Need legal advice.

[Beau]

I have a house in Indy that I've been renting out until I can sell it. The new renters split up two months into their two year lease.

Does anyone have any idea about what I can do legally as far as the lease goes? I would like to cancel the lease all together.

 

[eldirector]

Who's names are on the contract? What are the terms on the contract? Should be spelled out pretty clearly.

Maybe 88GT will pop in here. She is the resident "property management" expert!

 

[eatsnopaste]

WOW..who signs a 2 yr. lease unless it is with an option to buy?

 

[Beau]

WOW..who signs a 2 yr. lease unless it is with an option to buy?

They have an option to buy. Even if they didn't $950 a month for a 2300 sq ft house is a pretty good deal.

 

[daddymikey1975]

They have an option to buy. Even if they didn't $950 a month for a 2300 sq ft house is a pretty good deal.

How much was the option fee? Keep the dough, follow the letter of the law regarding their security deposit and notification requirements and re-rent the house
You have an obligation to mitigate circumstances and costs as well as the tenant.

You can't sue them for losses not realized. You must send them notification of default and intent to quit and evict. Follow the law carefully, get the house.cleaned up and get more money coming in

 

[LEaSH]

I don't think you can cancel the lease if you are still getting paid regularly.

If not, proceed to evict.

If they both signed the lease and only one person lives there, that's OK (as long as you are getting full payment).

If the remaining person brings in someone else to live there (not listed on the lease), that's not OK.

There are other crappy ways to get them out that I wont list here. But they're totally legal if not unethical.

 

[Beau]

Who's names are on the contract? What are the terms on the contract? Should be spelled out pretty clearly.

Maybe 88GT will pop in here. She is the resident "property management" expert!

Both the man and woman are listed on the lease. The lease does specify that any changes in occupancy require written consent from me.

The woman did change the locks which is in violation of lease terms.

There is an abandonment clause that states that if the tenant vacates the premises before the end of the lease without written permission the the house is considered to be abandoned and they are in default of the lease. Only one of them has left the premises though.

The lease also states that if the tenant violates any part of the lease agreement they are in default of the lease and that I have the right to initiate legal action in accordance with state law.

I really don't want to have to go the route of eviction though. I don't have the time or money to do such things. I would like to be able to cancel the lease and renew with just one of them.

How much was the option fee? Keep the dough, follow the letter of the law regarding their security deposit and notification requirements and re-rent the house
You have an obligation to mitigate circumstances and costs as well as the tenant.

You can't sue them for losses not realized. You must send them notification of default and intent to quit and evict. Follow the law carefully, get the house.cleaned up and get more money coming in

No fee for the option. No security deposit. In fact I gave them the first 3 months free in exchange for them replacing the carpet during their lease.

 

[eldirector]

Not legal advice, but maybe an option or two:

A) Have the current tenant provide you with a key to the new locks. That problem is solved.
B) Draw up a new contract for the current tenant to sign. Then draw up a contract that terminates the previous tenants obligations, and have him sign it. Remind him that if he does NOT sign the paperwork removing him from the current lease, then he is still legally responsible for EVERYTHING, just as if he was still living there. If she were to stop paying rent, he is on the hook for it.

Googled up an example lease amendment:
Lease Amendment - LawDepot.com

 

[indytechnerd]

Maybe I missed it, but is the remaining tenant still paying the rent?

 

[Beau]

Not legal advice, but maybe an option or two:

A) Have the current tenant provide you with a key to the new locks. That problem is solved.
B) Draw up a new contract for the current tenant to sign. Then draw up a contract that terminates the previous tenants obligations, and have him sign it. Remind him that if he does NOT sign the paperwork removing him from the current lease, then he is still legally responsible for EVERYTHING, just as if he was still living there. If she were to stop paying rent, he is on the hook for it.

Googled up an example lease amendment:
Lease Amendment - LawDepot.com

I'm going to try this route. The problem is that both tenants want to stay and want the other out. I don't think either one of them can afford on their own though.

Maybe I missed it, but is the remaining tenant still paying the rent?

They haven't even started yet. First rent payment is due September. Three months free if they replace the carpet which is not done yet.

 

[indytechnerd]

Is there a clause in the contract that lets you void the lease? They've got 3 months free, you've got new carpet. Time for them to go find somewhere else (either together or separate) to live.

 

[Tim Enyeart]

You have a lot at stake and it seems it would be wise to get legal advice.

 

[eldirector]

I'm going to try this route. The problem is that both tenants want to stay and want the other out. I don't think either one of them can afford on their own though.

Domestic dispute? I wouldn't wade into that mess. Just remind them they are BOTH on the contract, and you are happy to amend once they work out their personal issues. Until then, don't miss any payments or they are BOTH out.

This is why my in-laws hate renting to "roomies" and un-married couples. It rarely ever works out.

 

[Beau]

Domestic dispute? I wouldn't wade into that mess. Just remind them they are BOTH on the contract, and you are happy to amend once they work out their personal issues. Until then, don't miss any payments or they are BOTH out.

This is why my in-laws hate renting to "roomies" and un-married couples. It rarely ever works out.

I agree. Due to time constraints though on getting it rented while I was here in Indy last time they were the best choice. I'm back in Indy but only for a few days and I need to find a way to settle this. I really can't afford this nonsense right now, mentally and financially.

 

[hornadylnl]

I agree. Due to time constraints though on getting it rented while I was here in Indy last time they were the best choice. I'm back in Indy but only for a few days and I need to find a way to settle this. I really can't afford this nonsense right now, mentally and financially.

This is why I'm not a landlord. I had 3 different houses that I could have rented out. They all sat empty until they sold. Have you tried selling the house?

 

[Beau]

This is why I'm not a landlord. I had 3 different houses that I could have rented out. They all sat empty until they sold. Have you tried selling the house?

Twice. I purchased on a short sale and with market I can't get what I owe on it.

 

[88GT]

Try this: if they can't come to an agreement between them on how to resolve their issues within the terms of the lease, tell them you'll be happy to terminate the lease and all their obligations to it except for the carpet replacement (I sure hope you spelled out the terms of carpet replacement) and forfeiture of the security deposit (you did get a security deposit, didn't you?). Once that obligations is met, you will sign the termination document and they are free and clear. If one wants to re-negotiate for a lease with that unit, you're open to that. (No more freebies though.)

While I agree with many of your lease terms, enforcing them is almost always an after-the-fact deal, and what good is that? Additionally, terms for which there are no remedies for the landlord except lease termination and tenant eviction are very hard to enforce when the violation itself is a minor thing. Do you really want to evict a tenant for not informing you that one of them moved out if you're still getting rent? But not evicting is letting a violation slide? What message is that sending? I know, I have a few lines in my leases where I just hope and pray the Frau ***** attitude I present at the lease signing is enough to scare them straight. It never fails, most people who default, default big time though. Those little things just make my case all that much stronger.


State law requires you to provide a time period for the tenant to cure the default if the default is curable (things like provide updates on occupancy, pay the unpaid rent, mow the 18" grass) before you instruct them of their requirement to quit the premises. If it is an incurable default, like violations regarding the number of times LE are called to the property for tenant actions, obviously no such time is required since nobody can reverse what's already happened.

So if you intend to terminate, you'd better provide such a time period. (This would meld nicely with their option to work things out on their own within the terms of the lease) I would be careful about issuing a quit notice and starting eviction proceedings on certain violations though, particularly those violations that don't affect payment of rent, integrity of the property, or your risk of loss.

At any rate, if their only violations to date are occupancy changes without written notification, I don't think it's worth a notice to quit and initiation of eviction proceedings. A judge may find your lease terms "unreasonable" and void the relevant section.

 

[Beau]

Try this: if they can't come to an agreement between them on how to resolve their issues within the terms of the lease, tell them you'll be happy to terminate the lease and all their obligations to it except for the carpet replacement (I sure hope you spelled out the terms of carpet replacement) and forfeiture of the security deposit (you did get a security deposit, didn't you?). Once that obligations is met, you will sign the termination document and they are free and clear. If one wants to re-negotiate for a lease with that unit, you're open to that. (No more freebies though.)

While I agree with many of your lease terms, enforcing them is almost always an after-the-fact deal, and what good is that? Additionally, terms for which there are no remedies for the landlord except lease termination and tenant eviction are very hard to enforce when the violation itself is a minor thing. Do you really want to evict a tenant for not informing you that one of them moved out if you're still getting rent? But not evicting is letting a violation slide? What message is that sending? I know, I have a few lines in my leases where I just hope and pray the Frau ***** attitude I present at the lease signing is enough to scare them straight. It never fails, most people who default, default big time though. Those little things just make my case all that much stronger.


State law requires you to provide a time period for the tenant to cure the default if the default is curable (things like provide updates on occupancy, pay the unpaid rent, mow the 18" grass) before you instruct them of their requirement to quit the premises. If it is an incurable default, like violations regarding the number of times LE are called to the property for tenant actions, obviously no such time is required since nobody can reverse what's already happened.

So if you intend to terminate, you'd better provide such a time period. (This would meld nicely with their option to work things out on their own within the terms of the lease) I would be careful about issuing a quit notice and starting eviction proceedings on certain violations though, particularly those violations that don't affect payment of rent, integrity of the property, or your risk of loss.

At any rate, if their only violations to date are occupancy changes without written notification, I don't think it's worth a notice to quit and initiation of eviction proceedings. A judge may find your lease terms "unreasonable" and void the relevant section.

Thank you for your advice. I really appreciate it.

I told them that I was willing to release one of them from the lease if the other was willing to assume full responsibility for the original lease. The second option is that they both stay on the lease regardless of who is staying there. The only other violation they have currently committed is that the remaining tenant changed the locks without written permission.

At this point I am not ready to suggest releasing them from the lease. If I did this I would have to go through the process of renting the property again. That would involve time and money that I do not have.

I did not require a security deposit and since they have not been there a full three months yet I do not think I could require carpet replacement if I released from the lease at this point.

 

[88GT]

Arrrrrgh. I had a wonderful response typed out and somehow didn't submit. Second efforts are never as good.

Thank you for your advice. I really appreciate it.

You're welcome. I'm a veteran at landlording.

I told them that I was willing to release one of them from the lease if the other was willing to assume full responsibility for the original lease. The second option is that they both stay on the lease regardless of who is staying there. The only other violation they have currently committed is that the remaining tenant changed the locks without written permission.

As I see it, you don't have grounds for eviction yet. Changing locks is a curable default and short of refusal to provide you a key (which is tantamount to denying you access), you don't have much in the way of justification. Occupancy notification isn't going to cut it. Oh, it's possible the judge will rule in your favor, but more than likely he'll order the tenants to cure the defaults and deny your request. Just a guess.

At this point I am not ready to suggest releasing them from the lease. If I did this I would have to go through the process of renting the property again. That would involve time and money that I do not have.

Never let pennies hold up dollars. You're losing money now, you just don't know it yet. IMO anyway.

I did not require a security deposit

For the love of all that's holy, why not?

and since they have not been there a full three months yet I do not think I could require carpet replacement if I released from the lease at this point.

You could because it would be a mutually agreed upon decision put in writing involving nothing more than the terms of the lease termination. It's an amendment to the lease changing the termination date. Nothing more. Amendments are perfectly legal and absolutely enforceable.

Threadjack: this is a perfect opportunity to drive home a few points for those who might be considering leasing out a residence or are new to the game.

1.ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS require a security deposit.

2. Never make a trade for something in lieu of rent unless you make your obligation conditional upon the completion of their obligation.

3. #2 is a bad, bad idea even if you follow my advice.

4. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS require a security deposit.


Back to the OP: Beau, I think your hands are tied until the end of August unless they take you up on your offer (which I doubt they will; neither one will agree to remain obligated to the lease as it stands now knowing the other one is walking scott free). At which point I fear you'll have a unit with 3 months of wear, no rent, and no new carpet. Come September when they don't pay, whatcha gonna do?

 

[El Guero]

two, months and no carpet? i dont think you will get one at this point.