No, but he didn’t care not to. He didn’t even think of it. There are, however, several posters actively supporting being a serious dick to the new tenant, probably beyond the bounds of legality.
And there’s an argument that the *new *tenant is the one getting screwed, not him.
That’s what I said. :dubious:
Good for you.,
I must have missed that. Can somebody help me here? How was the new tenant going to get screwed, whether OP meant it or not? Did old tenant suggest that new tenant, having already moved in, should be kicked out? All I saw was that old tenant wants his last six days rent back. How does that screw the new tenant? Did I miss something in this thread?
By paying for something that someone else had already paid for.
No, but several posters have suggested as much.
Yes, the reasoning.
No one has suggested kicking out the new tenant. The OP had some strange plan to move in with the tenant, and I and a few other posters suggested that if you find out ahead of time that the landlord is planning on letting a new tenant in before the lease is up, changing your move-out date until the last day of the lease as a bargaining chip to get him to pro-rate your rent. But no one said to kick out the new tenant after he’s moved in.
I still don’t know if the landlord selected the date because he SAW the OPer move out, or because the OPer said, “I’m moving out on the 18th.” IMO, there is a big difference in ethics there. In the first scenario, the landlord was completely out of line and could be in trouble for entering the tenant’s premises without permission. In the second scenario, I’m still not seeing any harm to the tenant.
Nonetheless, if the tenant didn’t cause damage, then the landlord was being a jerk by bringing up a broken lock, which may or may not have been fictitious. Seems awfully convenient to say, “Yeah, I owe you for those 6 days, however you’re not getting it because (insert made up damage).” I hate when landlords use security deposits as extra income.
Watch out! We got a badass over here.
I guess I’m missing the outrage as well.
What do you care? You’re out, when you wanted to be out.
Someone else wanted to be in. They are in when they wanted to be in.
The owner wanted to make money. He’s making money.
Could the owner give you some cash back? I supposed. But I don’t see that he’s a dick if he doesn’t.
Say I rent a car for a week at the weekly rate. I return it early. I don’t get any money back. Is Avis supposed to keep the car on the lot unrented for the remainder of the week? Of course not.
An apartment is not a car, and the OP did not indicate his willingness to waive his rights under the remaining portion of the lease. If he had returned the keys, that would be one thing, but he didn’t.
He’s not harmed, but I don’t see anything wrong with standing on principle. He had a valid lease which was breached by the landlord. That is not to say I endorse any of the “self help” strategies suggested, which were all pretty stupid.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I had no idea. . .
I’m not hard over either way. But the walk though is always the last thing. So he spent some period of time moving out, and when he was done (save for the shovel) he ask when the walk though was. When the owner said, “no problem we’re good,” it appeared like he was effectively moved out. The owner felt that way as well.
Seems to me like the OP is just generally pissed at the guy, and wants to continue to carry that anger with him. Especially as I get older, that just doesn’t seem like a good plan.
I guess my outrage meter doesn’t peg as quickly as many here.