Help! Dispute with Land Lord... (rented house)

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: Phuz
I didn't plan on having to devote over %85 of my income to this house ALONE. The landlord isn't the only one getting the short end of the stick. These are the lessons of life, and I'm learning.

She's not trying to screw you. She's doing what she has a right to do.

What the hell do you think leases are for man?

Anyway, chaulk it up as a lesson learned. I will garauntee to you that you will not be able to get out of this free and clear.

This is what "I" think your options are-

1.) Continue to live there until your lease is up.
2.) Move, and continue to pay rent until the landlord finds a new tenant or the lease expires.
3.) Move, cease paying rent and receive a nice-sized collection account on your credit report. I don't know how long it lasts in Canada but in the United States it would stay there for 7 years.

Good luck!

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: Phuz

For that matter, why dont you kill her? That's immoral, and you will probably get out of paying the rent.

You're funny.

Sorry dxkj, but I'm not an ass. As I've said, I didn't ask for moral advice, nor did I ask to be judged and scrutinized for breaking a lease.
I also didn't scoff at the advice given. However, when someone like Carbo belittles me and finds my misfortune humorous, I'll gladly tell them where to go and how to do it.

No matter how often you say your not an ass, whoever reads this post won't believe you.



Question: How much are you paying a month? At most you will have to pay 2 months.... divide that by four people and you are paying for half a month on your own. Not the end of the world.


I would suggest telling her that you will pay for a month, which should find her time to rent it out if she wants, but 2 months in unreasonable. (By the way, 2 months is usually standard "get out" fee for a 12 month agreement on an apartment. For 6 month it would probably always be the rest of the term.

 

[AaronB]

Oh stop your temper tantrum already Phuz.

Again, I'm not debating whether or not she has the right to collect rent

She's trying to screw ME.

It appears you are the one with the issues.

 

[Phuz]

1.) Continue to live there until your lease is up.

Can't. She has it for sale.
Can't sublet, either.

Notice the lack of options?

Question: How much are you paying a month? At most you will have to pay 2 months.... divide that by four people and you are paying for half a month on your own. Not the end of the world.

Thanks, but I'm well aware how to perform basic math. There are not 4 people living here. And rent isn't the only expense involved in sustaining a HOUSE. Again, read ALL the posts, or get out of the thread.

 

[Phuz]

AaronB, you're fairly useless here, so after I correct you're ignorance, please refrain from posting in my threads.

She IS screwing me, because:

1. She accepted my notice for leaving, and she said that she was ok with the situation. We agreed that the issue was over, and at this point, her only concern was insuring that the hydro bill was payed before we leave.

2. She will not let me sublet. She HAS allowed me to do this in the past. BC law DOES allow her to do this, as does my lease, but her personal preference is not to. She doesn't want to deal with leasing/renting a house anymore. Understandable, BUT, it is a valid option that would simply things for both parties. She's choosing not to.


So, she wants me to pay rent until April, but she doesn't want me to continue living here, regardless as to whether the lease is broken or not.

If that doesn't constitute screwing the tenant, than.. well, nothing does.

 

[Nutdotnet]

Wait....

She has it for sale, right now?

You may have something there then.

If she has it for sale right now, and you can prove she is selling the place, I "think" you would have grounds to not be responsible for the remaining balance of the lease.

Of course I'm not for certain. But if a landlord is legally required to find tenant to occupy the dwelling and she choses not to (by selling the home, not renting) then she's breaking the law. Someone smart here correct me.

Now, if she wanted to sell the house after the lease expires then that's A-Okay.

 

[Yossarian]

Nomination for "prick of the month": Phuz

 

[Phuz]

Thanks PipBoy, I always wanted to me known for something.

 

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: Phuz
AaronB, you're fairly useless here, so after I correct you're ignorance, please refrain from posting in my threads.

She IS screwing me, because:

1. She accepted my notice for leaving, and she said that she was ok with the situation. We agreed that the issue was over, and at this point, her only concern was insuring that the hydro bill was payed before we leave.

2. She will not let me sublet. She HAS allowed me to do this in the past. BC law DOES allow her to do this, as does my lease, but her personal preference is not to. She doesn't want to deal with leasing/renting a house anymore. Understandable, BUT, it is a valid option that would simply things for both parties. She's choosing not to.


So, she wants me to pay rent until April, but she doesn't want me to continue living here, regardless as to whether the lease is broken or not.

If that doesn't constitute screwing the tenant, than.. well, nothing does.

Just because she accepted your notice doesn't mean you are free and clear of your obligation...

But look at my other thread about her selling the place.

 

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: Phuz
AaronB, you're fairly useless here, so after I correct you're ignorance, please refrain from posting in my threads.

She IS screwing me, because:

1. She accepted my notice for leaving, and she said that she was ok with the situation. We agreed that the issue was over, and at this point, her only concern was insuring that the hydro bill was payed before we leave.

2. She will not let me sublet. She HAS allowed me to do this in the past. BC law DOES allow her to do this, as does my lease, but her personal preference is not to. She doesn't want to deal with leasing/renting a house anymore. Understandable, BUT, it is a valid option that would simply things for both parties. She's choosing not to.


So, she wants me to pay rent until April, but she doesn't want me to continue living here, regardless as to whether the lease is broken or not.

If that doesn't constitute screwing the tenant, than.. well, nothing does.

She told you (and you can prove) that she said this? Obviously she can't stop you from living there AND still want you to pay rent.

Honestly man, look on the net or in the phonebook. In Alaska we have a free service that provides information about Landlord and Tenant laws. They may even help settle the dispute too.

 

[Phuz]

[/quote]Just because she accepted your notice doesn't mean you are free and clear of your obligation...[/quote]

I understand this, but I wanted to mention that to clarify that I'm not being the asshole here. This would be an entirely different ball game if had declined my notice immidiately. I wouldn't have accepted the job, I would have found other people to help sustain the house, etc etc etc.

And yes, I saw you're other post. I'm looking through the tenant act. Thanks you.

 

[Phuz]

Nutdotnet, I have the contact number, but I haven't been able to get through. I waited on hold for close to an hour on Friday. I'll be calling them again first thing Monday morning.

 

[Nutdotnet]

This is what you need-

LINK

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: Phuz

1.) Continue to live there until your lease is up.

Question: How much are you paying a month? At most you will have to pay 2 months.... divide that by four people and you are paying for half a month on your own. Not the end of the world.

Thanks, but I'm well aware how to perform basic math. There are not 4 people living here. And rent isn't the only expense involved in sustaining a HOUSE. Again, read ALL the posts, or get out of the thread.

Myself and 3 other individuals are currently living in a 2 year old, 4 bedroom house.

3 + 1 = 4... are you sure you can do basic math, or are you just lying?

 

[Phuz]

Quit looking for flaws/points in my argument to try to disprove. I'm not here to argue. But, since it's out there, I'll address that.

Did it occur to you that there is a difference between people 'living' here and being accountable for the house? Being on the lease?
The house has never been filled, since day one, all four bedrooms have never had permanent occupants.
This is a resort town. People are often needing a place to stay for a few days at a time. At this very moment, there are 4 people living here.

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: Phuz
Quit looking for flaws/points in my argument to try to disprove. I'm not here to argue. But, since it's out there, I'll address that.

Did it occur to you that there is a difference between people 'living' here and being accountable for the house? Being on the lease?
The house has never been filled, since day one, all four bedrooms have never had permanent occupants.
This is a resort town. People are often needing a place to stay for a few days at a time. At this very moment, there are 4 people living here.

Did it occur to you that it might be illegal to have people living in the house if they arent on the lease?

 

[Harvey]

Phuz -- I don't know the specifics of the law in your area, but speaking in general terms of contract law, you signed an agreement for a defined period, and you are obligated to pay rent until the end of that agreement. However, if you breach the agreement by moving out, your landlord is obligated to mitigate any damages (loss of rent) that may arise.

That means, if there is another suitable tenant who can rent the place, the damages are limited only to the rent lost during the change. If the house is vacant for a month, you would be liable for the rent for that month. You may also have to pay any incidental expenses arising from these circumstances, such as the cost of advertising for a tenant, any extra cleaning expenses incurred, etc.

You can reduce your liability if you clean the place when you leave and by trying to provide an acceptible alternative tenant. You may even be able to walk away from the whole deal if you can find someone who will just take over the existing lease. Of course, your landlord has to accept the new tenant.

Regarding verbal agreements, the law varies in different jurisdictions, but any agreement between two parties may be modified if both parties agree to the change. The problem is proof of the terms of the change. In your case, the problem is that the only witness is your personal freind which raises a question of credibility.

 

[Nutdotnet]

Harvey- You sound like you know what you're talking about. So what happens if the landlord does not want to find a new tenant, as Phuz is saying she wants to sell the place NOW, not when the lease expires.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet
Harvey- You sound like you know what you're talking about. So what happens if the landlord does not want to find a new tenant, as Phuz is saying she wants to sell the place NOW, not when the lease expires.

If it goes to court on those facts, I think the judge should laugh her out of court. To recover damages, she has to define what she has lost. She could show the property even while the property was rented. If so, she may still be entitled to some compensation. OTOH, if she says she is unwilling to rent it while she puts it on the market, obviously, she is willing to forego that income because those are mutually exclusive conditions. By willingly excluding the possibility of any mitigation of damages, she has created a condition that makes such mitigation impossible, and I think she would lose on that basis.

As for knowing what I'm talking about, I'm not an attorney, and I don't even play one on TV. I went to law school for a year, which includes the full basic course in contracts, and I have a number of attorney friends. This is pretty basic stuff. If Phuz can't resolve this with the landlady, he should get some advice from a real attorney before taking any action.

 

[Phuz]

Thanks very much Harvey.