Okay, so here's an interesting question concerning a lease......
Background 1. MIL lives in house w/ BF 2. BF moves out at end of initial lease 3. MIL finds roommate 4. Roommate gives leasing company deposit, and pays her share of rent directly to leasing company for 7 months 5. Roommate decides to move out and announces that she never signed the lease (apparently overlooked by leasing company) 6. Roommate has lawyer look over the situation and lawyer states that since RM didn't sign lease, RM is subletting from MIL. 7. LC sends email to RM & MIL stating that LC accepts RM notice to vacate and that since MIL is LL, MIL is responsible to refund deposit.
Okay, I can see plenty of stuff wrong with this situation. First, MIL and RM are acting like a couple of bickering college kids who just moved in together. And these ladies are in their 60s! Anyway, I can buy that legally, ML is subletting. However, why does it now become her problem that the LC didn't do their paperwork properly? Additionally, LC continues to act as LL by accepting the RM's notice to vacate.
Ultimate Goal - MIL wants to finish out the lease and pay only her share (she is willing to pay all utilities, etc.)
State is SC.
Let me know your opinions. No, you do not want pics. Trust me!
I think step 4 is going to get the leasing company in trouble. They can't just take a deposit without any paperwork. Did your MIL sign a lease change or pay a lease change fee?
As tante asked, did your MIL sign a lease after the initial lease? If yes, what are the terms of that lease? That is what governs the deal between MIL and LC. Does the lease say she is individually responsible for full rent for the entire term of the lease?
Is RM's name mentioned anywhere in the lease or in the application for a lease? Is this a month-to-month continuation after the end of the initial lease. Need details
There are plenty of threads about small claims suits regarding improperly managed deposits, I'm not sure who you would sue if the situation went through as you describe it though.
It's a year lease that ends 4/2010. She signed a new lease. I don't have a copy of the lease, but let's assume that both tenants are listed on the lease together (this is how I do mine). That would make each tenant responsible for the entire lease. I'm not disputing that she is responsible for the entire lease. However, what I am disputing is that the leasing company is trying to say that MIL is now responsible for their error (not having other tenant sign lease). Not only that she is responsible for their error, but that they are giving the roommate permission to move out without penalty, thus making MIL solely responsible for the remainder of the lease. I don't think they can do that. Or at least they shouldn't be able to do that.
christoj879 said: There are plenty of threads about small claims suits regarding improperly managed deposits, I'm not sure who you would sue if the situation went through as you describe it though.
I don't think she's wanting to sue anyone. Although, she does want to prevent from being sued herself. All she really wants is to finish out the lease without having to pay the roommates share. In fact, I'd bet she'd be willing to move in January or February. But she doesn't want to be forced to move at the end of November (when roommate moves).
tante said: I think step 4 is going to get the leasing company in trouble. They can't just take a deposit without any paperwork. Did your MIL sign a lease change or pay a lease change fee?
Perhaps they aren't admitting to doing that. OP states that leasing company thinks MIL should refund the deposit that's in their bank account. Perhaps they are claiming that MIL took the deposit?
taxmantoo said: tante said: I think step 4 is going to get the leasing company in trouble. They can't just take a deposit without any paperwork. Did your MIL sign a lease change or pay a lease change fee?
Perhaps they aren't admitting to doing that. OP states that leasing company thinks MIL should refund the deposit that's in their bank account. Perhaps they are claiming that MIL took the deposit?
No, I don't think they are disputing that they accepted the roomate's 1/2 of the deposit. I think that what they are saying is that MIL should refund the roommate her 1/2 of the deposit and then MIL will be refunded full deposit (by leasing company) at the end of the lease.
bbr said: It's a year lease that ends 4/2010. She signed a new lease. I don't have a copy of the lease, but let's assume that both tenants are listed on the lease together (this is how I do mine). That would make each tenant responsible for the entire lease. I'm not disputing that she is responsible for the entire lease. However, what I am disputing is that the leasing company is trying to say that MIL is now responsible for their error (not having other tenant sign lease). Not only that she is responsible for their error, but that they are giving the roommate permission to move out without penalty, thus making MIL solely responsible for the remainder of the lease. I don't think they can do that. Or at least they shouldn't be able to do that. Let us assume both names are on lease and also assume RM siged the lease (which presumably states both MIL and RM are individually and severally responsible for the full rent). The LC can completely come after MIL (they can but are not required to to pursue PM) for the full rent. I am sure you understand this and hope a 60-year old does as well.
Regarding the deposit, ask RM to go pound sand since she did not give it to MIL. What verbal agreement, if any, did MIL have with RM (I am assuming there was no written agreement). Sue RM for her share of rent for the remainder of lease. Fact that her name is on lease, and she did make payments to LC for the months she lived should help MIL.
bbr said: taxmantoo said: tante said: I think step 4 is going to get the leasing company in trouble. They can't just take a deposit without any paperwork. Did your MIL sign a lease change or pay a lease change fee?
Perhaps they aren't admitting to doing that. OP states that leasing company thinks MIL should refund the deposit that's in their bank account. Perhaps they are claiming that MIL took the deposit?
No, I don't think they are disputing that they accepted the roomate's 1/2 of the deposit. I think that what they are saying is that MIL should refund the roommate her 1/2 of the deposit and then MIL will be refunded full deposit (by leasing company) at the end of the lease. LC has no obligation to return any part of the deposit to anyone till the terms of the lease are satisfied and the unit is returned back in good condition. However, MIL is also not responsible for returning RM's share of deposit, absent an explicit agreement between them to that effect.
Again, to be clear, I am not disputing that MIL is responsible for entire lease (the roommate is also responsible for the entire lease). So, for example, MIL & roommate get in fight, roommate up and leaves. MIL is now responsible for 100% of rent.
What I am disputing is that the leasing company gives roommate permission to leave and then makes MIL responsible for 100% of rent without her consent. How is the leasing company's error now MIL's problem?
uutxs said: Let us assume both names are on lease and also assume RM siged the lease (which presumably states both MIL and RM are individually and severally responsible for the full rent).
This is part of the issue. RM apparently did not sign the lease. Lease was handled by leasing company. MIL had no idea RM did not sign the lease.
bbr said: Again, to be clear, I am not disputing that MIL is responsible for entire lease (the roommate is also responsible for the entire lease). So, for example, MIL & roommate get in fight, roommate up and leaves. MIL is now responsible for 100% of rent.
What I am disputing is that the leasing company gives roommate permission to leave and then makes MIL responsible for 100% of rent without her consent. How is the leasing company's error now MIL's problem? MIL is 100% responsible period; you agree with that. LC usually pursues all avenues to get their money. If MIL is the more "responsible kind", that is who they go after. Perhaps the fact that RM didnt sign the lease might make it legally difficult for them to pursue RM (just my guess), hence they are after MIL. I dont quite understand the "leasing company gives roommate permission to leave". Who cares, MIL signed, she is on the hook (sucks I know but that is what it means to sign a lease).
Best option for MIL to sue RM; I dont believe she can legally fight the LC (other than being a deadbeat and not pay rent, enjoy the free house till she gets evicted etc.).
uutxs said: bbr said: Again, to be clear, I am not disputing that MIL is responsible for entire lease (the roommate is also responsible for the entire lease). So, for example, MIL & roommate get in fight, roommate up and leaves. MIL is now responsible for 100% of rent.
What I am disputing is that the leasing company gives roommate permission to leave and then makes MIL responsible for 100% of rent without her consent. How is the leasing company's error now MIL's problem? MIL is 100% responsible period; you agree with that. LC usually pursues all avenues to get their money. If MIL is the more "responsible kind", that is who they go after. Perhaps the fact that RM didnt sign the lease might make it legally difficult for them to pursue RM (just my guess), hence they are after MIL. I dont quite understand the "leasing company gives roommate permission to leave". Who cares, MIL signed, she is on the hook (sucks I know but that is what it means to sign a lease).
Best option for MIL to sue RM; I dont believe she can legally fight the LC (other than being a deadbeat and not pay rent, enjoy the free house till she gets evicted etc.).
Okay, I guess I haven't given enough detail to be clear.
MIL signed a new lease. Roommate was supposed to sign the lease but the leasing company apparently failed to make sure roommate signed before she moved in.
Now, the roommate has given the leasing company 30 days notice that she is leaving 5 months before lease is up. Leasing company has accepted her notice and given her permission to leave without penalty. MIL did not consent to this.
Leasing company expects MIL to refund roommate's portion of the deposit and pay 100% of the rent for the remainder of the lease. The leasing company has not given MIL the option to leave in 30 days without penalty like they have the roommate.
What it looks like to me is that the leasing company is trying to weasel out of their responsibilities by claiming MIL is subletting to roommate even though it was the leasing company's mistake that caused the subletting. My question to all the internet lawyers out there is.....Can the leasing company weasel out of their responsibilities and make MIL solely responsible for the remainder of the lease without her consent?
Yes they can do this. RM had no lease with LC. She had lease with MIL, even though nothing was signed. The deposit is an issue though. You MAY be able to argue that a lease existed with the LC and RM due to accepting a deposit but that would be hard.
mewannaxbox said: Yes they can do this. RM had no lease with LC. She had lease with MIL, even though nothing was signed. The deposit is an issue though. You MAY be able to argue that a lease existed with the LC and RM due to accepting a deposit but that would be hard.
MIL needs to sue RM, done. Next case.
If this is the case, then the leasing company would not have the authority to grant the roommate permission to leave without penalty. The leasing company has given the roommate permission to leave without penalty in writing.
I don't know about an application. But the lease was written by the leasing company with the intention that the roommate would sign. Evidently there was an addendum that needed to be faxed to the roommate and during her move, either forgot to sign or intentionally didn't sign the lease. Since the MIL was already living in the house, there was no formal lease signing with all parties present like there would have been if the house was empty.
It seems that both the leasing company and roommate are lawyering up. So I told the MIL to go ahead and get a consultation with a RE attorney. Nothing keeps the economy rolling like a good old fashioned lawsuit!
bbr said: mewannaxbox said: Yes they can do this. RM had no lease with LC. She had lease with MIL, even though nothing was signed. The deposit is an issue though. You MAY be able to argue that a lease existed with the LC and RM due to accepting a deposit but that would be hard.
MIL needs to sue RM, done. Next case.
If this is the case, then the leasing company would not have the authority to grant the roommate permission to leave without penalty. The leasing company has given the roommate permission to leave without penalty in writing. LC entertaining RM as a tenant is strange. They cant have it both ways (treat her as a tenant of MIL as well as their tenant). Depending on the amounts involved, maybe lawyer up (at least have a consultation and show the other two parties that coming to a amicable solution amongst themselves would save everyone legal costs).
BTW, all the lawyering apart, ask MIL to get another RM to mitigate her loss for the rest of the lease period. And this time have a written agreement with the new RM.
uutxs said: BTW, all the lawyering apart, ask MIL to get another RM to mitigate her loss for the rest of the lease period. And this time have a written agreement with the new RM.
Get another roommate, that was the first thing I told her. Unfortunately, I think the probability of finding an older roommate for just the 5 months remaining on her lease is small. Someone mentioned that her area has an arbitration board for real estate disputes. Maybe she'll go that route. As someone else mentioned above, this would be a great case for Judge Judy!
Of course the leasing company (landlord) is willing to release the roommate in writing. They have no legal document holding her responsible to them. The only legal document they have to hold someone responsible is the lease which names your MIL responsible.
While the landlord dropped the ball by not completing the process, it was up to the MIL to really ensure it was completed. The MIL should have also had to sign the revised lease in conjunction with the new roommate. This should have all been done BEFORE the roommate moved in.
Chalk it up as a lesson learned for your MIL.
The security deposit issue, however, is an interesting issue. Why was the landlord accepting an additional deposit mid-lease. Typically, when the BF moved out, he should have collected his portion of the security deposit from the new roommate (or if not one yet, the MIL). Then the new roommate (or MIL) would assume ownership of the security deposit on hand. It's odd that additional deposit was made with the landlord.
pennyroyal
Member
posted: Oct. 28, 2009 @ 1:57p
If RM didn't sign a lease, she doesn't need anyone's permission to leave. That doesn't stop LC from giving her permission. If she wasn't under lease with them, there's no reason they wouldn't give her their permission. I could even give her my permission to leave. It's irrelevant if she doesn't need it. MIL should have made sure she had a copy of lease signed by RM and should not have let RM move in w/o one. W/o a lease, RM is under no obligation to stay, and thus doesn't need permission to leave.
LC won't come after RM if she didn't sign a lease. If they do, they probably won't get very far. MIL is the one on the lease so she's the one LC will look to for payment.
This was MIL's mistake and it looks like she'll be the one paying for it. One exception is if the lease says that all three parties must sign it for it to take effect, in which case yr MIL wouldn't be under lease and could also leave as the lease agreement would never have come into effect.
As far as security deposit, RM and MIL should both receive their halves of it back once the lease is up and the property returned to LC in acceptable condition. From LC's perspective, RM has posted half of MIL's security deposit, and that half would rightfully be returned to RM once MIL's lease is up.
IANAL and this is all based on common sense. Local laws often trump common sense so you may wish to speak with someone who has more knowledge of them.
good point pennyroyal. I know that the RM didn't sign the lease, but is her name on the lease? If not it sounds like the LC had no idea that she was going to be living there.
1. Ignore the issue. Doubt anyone will sue MIL. 2. If she is sued then: a. MIL never entered into agreement with RM as evidence by the RM paying the LC directly. b. MIL never signed an agreement with RM and any agreement that is enforcable that is for over $500 must be in writing for it to be enforcable. 3. MIL possibly may be able to countersue RM (and threaten to do so) for any damages to the living unit caused by the RM during her stay, because she was a coinhabitant and was in an equal agreement with the LL. 4. Tell RM and RM's cracker jack lawyer that your MIL c/n return a deposit because no was received.
In order words, tell your MIL to forget about it. And if sued, countersue for #3 and add $500 for emotional duress (documented with emails to her 'nice" SIL[son in law))
PS: not a lawyer and not an actor whose every played a lawyer, but I may dress as a lawyer for 10/31.
bbr said: Okay, so here's an interesting question concerning a lease......
Background 1. MIL lives in house w/ BF 2. BF moves out at end of initial lease 3. MIL finds roommate 4. Roommate gives leasing company deposit, and pays her share of rent directly to leasing company for 7 months 5. Roommate decides to move out and announces that she never signed the lease (apparently overlooked by leasing company) 6. Roommate has lawyer look over the situation and lawyer states that since RM didn't sign lease, RM is subletting from MIL. 7. LC sends email to RM & MIL stating that LC accepts RM notice to vacate and that since MIL is LL, MIL is responsible to refund deposit.
Okay, I can see plenty of stuff wrong with this situation. First, MIL and RM are acting like a couple of bickering college kids who just moved in together. And these ladies are in their 60s! Anyway, I can buy that legally, ML is subletting. However, why does it now become her problem that the LC didn't do their paperwork properly? Additionally, LC continues to act as LL by accepting the RM's notice to vacate.
Ultimate Goal - MIL wants to finish out the lease and pay only her share (she is willing to pay all utilities, etc.)
State is SC.
Let me know your opinions. No, you do not want pics. Trust me!
Update: Leasing company is allowing both tenants to leave early without penalty. I think this is about the best decision they could have made. If MIL wants to stay, fine, pay full rent. If MIL doesn't want to pay full rent, fine, leave. How can you argue with that?
I didn't read the original post... but I think you should sue the landlord and their cat. We'll see how Fluffy feels after he's looking at $1K in statutory damages per kitty box violation.
Only losers change the kitty litter.
Winners sue.
Kanosh
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Nov. 1, 2009 @ 5:06a
MIL should read her lease. The leases I always use for my tenants are very clear that all tenants are "jointly and severally responsible for the rent. As a LL I'm not going to concern myself what what one roommate said to another or who moved out when. Rather I make it darned clear that they each are responsible for paying the entire rent no matter what the others do.
uutxs said: Glad that worked out well. Just curious, is the rental market strong in that area and units are renting for more than MIL is currently paying?
No, the rental market for that particular area is pretty soft. If fact, there are a fair number of empty units in that neighborhood (maybe 30-40% empty). So the leasing company is pretty much shooting themselves in the foot by allowing them to leave early. Of course, they shot themselves in the foot when they didn't do their paperwork properly too. So I guess two wrongs make a right.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
