|
Okay, here's my pickle. Three years ago, I signed a 12 month lease on
an apartment in a complex in Indianapolis. The lease started Nov 1,
2000. In 2001 and 2002, I renewed the lease by signing new 12 month
leases. Now the terms of the lease are to give 60 days notice prior
to leaving. Seems pretty standard. In February of this year (2003) I
lost my my job due to downsizing. I searched for jobs in my field for
several months before accepting an offer approximately 1.5 hours away,
necessitating my move. I accepted the job in mid September, and on
the 22nd of September, informed the rental office that I would not be
renewing my lease. I understood that I was responsible for October's
rent, since my lease didn't end until Oct 31st. However, the property
manager claimed that because I gave notice on the 22nd of Sept, I was
in fact responsible for rent 60 days after that date, meaning in
addition to October's rent, I owed 22 prorated days of rent for
November. Naturally, I disagreed, arguing that my lease was up on the
31st of October, and I should not be held responsible for any rent
beyond the end of that lease.
Basically, it seems to come down to an interpretation of the lease,
since there is no specific language to handle the case of owing money
beyond the end of the term of the lease. I obviously need to get this
resolved quickly, because I don't want to have to deal with collection
agencies coming after me and all. Thoughts?
Thanks in advance!
-Nate
|
| |
| |
Okay, here's my pickle. Three years ago, I signed a 12 month lease on
an apartment in a complex in Indianapolis. The lease started Nov 1,
2000. In 2001 and 2002, I renewed the lease by signing new 12 month
leases. Now the terms of the lease are to give 60 days notice prior
to leaving. Seems pretty standard. In February of this year (2003) I
lost my my job due to downsizing. I searched for jobs in my field for
several months before accepting an offer approximately 1.5 hours away,
necessitating my move. I accepted the job in mid September, and on
the 22nd of September, informed the rental office that I would not be
renewing my lease. I understood that I was responsible for October's
rent, since my lease didn't end until Oct 31st. However, the property
manager claimed that because I gave notice on the 22nd of Sept, I was
in fact responsible for rent 60 days after that date, meaning in
addition to October's rent, I owed 22 prorated days of rent for
November. Naturally, I disagreed, arguing that my lease was up on the
31st of October, and I should not be held responsible for any rent
beyond the end of that lease.
Basically, it seems to come down to an interpretation of the lease,
since there is no specific language to handle the case of owing money
beyond the end of the term of the lease. I obviously need to get this
resolved quickly, because I don't want to have to deal with collection
agencies coming after me and all. Thoughts?
Your contract required you to give 60 days notice and you didn't. So you
are responsible for whatever damages the landlord suffered as a result of
your breach. Move out whenever you want to, pay rent through the end of the
lease term or through the day you leave, whichever is later, then wait. If
the landlord sues, the landlord will be entitled to whatever damages the
landlord can prove. If the landlord re-lets the property quickly, there is
no damage. If the landlord delay's advertising the property or showing it
to prospects, then any damage suffered wasn't caused by you. If a
collection agency gets involved, let us know.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
|
