ALRIGHT.... trouble with old landlord
Comments
-
"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 wrote: [quote=whynot_31] He'd still lose his deposit, in exchange for being able to break a lease.
Is this renter's law?
xlizellx - thanks.
CTK - yup.
Note to self: Do not rent from Xlizellx. -
whynot_31 wrote: [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?
xlizellz - thanks.
CTK - yup.
The $1300 in question isn't for missed rent- our landlord didn't miss any rent. She paid for a broker. -
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 you -
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?
-
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. -
whynot_31 wrote: 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 -
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. -
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
-
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 wrote: What exactly is scummy about it? She did you both a favor...
Amen! If you look aqt the situation objectively and realistically, $1350 seems cheap in comparison to your true exposure.
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...
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. -
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... -
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 wrote: 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.
....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.
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?
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. -
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 -
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.... -
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". -
CTK, I don't think you have to bow and scrape to your landlord as if she were some extremely benevolent being, but I do believe that you inconvenienced her and she did what was in her own best interest - as did you. So you broke the lease. So she decided not to bear the headache of finding another renter and used a broker for that. You don't have to live someplace that you don't want to live, nor continue to pay for a space that you are not using and she was made whole. You wanted to be granted your peace of mind, and I bet she believed that she needed to take certain steps to ensure hers. You say she just up and changed the agreement - uh, so did you - and you did it first - and in the end, the one you changed was in writing.
On another note - you actually lived ON Nostrand? ON NOSTRAND? :shock: No wonder! That explains a whole lot...You have to have a special constitution for that. (No offense to other Nostrand Ave. residents holding it down!)
I'm sure you're happier where you are now. And although you incurred an unanticipated expense as a result of how you decided to move, just think, no more rockers blasting at 2:00am on Labor Day. Booyakah! Booyakah!! -
WN31>> one is not "taking advantage of someone" when they are enforcing a legal contract signed by both parties.
That is true. However, in this case, the LL did agree to change the terms of that contract. The revised contract replaces the old contract. Doesn’t it?
As to the issue of fairness: The LL speaks of inconvenience. But it was also an opportunity. It gave her 6 to 7 weeks to find a tenant right smack on a sweet spot of the rental cycle — June 1st. She also speaks of “15 days notice.” But that is not how CTK told it. I believe him, and frankly, I find that annoying. -
see above conversation re: winners and losers.
If the landlord had "won" I would agree with you.
However, in my definition of "fairness", if you break a contract with me, I get to break even. Your definition seems to allow me to suffer financially.
(note: I am assuming the landlord is telling the truth in her letter, a fact that is not known) Are you assuming differently? -
nearnostrand wrote: CTK, I don't think you have to bow and scrape to your landlord as if she were some extremely benevolent being, but I do believe that you inconvenienced her and she did what was in her own best interest - as did you. So you broke the lease. So she decided not to bear the headache of finding another renter and used a broker for that. You don't have to live someplace that you don't want to live, nor continue to pay for a space that you are not using and she was made whole. You wanted to be granted your peace of mind, and I bet she believed that she needed to take certain steps to ensure hers. You say she just up and changed the agreement - uh, so did you - and you did it first - and in the end, the one you changed was in writing.
LMAO @ booyakah booyakah. Nah I didn't live on Nostrand... I was actually closer to NYA.
On another note - you actually lived ON Nostrand? ON NOSTRAND? :shock: No wonder! That explains a whole lot...You have to have a special constitution for that. (No offense to other Nostrand Ave. residents holding it down!)
I'm sure you're happier where you are now. And although you incurred an unanticipated expense as a result of how you decided to move, just think, no more rockers blasting at 2:00am on Labor Day. Booyakah! Booyakah!!WN31>> one is not "taking advantage of someone" when they are enforcing a legal contract signed by both parties.
I mean we're almost talking in circles here, but if I say, 'i want to break the lease... what costs am i responsible for', the LL says 'missed rent until i fill the apt is filled', we agree, and then a month later the LL says 'i filled the apt, you dont owe any rent, but i used a broker, so im gonna keep your security deposit', I'm sure even whynot would feel some way being in my position. Yes it could have been worse, but ultimately the agreement was we would pay for missed rent and nothing else, and the LL changed that on a whim to snake us out of our security deposit.
That is true. However, in this case, the LL did agree to change the terms of that contract. The revised contract replaces the old contract. Doesn’t it?
As to the issue of fairness: The LL speaks of inconvenience. But it was also an opportunity. It gave her 6 to 7 weeks to find a tenant right smack on a sweet spot of the rental cycle — June 1st. She also speaks of “15 days notice.” But that is not how CTK told it. I believe him, and frankly, I find that annoying.
Truth be told, if when we asked what we had to do to get out of the lease, if she had just said 'forfeit your security deposit' I would have been OK. Hell I would have been OK w/that and then some for a clean break. It's the duplicity I have a problem with. -
Yes. I am assuming that CTK is telling the truth that he gave more than 6 weeks notice that would allow the LL to get on the best lease-start date in the calendar. That is a huge win. LL forever after gets to start leases on that date, instead of the grisly December 1st, which could be one of the worst months to rent. Or it is pretty bad, anyway.
If the LL had said, Yes I know you gave me 6 weeks to do this but I was busy and could not make the 5 minutes phone call to the broker that I always use and ask him to list the apartment, then OK. Whatever. But she lied. At least that is how I read these accounts.
The LL need not lose, as CTK did acknowledge responsibility to pay rent until someone was found.
Does her lying about the time sit well with you? -
The LL can do no wrong in whynot's eyes. If when we told her we wanted to break the lease she had burned our place down, she would have been justified.
-
Cool The Kid wrote: The LL can do no wrong in whynot's eyes. If when we told her we wanted to break the lease she had burned our place down, she would have been justified.
This would have rendered the apartment as unlivable, allowing you to get outof your lease. You do not have to pay rent on a place that the judge/law believes has become unlivable ...a burnt down place would be unlivable.
next. -
sandcastler wrote: But she lied. At least that is how I read these accounts.
If I believed the landlord lied, I would move her actions into the "unfair, but perhaps still legal" column. (Judges get to decide such things, but I believe that finding that the landlord lied would not automatically mean that she was required to give up all of the rights in the contract). It sucks ....read above pendulum dribble.
I have no evidence whether she lied or not. CTK has stated that he doesn't doesn't either. Sandcastler, however, has reached the conclusion she did lie based on the same information/conversation/dribble.... -
CTK>> 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.
LL>> (in letter presented as verbatim) 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.
There may be other facts than those presented here, but we do not know what they are. Based on what we know, there is a difference in the accounts. Are you saying that CTK is lying? -
I'm saying as per the law the length of notice does not appear to matter.
I take no position on the 2 wk vs 6 wk debate. -
spnder wrote: 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'll say this ^^
Lesson learned, next time don't assume the best intentions from a LL, get it all flushed out in advance and on paper. I've been screwed before too, so I guess I'm sympathetic. I think the that this thread is just repeating itself now. It's up to CTK to decide now what to do in real life.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds