Hi, all. Long time lurker, first time poster (I think… although I appear to have created an account at some point…).
I’m looking at signing a lease on a duplex. The place has a lot going for it - nice part of town, reasonable price, great layout - but there’s one clause in the lease that’s holding me back.
The clause reads:
I asked the landlord for clarification, and she said,
I’m currently unemployed, so it’s possible that I may get a job elsewhere (although I’m mostly applying for things in the area). This clause does not seem standard to me, although I haven’t rented at a huge number of places. My husband and roommate are both feeling like I am - the place has a lot of pluses, and we’re not sure this is a big enough thing to be a deal breaker (after all, we’re not planning on breaking the lease). Just trying to get some other thoughts from some people who have seen a few more leases than I have.
Hard to say whether that’s standard – those sorts of things depend on the locality. In the places I’ve rented (northern Ohio and Boston), that would be pretty unusual. The norm here in Boston is that you must pay last month’s rent and a deposit (usually one month’s rent) when you sign the lease. If you break the lease, you forfeit the deposit AND last month’s rent, along with whatever remains of the current month. But aside from that, there’s no penalty, so if you’re willing to lose two month’s rent, you can break the lease at will.
But at another apartment I rented (for college housing), rent was due for each semester in advance, so to break the lease early you could be forfeiting quite a bit of rent.
Generally, that’s what a lease is for, versus month-to-month renting. It assures the owner that you’ll be there.
All the same, in most jurisdictions, it’s the responsibility of the owner to try to re-lease the apartment as soon as possible after the tenant vacates early. You’d still be responsible for the unpaid rent until a new renter is found, though. With apartment rentals down 12% this year, there’s the possibility that the owner might not find a new tenant, in which case, yes, you’d be stuck paying the rent until the end of the lease term.
It’s not standard, exactly, but not unusual - lazybratsche’s scenario, which basically boils down to an early termination fee equivalent to 2 months’ rent, is more common.
Now, if you broke your lease, paid off the balance, and the property was rented again prior to the termination of your original lease period, you would be entitled to a refund of the amount owing from the time the new resident moves in, under the laws of most states and localities, if not all. It’s illegal for a landlord to double-dip, basically. I would ensure you get that in writing as an addendum.
Where I come from its standard, normal and expected. But it does run both ways - if you sign a 1 year lease, you are responsible for the rent for the whole year, and the landlord cannot kick you out.
If you prefer not to have the clause you can go “month by month” (where I come from) and then the landlord only need give you one month notice and you MUST move.
Of course as a landlord I do offer a one year lease at a slightly lower rate, with that clause inside (I like the guarantee of rent rather than uncertainty as I live 12 hours flight from our house)
Just adding that it’s definitely not weird, just a standard yearly lease. All three of my apartments were yearly leases (i.e. you had to commit to the entire year). It makes things easier for the landlord–there’s not much upside for the renter, except that you will get your money back if they rent out the place before your lease is up. There’s no advantage to them to let it sit vacant, but you will eat a couple months of rent.
Thanks for the input all. I’m just much more used to something more along the lines of “One months’ rent” or “until we find another tenant” (and from some other internet reading my husband did this morning - it looks like a landlord can only collect rent from one tenant at a time, anyway). Guess it’s not as weird as I originally thought it was.
That’s correct, a landlord (and in general, the aggrieved party in any breach of contract action) cannot get double recovery (i.e., they cannot collect rent from a replacement tenant and get rent from you). Similarly, a landlord (and in general, the aggrieved party in any breach of contract action) must mitigate his damages. That is, the landlord cannot sit around idly allowing damages to accrue; they must take steps to minimize the damage caused by breach (here, the early termination of the tenancy). This would include not unreasonably rejecting suitable replacement tenants that the departing tenant has found and proposed to the landlord. You would be responsible for making up any deficiency in rent if the replacement tenant is paying less than you would have (so long as an amount within market rent range is being charged of the new tenant).
Your state’s landlord-tenant law, if it has one, will further regulate this relationship, typically to the benefit of the tenant.
It’s not something I’ve ever heard of in either MN or WI. When we had to break our lease in St. Paul after buying a house, we did need to pay, but it was only one month’s rent, not the remainder of our year (which would’ve been three-four months, and which we wouldn’t have been able to afford).
I agree it’s common in Illinois, Maryland and Florida where I’ve lived and rented.
It’s a theme on the I Love Lucy, when the Ricardos and Mertzes get into fights and the Ricardos want to leave. Then Fred says, “Fine but you have to pay off the balance of your lease”
Agree with all the posts here already; if you can, I would make sure that your side is covered, too, in that they can’t kick you out and still expect the money, they can’t raise the rent in that time, and you or they can find someone to pick up the remaining time on the lease if you have to move. What you’ve described here is a little one-sided for my taste.
Agree that that’s pretty much what a lease is: an agreement to pay for your occupancy for a set period of time (be it a month, 6 months, a year, or some other term). Essentially the lease is a payment plan. You could pay for the entire year upfront if you wanted, but most people don’t have that kind of cash lying around.
That said, most lessors I’ve heard of are generally willing to at least minimally work with you if you need to break the lease. You can sublet the place; and sometimes the landlord will even help you look for the new tenant. If the landlord is really nice, they’ll just cancel your contract once the new tenant moves in, though they’re not obligated to. If they don’t, then you’d still be on the hook until the end of your lease term should the subletter decide he doesn’t want to pay rent. (That’s not overly common, though, especially if you vet the subletter well.)
It’s common everyplace I’ve rented (let’s see… NJ, DC, VA, IL).
You can add Texas, South Carolina, Colorado, Kansas and Missouri (where I have lived and rented). I thought it was pretty standard, although I think it was sometimes worded as “the balance of the lease or the months the unit remains unrented” or something like that.
My current lease (in Kansas) states that I am responsible for the full lease even if I leave early, but also gave an option of paying more to have a “buy-out” clause. I could have provided an extra two months of rent (That would be around $2500) to have the clause that stated if I left before the leasing period ends I could buy-out the remaining months for $750. So in essence that would be about 2.5 months of rent to terminate early. The catch there is that if I don’t leave early and use the buy-out option, then I am still out that extra $2500. It wasn’t worth it to me so I am taking my chances.
Many leases also have military clauses or work-transfer clauses allowing you out of the lease without penalty if you are transferred out of the area before your lease is up. Would such a clause apply to an unemployed tenant finding a job outside of the residential area?
It’s SOP where I’ve rented, in IL and NY. But FWIW I’ve broken leases many times. Either I’ve just let them keep the security deposit and they wish me well (high demand markets, I’m not suggesting you assume this will happen) or I found someone else to replace me. I actually don’t think I’ve ever moved out exactly when the lease ended, I’ve been willing to write off the lost deposits as the cost of moving/renting.
That said, if month-to-month is common in your area, and there is a reasonable chance that you may not stay the whole year, then it would not be wise to sign a year lease. If it were a large company I’d say inquire nicely about what would happen if by chance you had to move due to unforeseen circumstances, some companies have policies beyond what is required by local tenant law. For example I’ve come across one company that will break the lease if you get a job so many miles away (probably an incentive to attract professional types). But an individual landlord probably isn’t going to be able to offer that, plus it sounds like they’ve already made it pretty clear that you moving out early is Not Their Problem.
Many states have a tenant’s bill of rights, that provides certain rights to tenants like termination, etc. Check to see if your state has any laws or regulations regarding tenants rights, that may supercede whatever is in the lease.
It is standard for leases in every state or province I’ve lived in (both Canada and U.S.).
If I lease a space for a month, but move out after one week, I’m still expected to pay for the full month if they can’t rent it out to someone else. Typically, my apartment leases have been for one year, and on the anniversary date it goes month-to-month. So during that first year, if I had moved out after only 8 months, I would be liable for the rent for the next four, IF they couldn’t get a new tenant.
I did have to break my lease early once, when my dad was sick. I had to move home right away and had to pay for the two months that my room was empty because they weren’t able to find another tenant at that time of year.
Until now, we’ve been renting apartments in rental-heavy cities, which always have lots of incentives and are generous with breaking leases because of high turnover. I guess I just never realized that this type of arangment comes with a stiffer lease-breaking penalty.
Like I said, though, I’m not planning on breaking the lease, and I suspect that if something reasonable were to happen and I’d need to break the lease (i.e. I got a job elsewhere), the landlord would be flexible in working with me on the terms.
