Did you read the line in the OP where the deceased/estate own real estate worth ≈ $300m? You’re comment is correct IF the estate had no assets, which is not the case here.
Would it work the other way too? I mean if he actually got 11 months rent out of the estate, wouldn’t he be obliged not to try to get another renter until the lease is up? Otherwise he’d be getting rent twice for the same property at the same time.
Just FTR 300K
I would have thought the death of the tenant would break the lease, but I googled upon seeing this thread and was surprised that it doesn’t and the estate is responsibly for the remainder of the lease. However, I would think the landlord would prefer a live tenant, so they would be cooperative in allowing an early termination. So I recommend that the OP approach the landlord or management company in a friendly manner. One might also seek advice from a local tenant’s group or social service organization (or just from the lawyer handling the estate).
No, 300m.
Lowercase = thousands.
A deceased tenant doesn’t wear out carpet, create scuff marks on the walls, which then need to be repainted, break a door hinge, etc. I’d save money by not needing to replace normal wear & tear items that I couldn’t charge the tenant for by withholding a security deposit.
I get that, but then you end up with those blocks in Manhattan or London where every single unit is dark at night because they’re all owned by absentee foreigners. It doesn’t help to establish a community in the building or the area.
I somehow doubt that “community” is anyone’s priority here.
I think that convention is on its way out, because of the ambiguity.
Is the apartment now vacant? IOW have you moved all of your brother’s belongings out?
If so, is the landlord making reasonable attempts to re-rent the unit?
He better not be, if the landlord is holding the estate liable for the lease. Dead Brother has the right to use of that space until the lease is terminated.
As a landlord, he has a duty to mitigate damages to the estate, by making reasonable efforts to rent the vacated unit.
But if the OP’s brother’s possessions are still occupying the unit, then he has not yet vacated.
Also OP, how old is your brother & in which state did he reside?
There are some tenant’s rights that give special consideration to tenants older than 60.
No, it is an either/or. The landlord does not get to collect double rent. But in MOST contractual disputes, when one party breaches their contractual duty, the other party has the obligation to mitigate their damages. They don’t get to just sit there, fail to try to rent the apartment, and expect the estate to pay full freight.
Now, if it is a really unusual property, it might take a considerable time to re-let it. But if the landlord could simply advertise it and get an adequate tenant in a month or 2, they are obligated to do so. In which case, the most they could go after the estate for is the months it took to get a new tenant.
As others have observed, terms of the contract and state law are VERY important.
And, as others observed, if the deceased’s property is still there, he/his estate is still occupying the place.
Family/executor should empty the place ASAP, and send the landlord a registered letter informing them of the death and asking the landlord to re-let ASAP.
Never seen that except as outline numbering, and never seen it at all as a suffix for a number. Even the article you linked does not show its use as in 300m.
No, he can most certainly do both, that’s how breaking a lease works. If you announce that you’re breaking a lease, then (barring other provisions or local laws to the contrary) you’re still responsible for paying rent through the end of the lease. The landlord can sue you for whatever that ends up being. However, in most states the landlord is actually obligated to attempt to rent the unit out as soon as is reasonable after you announce that you’re breaking the lease. In that case, the landlord tries to rent the estate out and once he finds a new tenant, the lease ends and you only owe rent for the time it was unoccupied.
Insisting on the conditions that you are would be about the worst possible option; generally you want to landlord to rent the unit out, since it means you’re liable for a lot less rent in the end.
Your number one priority is to get a lawyer. Do not make a move without a lawyer, and certainly don’t make any offers of lending money to the landlord.
State / local laws will apply as to the details, of course.
My understanding is that in general, the landlord can hold the vacating tenant liable for the rent but must make a good faith effort to re-rent the place, as well - he can’t simply expect to collect rent and leave it vacant.
Nor should he. Until the other property is sold, there’s no money coming in. There are maintenance concerns: an empty apartment means nobody to call you if a pipe breaks and the place is flooding, the roof leaks (ditto), there’s a funny smell coming whenever the furnace comes on, there are sparks coming from the electric outlets, and so on.
I’d suggest you watch the place carefully though - I wouldn’t put it past this landlord to re-rent the place and not tell you, thereby collecting double rent.
Semi-relevant anecdote: a family member’s mother-in-law and father-in-law lived in a rented condo in Florida. While visiting family out of state, the mother died suddenly. The family member, and his FIL, went to Florida to clear out their belongings as FIL wanted to move closer to his adult kids vs living a thousand miles away alone.
His landlord was not a dick - and let them out of the lease right away (maybe 30 day notice or something).