Two months notice is plenty of time to give someone to find a new place when they chose to live month-by-month. If the hassle of finding a place after settling somewhere for seven years bothers the tenants, they should have found something more permanent with less likelihood of being given only a month’s notice to vacate.
Two months notice is just about perfect, in my experience. More notice would do them no good; how would potential landlords know what would be available that far ahead? Anyone who can’t get themselves moved in two months just isn’t working hard enough at it.
I certainly don’t think the OP did anything wrong, and I can understand the idea that giving two months was generous. It was, as has been stated, twice the amount of time required by law, so it was nice of her to be thoughtful and offer additional time, knowing the strain having to move can put on a family.
A the same time, having been a renter for my entire adult life, there is no amount of time, especially living in a home (as opposed to an apartment), that feels generous enough. Having to unexpectedly relocate is an incredibly stressful experience for anyone, particularly if they were perfectly happy where they were.
Still, I think your tenant was wrong to call you “insensitive.” I don’t think they need to come crawling to you out of gratitude, but they should certainly be understanding of your situation, and they should have been fully aware of the fact that this could happen to them at any time.
Suddenly being told you have two months to get out of your home of seven years is not exactly a gift and is not what I would call “generous,” regardless of what the law requires.
I said the OP was cold not because I think she had to give more notice but because she seemed rather unsympathetic about what the renters had to go through and was making (what initially seemed to be) a petty complaint about something that was her own responisbility.
Would you rather it be an entity, like say, a national Government that decided such things? :dubious: What DO you mean by that?
(Bolding mine)
I work for a property managment company in Indiana. There is no way that having the utilities disconnected and the end of the lease term is the landlord’s responsibility if the utilities have been in the tenant’s name. We had a phone call from the gas company just today because someone didn’t get their gas turned off when they moved out, and they’re trying to get their bill reduced.
Besides, what about the eenerms’ living situation? She was living in an apartment as well, and she had plenty of time to get her things out of her apartment and get the utilities turned off. Do you know how easy it is to turn utilities off? Call the utilities and say, “I’m moving out on January 31. Please have service taken out of my name at the end of business/the next business day.” They’ll ask you for an address of where to send the final bill, and you’re done. They certainly don’t like it when you call and try to get service in someone else’s name turned off, unless you can show proof that you’re the property owner and that the previous tenants have vacated.
As far as “suddenly” being told you have two months to move, that was certainly very generous. Two months is plenty of time to find a place and get packed up. Sounds to me like the tenants are being passive-aggressive about it. Don’t want your housing situation to be dependent on someone else? Then buy, don’t rent!
eenerms, I sure as hell hope you’re keeping a record of how much cleaning you’re having to do, because that should come out of their security deposit.
“Suddenly” would be “We’re moving back into town. We want the house. You have a week to get out.” If the tenant wanted more stability, they shouldn’t have agreed to a month-to-month lease. Two months was more than fair.
In her OP she didn’t say they didn’t turn the utilities off, she said they didn’t “transfer” them into her own name. That’s not a tenant’s responsibility and that’s not what I’m referring to.
Why?
Two months is bullshit.
On which planet is this?
Uh, no it shouldn’t.
From the state of Georgia Q/A:
Now, I realize that things may be different in Nevada, but I was under the impression that most states require a separate cleaning deposit if that kind of thing is warranted.
And 2 months is not “bullshit” on a month-to-month lease. Duration of stay has nothing to do with the matter.
So what would constitute a reasonable time for you, exactly? Two months is plenty to move, regardless if you’ve been living there 7 months or 7 years. If you live month-to-month (as I did for several years in Budapest), you have to accept that at any moment something may come up and the landlord may terminate your lease. I was always prepared to move out should that situation arise. That’s always been a part of the agreement. That’s the whole point of a month-to-month. Sure, it would have inconvenienced me and thrown a spanner into the works, but two months is more than plenty time to get relocated.
nope
more than enough time
if it isn’t–what is. You were asked that before–but all you can state is that 2 months is bullshit.
So if I was renting your house and you wanted to move back in–how much time would you give me? And what would you base it on?
your comment is bullshit
see the difference?
Two months is not “plenty” of time to move after being blindsided with an eviction. I’m not saying the OP had an obligation to give more time, I’m saying should have been mpre understanding about how stressful and disruptive that is for the people who have to leave.
I know, everybody here would just be overjoyed to get a phone call today telling them they have two months to get out of their home. I’m the only one who thinks it would be a hassle. I’m an asshole. Yada yada.
Who said it wouldn’t be a hassle? Hell, moving after 12 months notice is a friggin hassle. I just said it wasn’t bullshit.
Define "plenty, byt the way. Would you prefer the word “ample”?
It would be a hassle. But it’s plenty of time. How do you blindside someone that’s on a month-to-month lease anyway? They had to know it could come at anytime.
Yep, that’s exactly what we’re saying. :rolleyes:
It’s not an eviction, it’s a termination of the lease. The renter could have secured a year lease if they wanted to avoid this situation, but instead chose to go month to month. That gives them the ability to move out quickly if they want to, but it also means that they have no long term agreement to live there.
Not on a month to month lease. An eviction is a three day notice. This was a termination of lease.
Besides, if the tenant had a problem with two months they could have said something. As the OP said, they were good tenants for seven years. If two months was not enough time I’m sure eenerms would have worked with them. I don’t know Nevada law, but I’ve owned rental property in SC and in Florida and 30 days is standard notice for a month to month lease.
We’re disagreeing with you because you’re just plain wrong, not because you’re an asshole. That’s a completely different issue. 