# Does she owe the rent or am I crazy? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 21, 2006, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653 "2006-04-21T17:09:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/41 "2006-04-23T17:18:59Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > I was unable to locate a moral or ethical code for Portland. OTOH, you had notice that she planned to leave way back in March. Did you ask her when she was moving out? Did you tell her that you expected her to pay rent for a full month when you knew she planned to leave before its end? Did you ask her to put her intentions in writing? Why not? I do find it interesting that people just don’t believe that I’m not interested in the legal questions. Is it so hard to believe that I just want to do what’s right and that the law does not answer that question? Perhaps I need to start another thread debating the distinction between what is legal and what is right. As to your questions, I did not ask her when she was moving out. We did tell her that we expected her to pay rent for a full month when we knew she planned to leave a full month early (a few days ago). We did not ask her to put her intentions into writing. Why would we have done that at this point? > [@irishgirl](#): > > As it is, someone knew she was leaving early in March, and you’ve still got almost a week to find a new tenant for a month- plenty of notice. I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but finding someone to live in a place for a month with a week’s notice is not plenty of time here. > [@irishgirl](#): > > It is not a tenant’s responsibility to find a new tenant before vacating a property, and it is not the legal responsibility of a non-leaseholder to pay rent when they are not resident- **why on earth would it be**? Because if her name had been on the lease (which she understood and was willing to sign), this is exactly what her obligation would have been. Let me be absolutely clear again: I understand why this is not a good legal argument, but I fail to see why it isn’t an ethical one. ---
**Author:** ![Stainz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecd19e/32.png) [@Stainz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stainz)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/42 "2006-04-23T18:13:58Z")
I think what is “right” is a huge grey area, as it relies on her intent, which none of us know. Is she a dishonest person? Or is she maybe just young and/or inexperienced about how rental / sublet / roommate situations work? Did she KNOW and UNDERSTAND that you all expected a full calendar month’s notice of when she intended to vacate? Is she an unpleasant, unreliable person? Is she a friend of any of your roommates’ or did she come in off the street? We don’t know any of this stuff (unless I’ve missed something), so it’s hard for us to judge whether she is right or wrong, and whether you are right or wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/43 "2006-04-23T18:45:14Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > I do find it interesting that people just don’t believe that I’m not interested in the legal questions. Is it so hard to believe that I just want to do what’s right and that the law does not answer that question? I guess this is what is confusing me: > [@Richard Parker](#): > > In the absence of a signed document, is she basically a month-to-month tenant who has no obligation to stay so long as she gives us notice? If this is the case, was her notice adequate? We have her security deposit in cash, do we refund it to her or spend it on her rent? Morality and ethics really don’t provide answers to these questions, IMO, beyond a very high-level, and long-lived (goes back at least to Plato) debate about what moral force the law has. Is that your question? You could start by reviewing the [Crito](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito). Once you’ve read that, we can work our way through the history of philosophy and eventually reach present day philosophy of law. I’d be happy to give you a reading list. But here’s a quick summary. Virtually nobody argues that it’s ok to ignore the law just because you want to. > [@](#): > > Perhaps I need to start another thread debating the distinction between what is legal and what is right. Another topic that has vexed philosophers for centuries. The modern debate is generally traced back to [John Austin](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/austin-john/). It’s a whole other reading list, but there will be some overlap. More fundamentally, where did you get the idea that the law doesn’t say what the proper form of notice of termination is, or what a landlord’s (really, check out the statutes that I cited) obligations are with respect to security deposits? > [@](#): > > As to your questions, I did not ask her when she was moving out. We did tell her that we expected her to pay rent for a full month when we knew she planned to leave a full month early (a few days ago). We did not ask her to put her intentions into writing. Why would we have done that at this point? To try to avoid a situation where she moves out earlier than you expect? Just because it’s a logical thing to ask? Maybe because if you had her move out date in writing back in March, you might have been able to locate a temporary tenant (maybe not, but now you’re[pretty much screwed). > [@](#): > > Because if her name had been on the lease (which she understood and was willing to sign), this is exactly what her obligation would have been. Moral? Legal? Ethical? Religious? 😕 > [@](#): > > Let me be absolutely clear again: I understand why this is not a good legal argument, but I fail to see why it isn’t an ethical one. See my comments above. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/44 "2006-04-23T19:59:42Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Is that your question? You could start by reviewing the [Crito](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito). Once you’ve read that, we can work our way through the history of philosophy and eventually reach present day philosophy of law. I’d be happy to give you a reading list. But here’s a quick summary. Virtually nobody argues that it’s ok to ignore the law just because you want to. I’m not sure why you’re talking to me like there is a debate over whether what is legal has a one-to-one relationship with what is right. There is no such debate. Crito, and the history of philosophy that followed, was about whether we have a unique moral obligation to follow the law–not whether the law is the same as morality. I trust you understand the distinction. If we were to draw a Venn diagram with the law in one circle, and the Good in the other circle, there would not be a perfect overlap. There are lots of reasons for this. Here are a few: sometimes the law is wrong, sometimes the law is outdated, sometimes the law is made for public policy reasons and not individual morality reasons, sometimes the law is crafted for reasons of what can be proven to an objective observer, etc. I think you would agree that, ethically, if 1) we had a mutual understanding that when you leave early you find a sub-letter or you pay the rent, and 2) that she decided to leave early without doing either, then she has done something unethical, despite being perfectly legal. Now 1 may not be true, and given the reactions in this thread I can see better where she was coming from, but do you understand now why I make the distinction between legal/ethical? > [@Gfactor](#): > > More fundamentally, where did you get the idea that the law doesn’t say what the proper form of notice of termination is, or what a landlord’s (really, check out the statutes that I cited) obligations are with respect to security deposits? I don’t have that idea. > [@Gfactor](#): > > Moral? Legal? Ethical? Religious? All four! [I don’t actually know about the fourth one]. ---
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/45 "2006-04-23T20:52:21Z")
Richard, you clearly believe that you are right and the subletter was wrong, and you’re fishing for opinions from us to support your point of view. Whether you want legal, ethical, or some other kind of opinion doesn’t seem to matter. You just want confirmation that you’re right in asking her to pay the last month’s rent. Basically there is no clear right or wrong in your situation. However, you and your roommates behaved very naively during this whole thing. So suck it up, admit you made a mistake, and get on with it. The subletter has made it clear that she’s not paying the last month, and you’ve stated that you do not intend to pursue legal action. End of story. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/46 "2006-04-23T21:07:25Z")
> [@ratatoskK](#): > > Richard, you clearly believe that you are right and the subletter was wrong, and you’re fishing for opinions from us to support your point of view. Whether you want legal, ethical, or some other kind of opinion doesn’t seem to matter. You just want confirmation that you’re right in asking her to pay the last month’s rent. > > Basically there is no clear right or wrong in your situation. However, you and your roommates behaved very naively during this whole thing. So suck it up, admit you made a mistake, and get on with it. The subletter has made it clear that she’s not paying the last month, and you’ve stated that you do not intend to pursue legal action. End of story. :rolleyes: Any other opinions? 😛 Just kidding. I’m sorry I’ve come off as fishing for confirmation. FWIW, I did come into the thread thinking we were in the right by expecting her to pay, but I leave it less sure. [You will note, however, that I admitted my mistake in the OP.] ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/47 "2006-04-23T21:25:45Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > I’m not sure why you’re talking to me like there is a debate over whether what is legal has a one-to-one relationship with what is right. There is no such debate. Crito, and the history of philosophy that followed, was about whether we have a unique moral obligation to follow the law–not whether the law is the same as morality. I trust you understand the distinction. Can you cite me any philosphers who talk about whether, morally, a signed lease (as opposed to an oral one) is relevant to a tenant’s moral obligations to a landlord? Or what a landlord’s obligations are to a tenant with respect to security deposits? What are your moral claims on these topics? These are highly technical questions which seem morally inert. Their answers are practical–not moral or ethical. It’s kinda like rules about which side of the road to drive on. It is difficult to identify a moral criterion for deciding on which side of the road to drive. If there is no rule, it gets dangerous, so for practical reasons we need to pick one. Once we’ve done so moral arguments can be made about whether the rule ought to be followed. But that’s an argument about the moral force of the law, among other things–not the rule itself. Here too. Any number of rules could be developed regarding security deposits. It would be difficult to choose one over the other on specific moral grounds. On the permissibility and amount of security deposits 1. No landlord may require a security deposit. 2. Landlords may require a security deposit equal to no more than one month’s rent. All money required of a tenant other than monthly rental payments count as security deposits. 3. Landlords can require any funds they want from tenants before surrendering the leased premises. On the handling of security deposits 1. Landlords must deposit security deposits in an insured account and notify the tenant of the location of the account. 2. Landlords must put each security deposit in a separate interest-bearing account. At the end of the lease, the landlord must return the entire account balance to the tenant including earned interest. 3. Landlords can do whatever they want with security deposits. On the return of security deposits 1. Landlord must return the security deposit at the end of the lease. Failure to do so is a felony. 2. Landlord must complete an inspection checklist at the beginning of the lease. Landlord may only deduct for unpaid rent or required repairs not identified on the checklist. Failure to account for the balance within 15 days after termination of the lease subjects the landlord to liability for twice the security deposit plus attorney’s fees. For reference, here is Oregon’s rule: > [@](#): > > 90.300 Security deposits; prepaid rent. (1) As used in this section, “security deposit” includes any last month’s rent deposit. > > ``` > (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a landlord may require the payment of a security deposit. A security deposit or prepaid rent shall be held by the landlord for the tenant who is a party to the rental agreement. The claim of a tenant to the security deposit or prepaid rent shall be prior to the claim of any creditor of the landlord, including a trustee in bankruptcy. The holder of the landlord’s interest in the premises at the time of termination of the tenancy is responsible to the tenant for any security deposit or prepaid rent and is bound by this section. > > (3)(a) A landlord may not change the rental agreement to require the payment of a new or increased security deposit during the first year after the tenancy has begun, except that an additional deposit may be required if the landlord and tenant agree to modify the terms and conditions of the rental agreement to permit a pet or for other cause and the additional deposit relates to that modification. This paragraph does not prevent the collection of a security deposit that was provided for under an initial rental agreement but remained unpaid at the time the tenancy began. > > (b) If a landlord requires a new or increased security deposit after the first year of the tenancy, the landlord shall allow the tenant at least three months to pay that deposit. > > (4) The landlord may claim all or part of the security deposit only if the security deposit was made for any or all of the purposes provided by subsection (5) of this section. > > (5) The landlord may claim from the security deposit only the amount reasonably necessary: > > (a) To remedy the tenant’s defaults in the performance of the rental agreement including, but not limited to, unpaid rent; and > > (b) To repair damages to the premises caused by the tenant, not including ordinary wear and tear. > > (6) A landlord may not require that a security deposit or prepaid rent be required or forfeited to the landlord upon the failure of the tenant to maintain a tenancy for a minimum number of months in a month-to-month tenancy. > > (7) Any last month’s rent deposit must be applied to the rent due for the last month of the tenancy: > > (a) Upon either the landlord or tenant giving to the other a notice of termination, pursuant to this chapter, other than a notice of termination under ORS 90.394; > > (b) Upon agreement by the landlord and tenant to terminate the tenancy; or > > (c) Upon termination pursuant to the provisions of a written rental agreement for a term tenancy. > > (8) Any portion of a last month’s rent deposit not applied as provided under subsection (7) of this section shall be accounted for and refunded as provided under subsections (10) to (12) of this section. Unless the tenant and landlord agree otherwise, a last month’s rent deposit shall not be applied to rent due for any period other than the last month of the tenancy. A last month’s rent deposit shall not operate to limit the amount of rent charged unless a written rental agreement provides otherwise. > > (9) Upon termination of the tenancy, a landlord shall account for and refund to the tenant the unused balance of any prepaid rent not previously refunded to the tenant as required by ORS 90.380 and 105.120 (4)(b) or any other provision of this chapter, in the same manner as required for security deposits by this section. The landlord may claim from the remaining prepaid rent only the amount reasonably necessary to pay the tenant’s unpaid rent. > > (10) In order to claim all or part of any prepaid rent or security deposit, within 31 days after the termination of the tenancy and delivery of possession the landlord shall give to the tenant a written accounting that states specifically the basis or bases of the claim. The landlord shall give a separate accounting for security deposits and for prepaid rent. > > (11) The security deposit or prepaid rent or portion thereof not claimed in the manner provided by subsections (9) and (10) of this section shall be returned to the tenant not later than 31 days after the termination of the tenancy and delivery of possession to the landlord. > > (12) The landlord shall give the written accounting as required by subsection (10) of this section or shall return the security deposit or prepaid rent as required by subsection (11) of this section by personal delivery or by first class mail. > > (13) If a security deposit or prepaid rent secures a tenancy for a space for a tenant owned and occupied manufactured dwelling or floating home, whether or not in a facility, and the dwelling or home is abandoned as described in ORS 90.425 (2) or 90.675 (2), the 31-day period described in subsections (10) and (11) of this section commences on the earliest of: > > (a) Waiver of the abandoned property process under ORS 90.425 (25) or 90.675 (22); > > (b) Removal of the manufactured dwelling or floating home from the rented space; > > (c) Destruction or other disposition of the manufactured dwelling or floating home under ORS 90.425 (10)(b) or 90.675 (10)(b); or > > (d) Sale of the manufactured dwelling or floating home pursuant to ORS 90.425 (10)(a) or 90.675 (10)(a). > > (14) If the landlord fails to comply with subsection (11) of this section or if the landlord in bad faith fails to return all or any portion of any prepaid rent or security deposit due to the tenant under this chapter or the rental agreement, the tenant may recover the money due in an amount equal to twice the amount: > > (a) Withheld without a written accounting under subsection (10) of this section; or > > (b) Withheld in bad faith. > > (15)(a) A security deposit or prepaid rent in the possession of the landlord is not garnishable property, as provided in ORS 18.618. > > (b) If a security deposit or prepaid rent is delivered to a garnishor in violation of ORS 18.618 (2), the landlord that delivered the security deposit or prepaid rent to the garnishor shall allow the tenant at least 30 days after a copy of the garnishee response required by ORS 18.680 is delivered to the tenant under ORS 18.690 to restore the security deposit or prepaid rent. If the tenant fails to restore a security deposit or prepaid rent under the provisions of this paragraph before the tenancy terminates, and the landlord retains no security deposit or prepaid rent from the tenant after the garnishment, the landlord is not required to refund or account for the security deposit or prepaid rent under subsection (9) of this section. > > (16) This section does not preclude the landlord or tenant from recovering other damages under this chapter. [Formerly 91.760; 1993 c.369 §4; 1995 c.559 §12; 1997 c.577 §13; 1999 c.603 §15; 2001 c.596 §31; 2003 c.658 §3; 2005 c.391 §3] > > 90.302 Fees allowed for certain landlord expenses; accounting not required. (1) Except as specifically provided otherwise in this chapter, a landlord may require the payment of a fee, if the fee is related to and designated as being charged for a specific reasonably anticipated landlord expense. A landlord shall provide a receipt for the fee, and the receipt or a written rental agreement shall describe the anticipated landlord expense to be covered by the fee and describe the landlord’s duties under subsection (4) of this section. > > (2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a landlord may not charge a fee more than once, at the beginning of or during the tenancy. > > (3) A landlord may charge a fee more than once, at the beginning of or during the tenancy, for: > > (a) A late rent payment, pursuant to ORS 90.260; > > (b) A dishonored check, pursuant to ORS 30.701 (5); > > (c) Removal or tampering with a properly functioning smoke alarm or smoke detector, as provided in ORS 90.325 (7), if a written rental agreement provides for a fee for that removal or tampering; and > > (d) Any other noncompliance by the tenant with a written rental agreement that provides for a fee for that noncompliance, provided that the fee may not be excessive. > > (4) A landlord may not be required to account for or return to the tenant any fee. Upon termination of a tenancy and delivery of possession, a landlord shall first apply any fee to the related landlord expense as reasonably assessed against the tenant, before applying the tenant’s security deposit, if any, to that expense. > > (5) Nonpayment of a fee is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent under ORS 90.394, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause under ORS 90.392 or 90.630 (1). > > (6) This section does not apply to attorney fees awarded pursuant to ORS 90.255 or to applicant screening charges paid pursuant to ORS 90.295. [1995 c.559 §13; 1997 c.577 §14; 1999 c.307 §19; 1999 c.603 §16; 2005 c.391 §18] > > ``` Michigan’s > [@](#): > > 554.602 Security deposit; amount. > > Sec. 2. > > A landlord may require a security deposit for each rental unit. A security deposit shall be required and maintained in accordance with the terms of this act and shall not exceed 1 1/2 months’ rent. > > 554.603 Security deposit; notice. > > Sec. 3. > > A landlord shall not require a security deposit unless he notifies the tenant no later than 14 days from the date a tenant assumes possession in a written instrument of the landlord’s name and address for receipt of communications under this act, the name and address of the financial institution or surety required by section 4 and the tenant’s obligation to provide in writing a forwarding mailing address to the landlord within 4 days after termination of occupancy. The notice shall include the following statement in 12 point boldface type which is at least 4 points larger than the body of the notice or lease agreement: “You must notify your landlord in writing within 4 days after you move of a forwarding address where you can be reached and where you will receive mail; otherwise your landlord shall be relieved of sending you an itemized list of damages and the penalties adherent to that failure.” Failure to provide the information relieves the tenant of his obligation relative to notification of the landlord of his forwarding mailing address. > > 554.604 Security deposit, disposition; bond. > > Sec. 4. > > (1) The security deposit shall be deposited in a regulated financial institution. A landlord may use the moneys so deposited for any purposes he desires if he deposits with the secretary of state a cash bond or surety bond written by a surety company licensed to do business in this state and acceptable to the attorney general to secure the entire deposits up to $50,000.00 and 25% of any amount exceeding $50,000.00. The attorney general may find a bond unacceptable based only upon reasonable criteria relating to the sufficiency of the bond, and shall notify the landlord in writing of his reasons for the unacceptability of the bond. > > (2) The bond shall be for the benefit of persons making security deposits with the landlord. A person for whose benefit the bond is written or his legal representative may bring an action in the district, common pleas or municipal court where the landlord resides or does business for collection on the bond. > > * * * > > 554.609 Itemized list of damages; check or money order; contents of notice of damages. > > Sec. 9. > > In case of damage to the rental unit or other obligation against the security deposit, the landlord shall mail to the tenant, within 30 days after the termination of occupancy, an itemized list of damages claimed for which the security deposit may be used as provided in section 7, including the estimated cost of repair of each property damaged item and the amounts and bases on which he intends to assess the tenant. The list shall be accompanied by a check or money order for the difference between the damages claimed and the amount of the security deposit held by the landlord and shall not include any damages that were claimed on a previous termination inventory checklist prior to the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit. The notice of damages shall include the following statement in 12 point boldface type which shall be at least 4 points larger than the body of the notice: “You must respond to this notice by mail within 7 days after receipt of same, otherwise you will forfeit the amount claimed for damages.”. > > * * * > > 554.613 Action for damages; retention of security deposit; waiver. > > Sec. 13. > > (1) Within 45 days after termination of the occupancy and not thereafter the landlord may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a money judgment for damages which he has claimed or in lieu thereof return the balance of the security deposit held by him to the tenant or any amount mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties. A landlord shall not be entitled to retain any portion of a security deposit for damages claimed unless he has first obtained a money judgment for the disputed amount or filed with the court satisfactory proof of an inability to obtain service on the tenant or unless: > > (a) The tenant has failed to provide a forwarding address as required by section 11. > > (b) The tenant has failed to respond to the notice of damages as required by section 12. > > © The parties have agreed in writing to the disposition of the balance of the deposit claimed by the landlord. > > (d) The amount claimed is entirely based upon accrued and unpaid rent equal to the actual rent for any full rental period or portion thereof during which the tenant has had actual or constructive possession of the premises. > [@](#): > > If we were to draw a Venn diagram with the law in one circle, and the Good in the other circle, there would not be a perfect overlap. There are lots of reasons for this. Here are a few: sometimes the law is wrong, sometimes the law is outdated, sometimes the law is made for public policy reasons and not individual morality reasons, sometimes the law is crafted for reasons of what can be proven to an objective observer, etc. But when the law requires one to do something or refrain from doing something, one requires some sort of justification for ignoring it. You’ve given none. So this really seems like a tempest in a teacup. Without a justification for varying from it, you ought to follow the law. And I haven’t seen you argue anywhere that the law is wrong or outdated. What is your argument exactly? > [@](#): > > I think you would agree that, ethically, if 1) we had a mutual understanding that when you leave early you find a sub-letter or you pay the rent, And you pretty clearly did not. > [@](#): > > Now 1 may not be true, and given the reactions in this thread I can see better where she was coming from, but do you understand now why I make the distinction between legal/ethical? Actually no. If you had a mutual understanding, the result would be overdetermined. The law enforces agreements. You didn’t have one that says what you want it to. So you are hoping what? That public opinion will say that you did? Why? You’ve given no ethical or moral reason why anyone should see it your way, other than that’s what you want to happen. > [@](#): > > I don’t have that idea. I think you do. I leave it to others who read this thread to form their own opinions about the issue. > [@](#): > > All four! [I don’t actually know about the fourth one]. As a lawyer who has handled my share of landlord tenant matters (on both sides) I’ll share a morsel of my legal knowledge with you. No. Wrong. Not the law. Try again. It’s a lot more complicated than that, and there is no duty to find a replacement tenant in any of the jurisdictions with which I am familiar. In many cases it is the landlord (and yes, a sublessor is a landlord) who has a duty to mitigage damages by attempting to relet the property. Your jurisdiction may be different, but it doesn’t look like it. See section 90.125 (aggrieved party has duty to mitigate). Can you cite me some authority for your legal claim? Moral and ethical? Got a cite? How about an argument? Try not to rely on legal standards or the language of contract because we both know that’s not what we are talking about here. As several others have already said, as a practical matter, both sides screwed up. Your subtenant could have made her intentions clearer, and probably should have done so in writing. You could have had her sign the lease or a sublease, but for whatever reason you didn’t. This even though you say she was willing to do so. You could also have asked for clarification about move out arrangements and payments. But you didn’t. You don’t have a good explanation for either of these omissions. I don’t think you will find many who sympathize with you. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/48 "2006-04-23T21:54:12Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Can you cite me any philosphers who talk about whether, morally, a signed lease (as opposed to an oral one) is relevant to a tenant’s moral obligations to a landlord? Or what a landlord’s obligations are to a tenant with respect to security deposits? What are your moral claims on these topics? These are highly technical questions which seem morally inert. Their answers are practical–not moral or ethical. Complicated does not mean amoral. Surely there are ethical obligations in tenant-landlord relationships. The fact that they are complicated is why I was seeking advice. > [@Gfactor](#): > > It’s kinda like rules about which side of the road to drive on. It is difficult to identify a moral criterion for deciding on which side of the road to drive. If there is no rule, it gets dangerous, so for practical reasons we need to pick one. Once we’ve done so moral arguments can be made about whether the rule ought to be followed. But that’s an argument about the moral force of the law, among other things–not the rule itself. The examples are not analogous. I agree that driving rules have little to no moral content. Tenant-landlord relationships are filled with moral content. > [@Gfactor](#): > > But when the law requires one to do something or refrain from doing something, one requires some sort of justification for ignoring it. You’ve given none. So this really seems like a tempest in a teacup. Without a justification for varying from it, you ought to follow the law. And I haven’t seen you argue anywhere that the law is wrong or outdated. What is your argument exactly? What part of the law am I advocating breaking? The question is whether or not she is ethically obligated to pay the rent. > [@Gfactor](#): > > Actually no. If you had a mutual understanding, the result would be overdetermined. The law enforces agreements. You didn’t have one that says what you want it to. So you are hoping what? That public opinion will say that you did? Why? You’ve given no ethical or moral reason why anyone should see it your way, other than that’s what you want to happen. That’s not fair. I’ve stated my argument quite succinctly, multiple times. Again, my argument is that we had a mutual understanding regarding her obligations. You conclude that we clearly did not have such an understanding \*because \*she did not abide by it. This is rather poor reasoning; the fact that she broke that agreement does not mean it didn’t exist. > [@Gfactor](#): > > As a lawyer who has handled my share of landlord tenant matters (on both sides) I’ll share a morsel of my legal knowledge with you. > > No. Wrong. Not the law. Try again. Fair enough, I’m no lawyer. But you’re saying that even though it states so explicity in the lease, and both parties signed it, there is no obligation to find a replacement? I’d be very surprised to learn this. What other parts of the lease are we allowed to just ignore? (Keep in mind what hypothetical you were initially questioning here). ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/49 "2006-04-23T22:05:01Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > Because if her name had been on the lease (which she understood and was willing to sign), this is exactly what her obligation would have been. Let me be absolutely clear again: I understand why this is not a good legal argument, but I fail to see why it isn’t an ethical one. It doesn’t necessarily matter whether or not her name is on the original lease. Most leases include one or more clauses related to subletting and one of the conditions generally is that any sublessee will be bound by of all of the obligations under the lease. Since her sublessee status is known to the Landlord, and she has been made aware of the lease and its terms, she is, in fact, legally bound to abide by every condition, including the giving of proper notice. She didn’t. Apparently her most “official/definitive” notice was only a few days ago when she finally informed you of a specific date she intended to vacate by. If the date she is moving is prior to 30 days from the date of notice, too bad for her, she pays rent for those 30 days. In calculating how much of her deposit you are obligated to return, let’s say she gave you official/final notice on, April 20th, you owe her a pro-rated refund of her security deposit from the 20th of May until the 31st (that is assuming she’s caused no damage or you don’t have to do any cleaning at your expense to bring her living quarters into move-in condition for the next tenant). Now, if she defaulted on her obligation under the lease and you weren’t holding a deposit you could use in lieu of rent, that’s when the prior signatory of the lease assumes liability, and the landlord could legally go after either of them. However, we know the original person on the lease is unreachable, so that means unless you want to be served notice to quit by the landlord, _somebody’s_ going to have to come up with the rent, and unfortunately, at least for the portion covering the last 10 days or so of May, that’s going to be you. I have a tenant who told me several months ago that she was accepted to Boston University and would probably be moving sometime in August. That was a nice courtesy to give me that much of a heads-up, but that hardly qualifies as official notice. I do not have the right to start advertising her unit and schedule another tenant to move in on some vague date in August. If and when she gives official notice, she’ll be obliged to pay rent for the full 30 days following that notice. The same applies to your roommate, sublessee or not. That _is_ both the legal _and_ the moral answer to your question. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/50 "2006-04-23T22:10:20Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > It doesn’t necessarily matter whether or not her name is on the original lease. Most leases include one or more clauses related to subletting and one of the conditions generally is that any sublessee will be bound by of all of the obligations under the lease. Since her sublessee status is known to the Landlord, and she has been made aware of the lease and its terms, she is, in fact, legally bound to abide by every condition, including the giving of proper notice. She didn’t. Apparently her most “official/definitive” notice was only a few days ago when she finally informed you of a specific date she intended to vacate by. If the date she is moving is prior to 30 days from the date of notice, too bad for her, she pays rent for those 30 days. > > In calculating how much of her deposit you are obligated to return, let’s say she gave you official/final notice on, April 20th, you owe her a pro-rated refund of her security deposit from the 20th of May until the 31st (that is assuming she’s caused no damage or you don’t have to do any cleaning at your expense to bring her living quarters into move-in condition for the next tenant). > > Now, if she defaulted on her obligation under the lease and you weren’t holding a deposit you could use in lieu of rent, that’s when the prior signatory of the lease assumes liability, and the landlord could legally go after either of them. However, we know the original person on the lease is unreachable, so that means unless you want to be served notice to quit by the landlord, _somebody’s_ going to have to come up with the rent, and unfortunately, at least for the portion covering the last 10 days or so of May, that’s going to be you. > > I have a tenant who told me several months ago that she was accepted to Boston University and would probably be moving sometime in August. That was a nice courtesy to give me that much of a heads-up, but that hardly qualifies as official notice. I do not have the right to start advertising her unit and schedule another tenant to move in on some vague date in August. If and when she gives official notice, she’ll be obliged to pay rent for the full 30 days following that notice. The same applies to your roommate, sublessee or not. > > That _is_ both the legal _and_ the moral answer to your question. Hmm, I suppose I’ll pull out the lease and see if it has such a clause–I didn’t even think to look for something like that. ``` FWIW, the question is academic at this point. We offered to cover half the rent, and she agreed to pay the other half. I think this was a fair solution. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653/51 "2006-04-23T22:19:05Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > Complicated does not mean amoral. Surely there are ethical obligations in tenant-landlord relationships. You have not explained what you think these are, apart from contractual (legal) obligations. Let’s hear your moral case. > [@](#): > > What part of the law am I advocating breaking? I didn’t say breaking, I said ignoring. If you don’t want to ignore the law, then why is this trip even necessary? > [@](#): > > The question is whether or not she is ethically obligated to pay the rent. If she owes it, she should pay it. Does she owe it? Where can we look to answer that question? And now you are changing the question. Have you abandoned the other questions from the OP? > [@](#): > > That’s not fair. I’ve stated my argument quite succinctly, multiple times. Again, my argument is that we had a mutual understanding regarding her obligations. You conclude that we clearly did not have such an understanding \*because \*she did not abide by it. When did I say that? It’s pretty clear that you didn’t have a mutual understanding about your obligations. There’s no written agreement. How do you know what she understood? At best you had a \*unilateral \* understanding. > [@](#): > > This is rather poor reasoning; the fact that she broke that agreement does not mean it didn’t exist. Nor does your dissatisfaction with her performance of the agreement prove that its terms required her to behave differently. I guess we are at an impasse. That’s why written agreements are nice. It sounds to me like you made some assumptions that you may or may not have communicated to her. I have no way of knowing what was really said. And it’s pretty convenient for you to claim that she agreed to terms that serve your interests: 1. after the fact; and 2. without giving her a chance to defend herself. > [@](#): > > Fair enough, I’m no lawyer. But you’re saying that even though it states so explicity in the lease, I’m at a disadvantage here. You’ve got the lease. Quote me the language that explicitly says that. Then we can talk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-she-owe-the-rent-or-am-i-crazy/353653.md?page=2)