Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
Brooklynian » Forum » Crown Heights and Prospect Lefferts Gardens »
-
Cliffs: - We break lease w/advanced notice + pay full May rent May 1st + move out May 15th - Landlord says initially we are only responsible for rent after June 1st to whenever someone new moves in - She chooses to use a no-fee broker and gets someone within the week after we move - She comes back to us a month after we move saying we have to forfeit our security deposit to pay for the broker (terms we were not aware of & have no documentation of agreeing to) Here's the story, hopefully I'm not coloring it in any way. Me and my girl were in a place in CH for 1.5yrs, saw the rents elsewhere, looked at what we were making and decided to break our lease. We gave our landlord notice on April 15th that we were looking to vacate between May 15th- June 1st. At that time she said 'that is fine, but if I can't find anyone by June 1st you will be responsible for rent'. We said fine. We find a place on May 1st and sign the papers + inform our old landlord the 5th or so. Our move out date was the 15th. We paid for the full May rent on time despite us planning to vacate on the 15th. Again all we were obligated to was whatever rent she couldn't get from a new tenant after June 1st, which we were OK to pay. While we moved out, we held the front doors open wide to get our stuff out. Normal use for people moving. One of the 100 year old hinges gave way, and we foolishly didn't tell her right away. $300 out of our security deposit... w/e. She used our old broker to find the new people and we were in touch with him... they found someone the week after we moved out, but for whatever reason they delayed the move to June 1st. W/e. We have been going back and forth about the security deposit.... again all we were being held to was rent after June 1st INITIALLY... we paid our rent on time EVERY MONTH and took good care of the apartment. We gave her notice well in advance of our move and agreed to our initial terms. We get an email yesterday (4 weeks after we moved out mind you, and about 3 weeks after she found another tenant) and do you know what this lady had the nerve to say? This is the body of the email WORD FOR WORD: "[Name Removed], I have calculated your deposit and none is due back to you for the following reasons: Because you only gave me 15 days notice before you broke the lease, I had to hire a realtor to help me rent the place asap (I would typically attempt to rent it myself). To rent the apartment as soon as possible, I had to pay the realtor's fee (as opposed to the renter paying the fee) to sweeten the deal for the renter. The one month realtor's fee is $1350 (the amount that I rented the apartment). In addition and per our previous conversation, the cost of the damage to the door stop caused on the date that you moved out was $300 (a copy of the receipt is attached hereto). The grand total to rent the apartment after you broke the lease is $1650, which leaves an unpaid balance of $150 that you owe me. I hope you have settled in nicely into your new home. I'm happy to sign a letter stating that your lease is terminated. Feel free to draft in and email it to me" Mind you we offered to help her find a tenant, and SHE made the choice not only to hire a broker, but to make the new lease no fee. So what the FUCK is she talking about? She is a lawyer, but thankfully we have pre-paid legal so if we have to go to court me and my girl are ready and willing. Initially we were OK with the $300, but $1650 is definitely worth a day or two off of work. What do you think, are we in the wrong at all here????
-
You might just have to take her to court or get Help Me Howard from TV to jump in.(\__/)
(=’.'=)
(”)_(”) -
the landlord » I had to pay the realtor's fee (as opposed to the renter paying the fee) to sweeten the deal for the renter.
Say wha? In the history of New York I would swear this has never happened for a market-rate apartment. Okay, that's an overstatement, but c'mon...when has anyone seen this happen. The case is usually the opposite, where the broker says (whether true or not) that there are a bunch of other folks interested and you'd better sign on the dotted line asap before one of the others does. Broker's fee negotiable? In NY? Sounds to me like this person pulled out everything and the kitchen sink (and a bag of chips) to justify keeping your money, making it look like you owe her instead (and her as saintly for forgiving you of that). Reminds me of our last rental some years ago. At the end of our lease, with 2 months notice we left the place spotless, not just broom swept (as per language in lease). And the landlord charged us $250 for cleaning fees, even though she was repainting after we left. Funny how some landlords make the costs of doing their business your costs.i extend my battery life by turning down the brightness -
I can understand her declining your offer to find a tenant. No landlord would want to enter into an agreement wherein they have to accept tenants given to them by someone else.
"Landlord says initially we are only responsible for rent after June 1st to whenever someone new moves in. She chooses to use a no-fee broker and gets someone within the week after we move"
Had she used a "fee to the tenant broker", she may not have been able to get a tenant in that quickly. Brokers usually charge 1 month rent, either to the tenant or the landlord. ...all of them get paid somehow. If it had taken her a month to fill the apartment via a "fee to the tenant broker", you would have had to pay 1 months rent ($1350) anyway. Because she actually gave the broker a month's rent, she didn't make any money as a result of you leaving. The real issue is whether she was able to get a full month's rent from the month of June. If -for example- the new tenant required that she prorate the rent, to say $1000, because they we only going to be there only 3 weeks in June she actually lost $350 on the deal. So, at first glance it seems she merely broke even on the deal, as she is entitled to do. However, you ended up having to pay an extra month's rent for the "priviledge" of breaking your lease, and a fee for the ancient door finally breaking. It isn't what you wanna her, but I'd say "all is fair". ...it sucks that you didn't realize that she was going to charge you a months rent, and have to live with the "hinge fee", but -on the otherhand- she isn't penalizing you for breaking the lease. She is willing to be a reference despite you breaking the lease.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 » Had she used a "fee to the tenant broker", she may not have been able to get a tenant in that quickly. Brokers usually charge 1 month rent, either to the tenant or the landlord. ...all of them get paid somehow. If it had taken her a month to fill the apartment via a "fee to the tenant broker", you would have had to pay 1 months rent ($1350) anyway. Because she actually gave the broker a month's rent, she didn't make any money as a result of you leaving. The real issue is whether she was able to get a full month's rent from the month of June. If -for example- the new tenant required that she prorate the rent, to say $1000, because they we only going to be there only 3 weeks in June she actually lost $350 on the deal. So, at first glance it seems she merely broke even on the deal, as she is entitled to do. However, you ended up having to pay an extra month's rent for the "priviledge" of breaking your lease, and a fee for the ancient door finally breaking. It isn't what you wanna her, but I'd say "all is fair". ...it sucks that you didn't realize that she was going to charge you a months rent, and have to live with the "hinge fee", but -on the otherhand- she isn't penalizing you for breaking the lease. She is willing to be a reference despite you breaking the lease.
I don't have a problem with any of this. We wanted to break the lease, so whatever terms she laid out would be what we had to agree to. My only thing is, me + my gf made no agreement to cover any broker's fee for the next tenant, so for her to wait a month and come up with this as a reason to hold our security deposit is bull. You make an agreement- stick to it. If there were nobody in the apartment now I would gladly pay for the rent as that's what we agreed to- but for her to have decided to use a broker the week of May 22nd, have a tenant for the place the week of May 29th, and then tell us the week of June 12th that we are responsible for said broker costs' seems ridiculous. It could have taken months for her to find a new tenant and we would have been on the hook for that. She took the initiative to find a tenant and chose to use a broker. She could have easily added this caveat when we made our initial agreement. She could have easily made the new tenants pay the broker's fee. How is this fair?[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
you both entered into sloppy verbal contracts. You: For agreeing that you'd pay rent on the place until a new tenant was found. (not a bright move, CTK.) You could have really gotten screwed by this. She could have claimed she did not agree to let you get out of your lease and decided to pursue you in housing court for several months rent. Her: For not spelling out that you'd have to pay a minimum of one months rent for breaking your lease. (not a wise move, landlord). Given the real estate market, your risk was bigger than hers. ...not only in terms of $, but in terms of being able to have your new landlord call you old one for a reference. ...Under the logic that she shouldn't lose money because you chose to break your lease and move, I would not be surprised if Housing Court took her side. Remember, she merely got to break even, while you got to break your lease. ...if she had to paint the place to prep for a new picky tenant, she didn't even break even.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
I still think that is incredibly lame... never heard of the previous tenants paying the brokers fee for the new ones...it doesn't help anything that she is a lawyer and the process of court for her will be relatively painless and cheap compared to you guys. Good luck!
-
Under current NY law she had no obligation to mitigate her damages by finding a new tenant. But for her agreement to find another tenant, you would have been legally responsible for the rest of the term of the rent. Your statement that you were doing her a favor for paying all of May when you weren't using the apartment beyond the 15th, and "oops" you forgot to tell her you broke her front door, indicates to me that you don't understand the rental market or your obligations under the lease. While she should have been more explicit on what costs you were responsible for, given you were liable FOR THE WHOLE LEASE, you really don't have a leg to stand on. By leaving early you were denying her the value of the lease, which is not just the monthly rent, but also the security of knowing that she had a tenant. It is work posting and showing an apartment - why should she have born those costs when she was doing you a favor? You basically want people to tell you that a lease means nothing as long as you find something cheaper and you give what you believe is proper notice. No sympathy.
-
You're actually lucky the landlord wasn't more dishonest. In a situation like this, the landlord could do capital improvements on the apartment while you're on the hook for the rent but not living there and then be able to rent it out for even more, without having to lose income from the apartment during renovations.
-
whynot_31 » you both entered into sloppy verbal contracts. You: For agreeing that you'd pay rent on the place until a new tenant was found. (not a bright move, CTK.) You could have really gotten screwed by this. She could have claimed she did not agree to let you get out of your lease and decided to pursue you in housing court for several months rent. Her: For not spelling out that you'd have to pay a minimum of one months rent for breaking your lease. (not a wise move, landlord). Given the real estate market, your risk was bigger than hers. ...not only in terms of $, but in terms of being able to have your new landlord call you old one for a reference. ...Under the logic that she shouldn't lose money because you chose to break your lease and move, I would not be surprised if Housing Court took her side. Remember, she merely got to break even, while you got to break your lease. ...if she had to paint the place to prep for a new picky tenant, she didn't even break even.
I could understand if she was losing money because the place was unoccupied- that's a direct result of us breaking the lease early. However in this case she would be losing money because she chose to use a no-fee broker. We covered $650 for rent for 2 weeks where we weren't even in the apartment, and I'm almost certain she had multiple tenants lined up before we moved (gf has documentation to support that). So ultimately we would be paying $1950 to break the lease, despite the fact that she didn't miss one day of rent from the whole ordeal and made the choice to go w/a no-fee broker. I agree that the whole thing was poorly played out to varying degrees by both parties... but ultimately in the end it basically worked out for everybody, aside from the lingering broker's fee. Regardless of everything else, i.e. what's nice or great or bad about the arrangement, we had a (documented via email) agreement- we cover the rent (and nothing else) between the time we move out and a new tenant moves in (which we did). Her tacking on this broker's fee to us is not part of what we agreed to, and unless someone can point to some law or something I don't see why we have to pay for that.[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
there is no such thing as a "no fee broker". It's a matter of which party pays the fee to the broker: the landlord VS the new tenant VS the outgoing tenent. In this case the outgoing tenant paid. today we have three categories: 1. winner 2. neither winner or loser 3. loser landlord: neither winner or loser. A tenant with whom she had a year-long lease, backed out of the deal. She was able to quickly get another tenant in before losing any revenue. The fact that the apartment was vacant part of the time is completely immaterial to her; she cares about rent. CTK and GF: neither winners or losers. They were able to get out of year long lease and move to a neighborhood they prefer (win!), yet they didn't realize they would be charged their deposit (lose). They could have done far worse and ended up paying several month's rent, as discussed above. Broker: winner. s/he was able to fill an apartment and earn $1350. Brokers win whenever someone moves in or out. New Tenant: winner. S/he was able to move into an apartment (presumably) without paying a fee. In this instance, the new tenant is thankful to the former tenants (CTK and GF) for covering their brokers fee. ....However, we should note that they would have been just as thankful to CTK and GF if they had found the apartment through CTK and GF as friends. In otherwords, the new tenants were going to win in either scenario. locksmith: win. A heavy door built in 1911 was broken. S/he fixed it and earned $300.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
Well said whynot. The OP keeps avoiding the fact that he broke two things - a door and a lease. And those things cost you. He seemed to have been unaware of the legal implications of his breaking a lease, and thus miscalculated its cost.
-
I don't understand why people keep glossing over this fact We told our landlord we wanted to break the lease. She says OK, you will have to cover the RENT between now and when the next person moves in. She gets a new tenant in such a way that she doesn't miss any rent.... so why should we be on the hook for a broker's fee we never agreed to pay for? I concede to the door charge... whatever, shit happens, and we didn't have to pay for any of the other 100 year old stuff that broke in our apartment during our time here (though had it broken on a day we hadn't been moving, I doubt we would have been dinged for it). But the whole, 'well you guys are lucky to just get out of the lease so cheaply' deal is bull. Security deposits, from what I understand, are for damages to the apartment, or if a tenant bails out on rent... can someone please rationalize how our security deposit can justifiably be used to pay someone else's broker's fee?[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
We told our landlord we wanted to break the lease. She says OK, you will have to cover the RENT between now and when the next person moves in.
...and you got lucky because you only ended up having to pay the equivalent of one month! ...imagine a scenario in which you submitted potential tenants and she repeatedly said "Nope, don't like 'em." You would have been stuck paying several months rent. The point is that the landlord should not have to pay the broker fee, because she was doing you a favor. ....she had a year long lease. You broke "it" (aka the lease), and you were made to fix it. ...like I said above, both of you were sloppy. If you want to go to housing court, go for it. You may find that you: a. lose your security deposit. b. lose a reference. c. end up in a database that landlords use to see whether a potential tenant has ever dragged a past landlord to housing court. aka "a database of tenants that landlords want to avoid". d. lose a few days work.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
I agree with everything Whynot is saying. If she had just said "I'm keeping your deposit to pay for the next month's rent" would you be ok with that? But because she was honest about how she spent the money you are upset? Seems odd to me -- you broke a contract and now want $$ because you inconvenienced her?
-
[quote="whynot_31"]
The point is that the landlord should not have to pay the broker fee, because she was doing you a favor. ....she had a year long lease. You broke "it" (aka the lease), and you were made to fix it.
I feel like we're having a fundamental disconnect here We agreed to pay the rent from June 1st to whenever a new tenant signed a lease. There was a huge risk on our end. Outside of that she got a broker and found a tenant to move in on June 1st. So PER OUR AGREEMENT, we owe nothing beyond what we had already paid, and were due our security deposit (less whatever damages there were to the apartment). So why does she get to keep our security deposit? Because we inconvenienced her? We did her a huge favor by not waiting until DECEMBER to not renew the lease- she definitely would have had to get a broker, and she would definitely have not been able to command the rent she got for the place in June... but that's an aside. Lol @ the idea that the landlord can just do whatever they want when a lease is broken, and that tenants should be so thankful to break a lease early that they should be willing to forfeit hundreds of dollars and forego any kinds of agreements. That's bullshit. I have ended leases early in the past without consequence and got my security deposit back no problem... this is ridiculous. whynot... I have to ask... are you a landlord?[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
Jeeze, I maybe the only one on Kid's side. Sounds like he had a verbal or by email agreement that breaking the lease was OK and none of the agreement said anything about broker fees. Oh well, CTK, get some real legal advice.(\__/)
(=’.'=)
(”)_(”) -
whynot... I have to ask... are you a landlord?
AFAIK, he is merely lord of a palatial, multi-winged estate.
Or so Em26 says, anyway. 
i extend my battery life by turning down the brightness -
I guess the lesson is to get everything in writing. The terms of the lease are in writing, so why should the terms upon which you end it? I can see the logic of both your argument and the landlord's. Having it in writing would have eliminated this "disconnect."
-
I have offered my opinion, based on many trips to housing court, wherein I would spend hours awaiting my clients case to be heard. ...but, alas, I am not a landlord or an Attorney. ...good luck getting your $1350 back. I look forward to your update post-housing court. CTK, I'll root for you if you want, but I think your case sounds very weak. P.S. Jeffery, hush. http://realestateqa.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/breaking-a-lease/For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
I'm on the Kid's side too. He held up his end of the deal. I don't know what you mean by pre-paid legal, but if you don't have to pay much or anything for legal help, I think you should use it. Landlady is breaking her end of the agreement. If landlady had not used a broker and had not found a new tenant til July 1 and had charged you June's rent, then yes, you would owe her June's rent. But you do not owe her a broker's fee as you had never agreed to pay that and it was her choice to use a landlord-paid broker.
-
If (in the eyes of the court) a tenant breaks their lease, their landlord can use the deposit to buy cases of cheeseballs if they so desire. In other words, all the landlord has to prove is that CTK broke the lease, and that she gave him no permission to do so. Here's a preview of her defense:
[ Name Removed by request] I have calculated your deposit and none is due back to you for the following reasons: Because you only gave me 15 days notice before you broke the lease, I had to hire a realtor to help me rent the place asap (I would typically attempt to rent it myself). To rent the apartment as soon as possible, I had to pay the realtor's fee (as opposed to the renter paying the fee) to sweeten the deal for the renter. The one month realtor's fee is $1350 (the amount that I rented the apartment). In addition and per our previous conversation, the cost of the damage to the door stop caused on the date that you moved out was $300 (a copy of the receipt is attached hereto). The grand total to rent the apartment after you broke the lease is $1650, which leaves an unpaid balance of $150 that you owe me. I hope you have settled in nicely into your new home. I'm happy to sign a letter stating that your lease is terminated. Feel free to draft in and email it to me"
CTK has yet to receive a letter stating that his lease is cancelled and -legally- she probably even argue that he continues to be liable for the rent. In light of the above email, I doubt she would get it ...but I predict the judge will side with her regarding the deposit. P.S. There's no need to trust me, just read the NYT link I posted above.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Wait... whynot, how'd you get a copy of the email? And can you remove my gf's name? And we do have proof that we're free from the lease, as well as what the landlord initially agreed to, plus our lawyer said we do have a case. I'm not worried. I just hope things don't escalate to the point where we have to go to court. It's not necessary[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
CTK, you don't remember posting that email with your GF's name in the OP? Scroll up!
-
Cool The Kid » Wait... whynot, how'd you get a copy of the email? And can you remove my gf's name?
You're kidding, right? You posted the whole thing in your original post and it said your gf's name. -
"Wait a minute... how do YOU know about the situation with my landlord stiffing me on my deposit...? Oh yea, I posted it on an internet forum this morning!" Stoner lol
-
I can be a bit of a space case sometimes guys.... I blame a childhood of bike crashes, electrical shocks and the occasional backslaps/fistfights[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
Anonymous
Posts: 9,622Cool The Kid » I can be a bit of a space case sometimes guys.... I blame a childhood of bike crashes, electrical shocks and the occasional backslaps/fistfights
I have to admit I giggled at your spazticity (spazziness? spaztardedness?) . -
whynot_31 » t Broker: winner. s/he was able to fill an apartment and earn $1350. Brokers win whenever someone moves in or out. New Tenant: winner. S/he was able to move into an apartment (presumably) without paying a fee. In this instance, the new tenant is thankful to the former tenants (CTK and GF) for covering their brokers fee. ....However, we should note that they would have been just as thankful to CTK and GF if they had found the apartment through CTK and GF as friends. In otherwords, the new tenants were going to win in either scenario.
How do we know if the NEW tenant was also charged a BROKER FEE? The LL and BROKER could be conspiring to double-dip. That would be wrong. -
Wirenut- True, we don't know whether the new tenant was charged a fee. ...if they were, and then split it, both the landlord and the broker made some $ out of the deal. LL would advance from "neither win or lose" to "win". Broker would advance from "win" to "win more" But, CTK would be no worse off if he was the victim of such a lie. He'd still lose his deposit, in exchange for being able to break a lease. Even if one could prove that the LL and Broker collected and fee and then split it, such arrangements are legal. Lying about it isn't nice, but I doubt its a crime. I still believe that the court would be most interested in learning if CTK broke his lease. As I said earlier, if the LL can show that he broke his lease, I believe that the housing court will allow the LL to
use the deposit to buy cases of cheeseballs if they so desire.
....I continue to believe that CTK is lucky the LL found a tenant quickly and didn't decide to pursue payments for the duration of the lease. LL's do not have to let tenants out of leases. In a LL's view, this is the point of having a tenant sign a lease to begin with. ...otherwise it would be the same as a simple month-to-month arrangement.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 » He'd still lose his deposit, in exchange for being able to break a lease.
Is this renter's law?[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
"Generally speaking, if you break your lease the landlord can claim part or all of your security deposit for "unpaid rent." He could also go to court to enforce the terms of the lease (i.e., ask you to pay additional rent until a new tenant is found). Under current rulings, landlords have no duty to promptly re-rent the apartment." -- From the Housing department of NYC http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/faq/leases.html#options That said, the LL did you a favor by filling the apartment so you didn't have to pay 5 months. If I was that LL I would have kept it empty, kept collecting rent, done some renov. and then rented it later for more money. I really don't understand your complaint.
-
Cool The Kid » [quote="whynot_31"] He'd still lose his deposit, in exchange for being able to break a lease.
Is this renter's law?[/quote] xlizellx - thanks. CTK - yup. Note to self: Do not rent from Xlizellx.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 » [quote="Cool The Kid"][quote="whynot_31"] He'd still lose his deposit, in exchange for being able to break a lease.
Is this renter's law?[/quote] xlizellz - thanks. CTK - yup.[/quote] The $1300 in question isn't for missed rent- our landlord didn't miss any rent. She paid for a broker.[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
CTK- see above discussion re: cheeseballs. also... http://realestateqa.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/breaking-a-lease/ note, to my knowledge you were not in a rent controlled apt or going to a nursing home. ...e.g. she could have completely screwed youFor better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
I don't really care what she could have done or what's courteous or whatever. We have paid our rent through what we were obligated to. So why do we owe her the broker's fee? Is there a law saying we do? There's nothing in our lease saying we'd have to pay the next tenant's broker's fee. There was nothing in our agreement saying we'd have to pay the next tenant's broker's fee. So why do we have to pay it?[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
you broke your lease. your landlord kept your security deposit. ....this is all that is going to matter to the judge. We are going in circles. You are either not reading, or not understanding people's responses. Thankfully, we do not live in a world where you have to accept our answers and references. You can go to court. I am sorry you did not understand the potential implications of breaking your lease. I am sorry that your landlord did not make it clearer to you. I am glad she found a tenant quickly and you were not held responsible for additional months' rent. I am glad you did not rent from Xlizellx.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
whynot_31 » I am glad you did not rent from Xlizellx.
hahahaha! -
She responded with a quote from our lease saying she had the right to charge us for whatever she wants if we break the lease Figures Well I am out of $550.... not a big deal I guess compared to what I could have been out of... just a scummy move, considering how good we were as tenants, the notice we gave, etc etc. Lesson learned I guess... when you break a lease, work the terms out explicitly and on paper, and don't rent from a lawyer[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
even better: Do not break lease. ...the law is written in such a manner that bad things can happen to people who do not fulfill their end of a contract.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
Us moving out in June worked out better for everyone... moving in December would mean us moving in December and staying another summer on Nostrand Ave... for her it would mean looking for tenants around Thanksgiving. W/e[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
What exactly is scummy about it? She did you both a favor, given the months it could have taken to fill the apartment which you would have been on the hook for, and explained it fully. A broken lease is a major disruption, especially when as with you the notice given is very short. With a longer notice, the landlord has an opportunity to line up the next tenant, and it's an event they can plan for far in advance. As landlords go, I'd say it's very professional behavior. There are a few who would take lease-breakers for everything they're worth. You should consider your potential exposure and be grateful for this outcome. And go easy on the landlady. She seems all right to me.
-
eastbloc » What exactly is scummy about it? She did you both a favor... A broken lease is a major disruption, especially when as with you the notice given is very short.... You should consider your potential exposure and be grateful for this outcome...
Amen! If you look aqt the situation objectively and realistically, $1350 seems cheap in comparison to your true exposure. If she wanted to, she could have sued the pants off of you and easily won for you to pay the remaining rent on the lease. Sometimes one must know when they have little if no negotiating power.., the learn to fold and gracefully walk away from the table.snowboarding, photography, films, art, counter culture, alternative -
landlord is a jackass, why do people keep giving money to jackass landlords? when renting always interview landlords and tenants in the building too. like hey man hows the landlord etc...Fight white guilt and injustice by smoking tax free guilt free Reservation Smokes or go gamble in a Native Casino.
I like to stick it to The Man, The Man happens to be Liberal in NYC(power Structure). -
Eastbloc>> A broken lease is a major disruption, especially when as with you the notice given is very short. With a longer notice, the landlord has an opportunity to line up the next tenant, and it's an event they can plan for far in advance. So six weeks notice (almost seven) (April 15 to June 1) before the prime rental date of June 1st is “very short notice”? What, pray tell, would you consider reasonable?
-
sandcastler » Eastbloc>> A broken lease is a major disruption, especially when as with you the notice given is very short. With a longer notice, the landlord has an opportunity to line up the next tenant, and it's an event they can plan for far in advance. So six weeks notice (almost seven) (April 15 to June 1) before the prime rental date of June 1st is “very short notice”? What, pray tell, would you consider reasonable?
....while I realize that you are asking Eastbloc his opinion, the law is written in such a manner that basically "no amount of notice" relieves the tenant of their obligations. The landlord has a the right to pursue the tenant for the payments they agreed to make for the entire lease period. ....in otherwords, the tenant is asking for charity. Charity isn't a right. ....don't ever put yourself in a position where you need it.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Someone moved in June 1st for more than what we were paying so I'm pretty sure there's no way she can come after us for missed rent- she didn't miss any. I just don't understand why we should be so grateful given the initial agreement. It's like no matter what was said or done, the landlord has carte blanche to do what they want, and we should grovel and kiss her feet to thank her for changing the terms to our agreement on a whim. Seems shitty for tenants[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
hence the value of a contract. ....presently the pendulum of the law has swung solidly over to the landlords side, someday it may swing back to the tenant's. until then....For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
WN31>> ....in otherwords, the tenant is asking for charity. I disagree. The tenant asked to renegotiate the contract. That is not charity. That is business. If the landlord declined to do so, the tenant would have other options available to him, including subletting. In my opinion it was a mistake for the tenant to agree to a revised contract that left him so exposed to liability. However — oh perhaps I see your point — that the charity came *after* his ill-advised contract renegotiation? In which case, I agree, he did did put himself in harm’s way — probably because he is a nice guy who did not imagine that someone with whom he had a satisfactory business relationship would take advantage of him. I bet he won’t make that mistake again.
-
one is not "taking advantage of someone" when they are enforcing a legal contract signed by both parties. ....most states require the landlord to pursue mitigation to reduce the harm incurred by a tenant. NY isn't one of them. I think you are going down a different path, one that debates "what is fair" (a really subjective concept) I am simply explaining what I know about "what is legal" (decidedly less subjective) I agree, if all possible, the landlord should pursue mitigation. The damage incurred by the tenant for breaking the contract should be minimized. ...from my view, this landlord did that ...but did not have to. Hence, the landlord meets my definition of "fair". If, however, the landlord was a character like xlizelx, the landlord would have been merely "legal", but not meet my subjective definition of the term "fair".For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!