Security Deposit
I have a signed contract for 1 year in which the current tenant has been in 2 months. He informed me that he wanted to get out of the contract because he had taken a job which was 2 hours driving time away from the unit which i had rented to him. I informed him that I would do the best I could to rerent the unit, but until I did rent it he was responsible for the rent . I was able to rent the unit which took 1 month and I got a signed agrement from the new tenant and a signed letter from the former tenent that he wanted to break the lease. In our contract on the very first line in the security deposit section it states that the security deposit will be refunded as long as the following aremet: first line A. says"if the term has expired and generally, tenant has fully met all of tenants obligations hereunder: etc Question is he has not met that contract by the term has expired, am I entiled to keep the full security deposit? Thanks for all opinions.
You are entitled to recoup damages. If the old tenant moved out and didn't pay rent and you were out 1 month, then you are able to recoup 1 month worth of rent.
It is probably grey area if you did not lose rent but you took the time to find a new tenant. Whenever anyone wants to break a lease I informally require them to find me an acceptable replacement tenant.
I would keep the security deposit.
I did not lose any funds because I was able to rent the unit again soon. I still had to take the time to answer all the phone calls,screen new tenatnts and qualify somebody again that was acceptable . it puzzles me why this guy jumped the gun on getting a place to rent without making sure where is new employment would be He took a job close to where my rental is, but then soon after took another 2 hours away. The contract strictly says" If the term has expired" the term had clear;ly not expired it had 10 months left. I still need to reclean and go over the unit to make sure it is acceptable for the new tenants. This takes my time which I would not have had to to for another 10 months, not feasible but it could happen in 2 months, thats why I think I should be able to keep the deposit i don't know if the courts would consider this action acceptable though about the use of a security deposit.
Perhaps if you explain to the former tenant that according to the lease, you are likely entilted to keep all of the security deposit however your remarketing expenses were limited to $xxx.yy and you feel it would be more appropriate to simply ask him to cover your remarketing costs and call it even --> my guess is that you'l both be better off and happier.
I would say that you are not entitled to the security deposit. You are entitled to that portion of the security deposit that pays for any damages caused by this tenant and for any advertising expenses incurred in searching for a replacement tenant. As for the entire amount, you agreed to allow him to break the lease. I'm not a lawyer, but I would argue that by agreeing to permit him to break the lease, you in fact ammended the lease. He is therefore not in violation, and has fully met his obligations.
If a party chooses to leave and break a contract a landlord has no choose but to try and lease the unit and mitigate damages. If a suitable tenant is not found then the current contact is in effect and the tenant is fully obligated to pay every month. Now if he does not pay and the landlord serves him an eviction notice , i believe the only recourse is to keep the security and then file suit to recover the rest of the past due rent if there is any. Seems to me the landlord is caught between a rock and a hard place.
I don't disagree with you. But since you were able to rent out the apartment, you actually didn't loose anything in this tenant moving out. That's where it seems to me, you loose your claim to the security deposit.
I need to contact the attorney that drew up this contract. I am not that concerned about getting the security deposit in this case. The unit was not hardly used , not anything to do to get it ready for the new tenant. I just question the phase in the contract" if the term has expired and generally, tenant has fully met all of tenants obligations hereunder: Interesting point to get other interpertations of this phrase.
[ Edited by dreamweaver on Date 09/06/2004 ]null[ Edited by dreamweaver on Date 09/06/2004 ]