Hello Everyone,

I need some help regarding the renewal of my rental lease. I rent an apartment in NJ and my lease ends on July 31st. I negotiated the rent for the new term (12 months) for $150 bucks less than what I am paying right now. There has been a general decline in the rents, and another apartment in the same building has not been rented for about 3 months, so they were willing to lower the rent.

Today I received the new lease papers. It is similar to my old lease papers except they have added three new clauses. I need some clarification around these and how to get rid of them because they seem unfair and were not part of the old lease.

1. Your rent will be effective for a period of 12 months, subject to a new tax surcharge and any other surcharges approved by the City's Rent Control Board.

2. Rent Increases: The Landlord reserves the right to pass along to the Tenant any increase in property taxes, water or sewer charges, in accordance with applicable Rent Laws.

3. Insurance: Tenant is required to obtain “renters insurance” at their own cost for the term of the lease and provide a copy of coverage to the landlord within 30 days from the lease date. If a copy of coverage is not provided, landlord may obtain coverage for the tenant and the tenant will reimburse landlord for the cost.

In general, either party to a contract can put any terms or conditions, so long as they can be enforced within the appropriate legal framework.

That said, the other party can refuse to accept and walk away, or can bring up terms and conditions of their own.

As a serious example, you can try to put the following condition:

- if the tenants employment is terminated for whatever reason, or if the tenant chooses willfully to resign his / her employment, then the tenant has the option (the right, but not the responsibility) to terminate the lease without any penalty, blah blah blah.

Along the more sarcastic lines, you can put the following condition:

- if in a period of 3 consecutive days, it rains anywhere in the state where the apartment is located, then the landlord immediate owes a rebate equal to 10% of the rent of the monthly rent. In particular, the tenant has the right to pay only 90% of monthly rent for the remainder of the rain, starting the 3rd consecutive day of rain.

Now, the first of my conditions seems like a reasonable one, but the second one seems a bit arbitrary. Of course, if the landlord agrees to sign those, then the they might be enforceable in court.

The first condition is unlikely to be accepted by the landlord in a hot rental period / market, but is in fact now offered by many landlords as a way for the prospective tenants to feel that their "lease obligation" risk is limited to what they can pay while they are employed.

The best way to proceed with this situation is the following:

- think of everything that you might like to have a the lease,
- think of anything that is absolutely unacceptable by you in a lease,

And have the landlord produce exactly that lease. Of course, you have to be reasonable, e.g., you can't ask for $1 rent at a place that rents in the $1500-$1600 range. You might get away with $1425, if you do it the right way.

Bottom line is, you might have a lot more to get from this pie, and you are not getting it.

Example: a friend of mine living in Manhattan had $2200 rent. First, landlord produced a lease with $2200 / mo payment, and sent a letter, saying: "GOOD NEWS, your rent is not going up". Well, my friend called them up and said, "You better come up with a better rent, or else, I am outta here". Landlord came up with $200 off. My friend started actively looking and basically gave notice. Landlord came back, and say, "OK, you make an offer". My friend offered $1700. Guess what? Landlord accepted. So: original offer was 0% off, second offer was 9%, final counteroffer accepted: 23%

Another example: a friend was paying $2195. Lanlord was renewing at 1-month free, i.e., 13 months of occupation for 12 months of rent. That's roughly 8% off, but also forces a 13 month rent. Friend continued looking and found a similar apartment for $1500. Net reduction in rent: %33.

Third example: a friend was paying $2750 in one area of NYC. Decided to look for much cheaper rent. Found a very similar place fro $1750. Reduction in rent: 36%.

I think what is common in all these examples is that the renter was willing to walk away.

If you are not committed to staying at your place, I have a bad feeling your landlord is gonna get a lot less money than $150 off current rent.

Now, go get them.

It means that the property owner(business) wants you to assume his finacial risk for the next 12 months on his asset.

I wouldnt sign that.

Renter's insurance is reasonable, and you should probably have it anyway, unless you don't have any stuff worth replacing in the event of a fire/hurricane/whatever. As for the tax stuff, tell the landlord he can either take it out, or reduce the rent further.

#3 is common sense and should have been in your previous lease. I assume that you already have renters insurance, so all you really need to do is provide proof.

I'm not sure how common #1 and #2 are, but IIRC, I've seen them before. It sounds to me that they want to pass along any potential property tax increase if it happens in the next 12 months. I'd ask for a clarification on those two and research those on the internet.

I would refuse to sign any of those and edit the lease to not include those points and then offer to sign it.

pbawa said:how to get rid of them because they seem unfair and were not part of the old lease.

whether they were part of the old lease or not has absolutely no bearing on the new lease. landlords regularly change their leases to reflect changes in business practice as well as local and state laws. if you dont like it, dont sign it. the likelihood of getting them to change it back or adding things YOU want is very very slim. if they are a large complex or property management company, it will be a standard lease that all tenants sign and they will not alter it just for you. if its a very small complex or a owner landlord such as in a house converted into apartments, you may stand a chance. some states require landlords to maintain everyone on their most current lease, so they may not have the option of changing it for one tenant. also, landlords must comply with fair rent laws, so giving one tenant different requirements may open them up for legal complaints from other tenants, regardless of the reason for those different requirements.

1- i dont deal with city rent control boards so have no input there. but try contacting your citys board and inquire about current tax surcharges and any anticipated changes.

2- this is a standard clause in most residential leases. just means the landlord has the right to raise the rent during your lease as long as they follow the laws in regards to doing so. generally speaking, they usually have to give you 30 days written notice.

3- again, standard clause in most residential leases. you can, and should, get renters insurance to cover your personal belongings. many tenants think that the landlords insurance will cover them, but it only covers the landlords property. you can get decent coverage for under $20/month in most parts of the US.

for anecdotal purposes, one of my tenants experienced a small fire in the living room a few months ago (spontaneous combustion of a basket of hot laundry as determined by fire investigators). the fire was small but smoldered for several hours, filling up the townhouse with smoke and heat. the physical fire damage was very minimal, burned 4 ft diameter hole in the rug/tile and bubbled paint on one small section of wall. the smoke/heat damage was massive. as the landlord, it is costing us nearly 5,000 to restore the apartment (below the insurance deductible). we had to replace the entire carpet and pad, half the tiling, all blinds, range and refrigerator, prime and paint all painted surfaces as well as flooring to seal out smoke smell. the tenants loss was even bigger, they lost about 98% of their belongings. all their clothing, fabric or wood furniture, food, pictures and paintings, almost everything except for pure metal furniture that could be cleaned. the heat was so bad it even melted the childrens trophies. so they lost practically everything as well as where they lived. insurance would have helped them replace their belongings and find a new domicile, but they didnt have coverage.

moral of the story: always carry renters insurance, and fold your laundry immediately.

I would refuse to sign a lease with clauses 1 and 2. I would insist on a specific rental amount with no contingencies. And you might well be able to do better than $150 off, look around.

To all those saying the renters insurance clause is reasonable, what is the the landlord's interest in renters insurance, anyway? Shouldn't it be the tenant's choice to buy insurance or assume the risk?

tolamapS said:In general, either party to a contract can put any terms or conditions, so long as they can be enforced within the appropriate legal framework.

That said, the other party can refuse to accept and walk away, or can bring up terms and conditions of their own.

As a serious example, you can try to put the following condition:

- if the tenants employment is terminated for whatever reason, or if the tenant chooses willfully to resign his / her employment, then the tenant has the option (the right, but not the responsibility) to terminate the lease without any penalty, blah blah blah.

Along the more sarcastic lines, you can put the following condition:

- if in a period of 3 consecutive days, it rains anywhere in the state where the apartment is located, then the landlord immediate owes a rebate equal to 10% of the rent of the monthly rent. In particular, the tenant has the right to pay only 90% of monthly rent for the remainder of the rain, starting the 3rd consecutive day of rain.

Now, the first of my conditions seems like a reasonable one, but the second one seems a bit arbitrary. Of course, if the landlord agrees to sign those, then the they might be enforceable in court.

The first condition is unlikely to be accepted by the landlord in a hot rental period / market, but is in fact now offered by many landlords as a way for the prospective tenants to feel that their "lease obligation" risk is limited to what they can pay while they are employed.

The best way to proceed with this situation is the following:

- think of everything that you might like to have a the lease,
- think of anything that is absolutely unacceptable by you in a lease,

And have the landlord produce exactly that lease. Of course, you have to be reasonable, e.g., you can't ask for $1 rent at a place that rents in the $1500-$1600 range. You might get away with $1425, if you do it the right way.

Bottom line is, you might have a lot more to get from this pie, and you are not getting it.

Example: a friend of mine living in Manhattan had $2200 rent. First, landlord produced a lease with $2200 / mo payment, and sent a letter, saying: "GOOD NEWS, your rent is not going up". Well, my friend called them up and said, "You better come up with a better rent, or else, I am outta here". Landlord came up with $200 off. My friend started actively looking and basically gave notice. Landlord came back, and say, "OK, you make an offer". My friend offered $1700. Guess what? Landlord accepted. So: original offer was 0% off, second offer was 9%, final counteroffer accepted: 23%

Another example: a friend was paying $2195. Lanlord was renewing at 1-month free, i.e., 13 months of occupation for 12 months of rent. That's roughly 8% off, but also forces a 13 month rent. Friend continued looking and found a similar apartment for $1500. Net reduction in rent: %33.

Third example: a friend was paying $2750 in one area of NYC. Decided to look for much cheaper rent. Found a very similar place fro $1750. Reduction in rent: 36%.

I think what is common in all these examples is that the renter was willing to walk away.

If you are not committed to staying at your place, I have a bad feeling your landlord is gonna get a lot less money than $150 off current rent.

Now, go get them.

i have a friend who was a landlord, he had some tenents who wanted a reduction to an apart they had lived in for a year and done some renovations. the place is nothing special but my friend is a good talker. the end result, tenants begged landlord to let them stay. Rent 6,500 mo. reduction 0%

even in tough markets landlords can play their cards right