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?
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
Another topic that has vexed philosophers for centuries. The modern debate is generally traced back to John Austin. 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?
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).
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?
I don’t have that idea.
All four! [I don’t actually know about the fourth one].
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:
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.]
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
No landlord may require a security deposit.
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.
Landlords can require any funds they want from tenants before surrendering the leased premises.
On the handling of security deposits
Landlords must deposit security deposits in an insured account and notify the tenant of the location of the account.
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.
Landlords can do whatever they want with security deposits.
On the return of security deposits
Landlord must return the security deposit at the end of the lease. Failure to do so is a felony.
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:
Michigan’s
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?
And you pretty clearly did not.
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 think you do. I leave it to others who read this thread to form their own opinions about the issue.
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.
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.
The examples are not analogous. I agree that driving rules have little to no moral content. Tenant-landlord relationships are filled with moral content.
What part of the law am I advocating breaking? The question is whether or not she is ethically obligated to pay the rent.
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.
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).
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.
You have not explained what you think these are, apart from contractual (legal) obligations. Let’s hear your moral case.
I didn’t say breaking, I said ignoring. If you don’t want to ignore the law, then why is this trip even necessary?
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?
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.
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:
after the fact; and
without giving her a chance to defend herself.
I’m at a disadvantage here. You’ve got the lease. Quote me the language that explicitly says that. Then we can talk.
