6
You have not mentioned your jurisdiction or details on the lease, but generally tenants are jointly and severally liable - which means that if he does not pay his share, the landlord can pursue you for it.
In turn, you should be able to pursue him for the courts for his share of the rent. (This does not mean you will get paid - but does mean you can try ...
6
No, for two reasons.
First, your question seems to assume that the current level of (1) vacancy, and (2) rent, will continue unchanged for the indefinite future. A lot of people thought that in 1989, and 2000, and 2007, just before the last three Bay Area housing crashes.
The purpose of a long-term lease is to create certainty for the lessor. As the ...
5
The landlord might be able to sue the tenant for actual damages arising from the double occupancy, if utilities are paid by the landlord. Two people tend to use more water than one person. Establishing that there has been any loss would be tricky, but let's assume that there is evidence pointing to some dollar figure. Then the landlord might sue the tenant ...
5
There's a lot of variables here, as many leases are built in different ways within the leeway allowed by law. You will want to contact a local lawyer to see how you can mitigate the damage to yourself, and contact your landlord and see if you can re-negotiate the lease. If the landlord doesn't want to re-negotiate, you're probably facing eviction if you can'...
5
The police (and any other involved public agencies) do not work for Steve. They make their own decisions. You didn't specify a location, and requirements to consent to a search vary by location. It wouldn't be surprising, though, if Steve can't legally consent to a search of someone else's room (but possibly could consent to search of common areas).
One ...
4
The government of California has an extensive manual that says what you can and cannot do. To terminate a lease (a rental agreement for a year is a lease), there would have to be just cause for eviction (p. 65), such as failing to pay rent, violating terms of the agreement, cockfighting, and so on, and that does not include being a pain in the neck. Nor ...
4
When the end of month comes, if no suitable roommate has been found
and my ex-roommate (and still current co-signer) refuses to pay his
share of the rent, can I sue him in small claims court? Might it be
worth my while to hire a lawyer to sue him? Rent is ~$1,600 so $800 is
definitely within the limits of small claims, but I don't want to pay
my ...
4
In general, a properly signed lease is binding. But there are exceptions, and they vary depending on the jurisdiction: country, state/province, and even city or county in many places.
You mention a claim that the property should not be leased "because the owner needs it". In some jurisdictions, there is a special exception if the owner personally, or a ...
3
You want a lawyer who accepts tenant-side landlord tenant cases, usually a solo practitioner or small law firm or legal clinic. Medium to large sized law firms usually don't practice that kind of law at all, or only represent landlords, as a matter of policy.
The usual problem, however, is that lawyers are often too expensive relative to the amount in ...
3
Short Answer
Can an incomplete and unsafe building be rented to a tenant on a
commercial lease if the building never received a certificate of
occupancy?
Yes. Unless your lease says otherwise. Your sole source of legal protections is your lease. Without knowing the detailed provisions of your lease, it is impossible to know.
Long Answer
The General ...
3
As a general rule, legal language is interpreted loosely with respect to singular versus plural, or male versus female (in interpreting pronouns). A clause that uses the word "tenant" can thus be construed as referring to multiple tenants, and "tenants" can also refer to a single tenant. Likewise, "he, him" refers to a third person, regardless of gender. If ...
3
By default, the tenant is liable for all rent until the end of the lease. E.g. if neither the tenant nor the landlord can find a suitable and credit-worthy replacement tenant (e.g. if the market has crashed), then the whole lease must still be accounted for by the original tenant, and the lost "rent" becomes "damages".
However, there is also a concept of ...
3
Here's the problem. You are responsible for 100% of the rent. I think you know that.
Oh yeah, the cops aren't going to do anything. There nothing for them. This is a civil matter.
So you are 100% responsible for the rent. Your roommate is responsible for 100% also. But since you are not going to be paying 200% you probably have an agreement to split this ...
3
Many states require an escrow of rent for habitability issues, simply not paying rent can be grounds for eviction proceedings.
Illinois has a statute for deducting a repair from rent (765 ILCS 742/5). If it’s less than half the monthly rent and less than $500, a tenant can inform the landlord of the repair required. If the landlord has not provided a ...
3
Your contract is the only relevant one in your relationship with your landlord
If they have broken it you can sue for damages. However, you have to actually read the lease to see if they have broken it - if they are doing something the lease permits, they haven’t broken it.
2
Generally no, although state legislative proposals to allow this as a ground to break a lease have been considered in a number of places.
You would have to show that being in the evidence zone amounted to a "taking" under the 5th Amendment, of the apartment tenant's property which is almost never the case unless a very scientifically technical crime scene ...
2
You do not specify a jurisdiction where this house is located. I am answering on the assumption that it is located in the United States, based upon your word usage in the question, and am providing an answer which would be the predominant rule in most U.S. jurisdictions, although it may not be the rule in absolutely every U.S. state.
It is almost certain ...
2
Disclaimer: This answer is from a general point of view, not specific to the United States.
This is essentially a contractual dispute: Your have entered into a contract with the landlord, which states that
you pay the landlord a monthly rent, and in exchange
the landlord lets you live in the appartment you rented, and maintains it in reasonable condition
...
2
You are all the tenant jointly (meaning an act or omission by one of you is an act or omission by all of you) and severally (meaning you are each individually responsible for the obligations under the contract e.g. you are each responsible for ensuring all of the rent is paid, you are not responsible for just one third of it).
This has nothing to do with ...
2
I would certainly speak with a lawyer. (I am not one.)
My (limited) understanding of the law is that the victim of a contract breach must act in a "commercially reasonable" manner to minimize the damage to both parties. For instance, I believe that the landlord is responsible for re-leasing the property (not you), and then billing you for the difference ...
2
From the time that the lease expired and you remained with permission, you had a shorter period of obligation and protection. I assume that the lease ended long ago, and you've been living there month to month.
Assuming that we can read "two rental periods" as "two whole months" (if there is something else in the lease that indicates this, such as a rent ...
2
It appears from the description of facts that the landlord was obligated to clean the apartment, did not do so before the move-in, then presumably the tenant got the cleaning done and submitted the bill to the landlord, who accepted the bill. That part of the contract has therefore been completed, though not in the originally planned manner: the landlord has ...
2
Am I legally locked into the lease simply because Im listed as a tenant?
I'm listed as Occupant on the leaase and it states on part one of the lease to list those who have signed the lease. I was nnot present for paperwork so I did not sign or initial anything. Wouldnt the application take legal precedence?
The first key question is whether you are ...
2
The availability of legal liability for "risking" (i.e. placing someone at elevated risk of something bad happening when the bad thing doesn't actually happen) is a controversial and developing area of tort law.
At a minimum, putting the landlord on notice of the risk that the landlord is creating, ideally in writing, would improve the strength of your case ...
2
First, you need to understand that there are 2 agreements here: one is the contract between the landlord and A, B & C (jointly and severally) which is a legally binding contract [the lease] and the other is the agreement between A, B & C which might be (but probably isn't) a legally binding contract [the roommate agreement].
If C can sublease and to ...
2
they refuse to honor right to mitigate damage laws
It is unclear whether you mean that the lease disavows the landlord's duty to mitigate damages. If so, that would be in violation of state law, thereby rendering the lease unenforceable (at least in part) or the landlord in breach of contract. MCL 554.633(1)reads:
A rental agreement shall not include a ...
2
Signed contract documents are presumed to be definitive
The parol evidence rule prevents evidence being used to challenge unambiguous terms in a signed document. People in negotiations adopt and abandon many positions so when they sign a contract evidence of their positions before that are irrelevant.
Unless you can show misleading and deceptive conduct ...
2
The emails are not completely irrelevant, but the terms of the actual signed lease are vastly more relevant. You have some reason (based on emails) to believe that you would be getting a month to month lease for $1150 / mo., and you believed that the alternative was a year lease for $1050 / mo. But you were presented with and signed a lease for 1 year at $...
1
can she do this, and is it true that the emails are not relevant?
Typically the lease would be decisive regardless of prior negotiations. But here the terms of the lease might have been superseded by the parties' subsequent conduct: You paying $1,150/monthly for six months and the landlord simply accepting the excess.
In this case, the crucial detail is ...
1
Does their argument make any sense?
No. First, the [property manager's] offer & signature reflects that the renewal or extension meets the contract law requirement of being entered by the landlord knowingly and willfully.
Second, the landlord's allegation that "the reason why my lease is actually just $X is that it is a short term lease" is not ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
