point, all that is required is a 30 day written notice? (So I get to live there month-to-month)

  • 5
    Your lease might contain some language about what happens by default when it expires. Commented Aug 31, 2018 at 21:13

1 Answer 1


According to this document from The Nevada Judiciary, page 2 states

In the case of a fixed-term lease (one with a fixed ending date) that is not being renewed, the landlord must still provide the tenant with the proper notification that the tenancy will not be renewed and is being terminated at the end of the lease term.

So you certainly have the right to continue to live there as long as you pay rent and the other party does not terminate the agreement.

From a practical POV you are most likely on a month-by-month agreement - but it may be a bit sticky if you want to terminate the agreement prior to the end of the 6 month period and the landlord objects - Of-course, they would need to evidence the verbal agreement existed - which might be difficult depending on the actions, and if there was sufficient communication to achieve a meeting of the minds. (As a general rule of law, the person making a claim needs to evidence it, and an agreement needs certain elements) As stated by @NateEldredge some of this might be implicit in the existing agreement.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .