Question about a tenant breaking 1 year lease agreement AND wants his deposit back!

[웃 910]

Obviously L.I. can - and will - do whatever he wants. If he feels comfortable with his DIY lease, so be it.

Both he and you are wrong in thinking that the burden of using the courts to recover a small award (e.g. $825) is enough to deter a tenant from trying. All states have a Small Claims Court, and Michigan is no exception.

http://www.consumera...m/small_mi.html

http://www.michiganl...99575/html_view

Anyone in MI who wishes to file a grievance can claim up to $3000 in Small Claims Court, without any lawyer representation.

A tenant who feels his lease does not comply with state law (and there's ample reason to claim such a thing with L.I.'s lease, as I stated previously) can sue you in Small Claims Court and has a decent chance of winning.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Neither is just wishing the law won't apply to your case and leave you free to do whatever you want.

This calls for a poll. Just want to see what types of people are on VJ. I know the thought would never cross my mind.

I am the type of person that follows what is verbally agreed upon more than whats written in 20 page contracts.

If I wrote down that every time I go to collect the payment as soon as we see each other:

She drops to the floor and does 10 push-ups. I do 10 jumping jacks. She gets on all fours and starts barking like a dog. I pretend I'm a sheep and say BAAAA BAAAA BAAA. Then we both sing the ABCs in unison, say the pledge of allegiance, and sing the national anthem before any money is exchanged then I expect we will both do exactly what was written in the contract and verbally agreed upon. Maybe I am different, but even if I was told by a lawyer: "you know there is a good chance you can scam them out of $825" I would tell the guy to take a hike.

You are correct that there may be some kind of loophole in the law that gives the person a very tiny chance of winning but the bottom line is we have a verbal and written agreement so why would this scam even cross their minds? Even with the not signed copy with the former tenants, and vague contract full of blanks, they still didn't take me to court. Compared to the old lease agreement this one is so crystal clear that only someone very evil and deceitful would even think about going to court over the $825 that was point blank explained as not something they get back, but a pass on paying the last months rent.

Finally, they ARE getting the $825 back because they don't pay the last months rent! A judge would laugh at these people in court and make a fool out of them after seeing the lease agreement. If it makes anyone feel better lets just pretend that when the October 19th, 2011 payment is due they give me $825 and then I hand it right back to them. What's the difference?

A) On October 19th, 2011 they don't pay the $825 rent

B) On October 19th, 2011 they pay $825 and then I give them their $825 back

:bonk::rofl::rofl:

There is ZERO DIFFERENCE

Edited November 7, 2010 by Lord Infamous

[Fandango 1,440]

That is what they are paying for. They break my house they pay. They have to pay to keep the house maintained also. If they want to make any changes they have to ask me beforehand and if I agree then they have to pay and on top of that They have to keep the changes in place even after the lease is over and they leave.

I guess I should add that I also use a Realtor friend of mine to find my tenants. I also use their own lease contracts with any and all additions that I want in them. Texas does have a tenant rights but I also have a landlord rights. The lease goes over all this too. Texas is very strong on contract law. Make sure to read any contract that you are signing.

Your last post before this one cleared up a lot...assigning payment to blame. I think it's reasonable if the tenant breaks, the tenant pays. The way it read, was like the ac goes out, and you're charging 100 bucks to come out.

[Fandango 1,440]

The original lease was bought at Office Depot. There were two problems. Number 1 is my dads copy didn't even have the tenants signature, and number 2 it said nothing about the tenant NOT getting their deposit back. You deal with selling houses, so you are used to 40 page documents that nobody even reads but signs anyway. I take it you have never dealt with a lease agreement for a rental property.

Sorry, but I would take my lease agreement with 3 or 4 sentences anyday over the office depot lease agreement full of legal jargon and way too many words.

I feel a million times better with the contract I wrote up that clearly states the tenants do not get a cash back bonus when they leave. I am fully protected, and you cannot point to any specifics (besides saying "etc.") that makes my contract vague. Why again is my contract "garbage" and might as well be "wiped on someones azz!" ?

Let me be clear when I say I'm not legally giving you advice, merely having a conversation.

I do and have dealt with leases. My father also owned several properties that he rented out. As a landlord, it wouldn't be a bad thing for you to familiarize yourself with WHY lawyers and realtors® put all that 'legal jargon' in there in the first place. Seems to me you want to 'lock them in' to your terms, yet have failed to offer the same consideration in terms of who does what and when. You say 'oh i'm a verbal kinda guy'...then why the lease in the first place? You're either a verbal guy, or you're a lease guy...and whatever option you choose shouldn't be some half azzed effort. I mean who puts 'etc' twice, listed as responsibility for maintenance/repairs? Why even bother? A lease is supposed to be a clear and concise agreement that leaves no room for question. Yours does not meet those standards.

Aside from all the holes in your lease, and all the things you didn't mention....I gather your rationale behind this 'non-refundable last month's payment' is that you didn't want to be held holding the bag should your tenant break the lease, and want some of the 'security' back, ontop of breaking the lease. Your lease doesn't even mention what the fee would be should they choose to break the lease. So they can say 'hey we're breaking the lease, use the last payment for this month' and fine...at least you have the last payment. But what if they trash your house? You chose not to list it as a security deposit, which in the instance you recently found yourself in - tenant wanting to leave, but paying the rent until he vacates the property - BUT they also trash the house, or just leave it with repairs being needed - your lease does nothing to protect YOU, and you'd be in worse financial shape than when this last tenant left.

You should have kept it listed as a security deposit....rent is due for the days that they use your property, no matter what. What would have protected you more would have been to list it as a conditional refundable security deposit - because that's financial incentive for them to maintain your property in the condition you leased it to them in. You should have done a walk-through with them and both parties should have listed anything wrong with the house. Worst case - they break the lease, they trash your house. They disappear. But they stay til the end of the month. So they've used up your 'last month's rent' but now you pay for repairs.

You should have listed a fee if they wanted to break the lease. You should have addressed what happens if they pay their rent late. Or maybe you should have asked or first, last, AND security.

Did you know, that in Florida, it is the landlord's DUTY to check and test the smoke alarms every month, unless expressly mentioned otherwise in a lease? Sure, you're not in Florida - but do you know offhand what your responsibilities are as a landlord in your state?

There are so many holes in your lease, it's not even funny. It's not worth the paper it's written on.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Lisa C

[웃 910]

Let me be clear when I say I'm not legally giving you advice, merely having a conversation.

I do and have dealt with leases. My father also owned several properties that he rented out. As a landlord, it wouldn't be a bad thing for you to familiarize yourself with WHY lawyers and realtors® put all that 'legal jargon' in there in the first place. Seems to me you want to 'lock them in' to your terms, yet have failed to offer the same consideration in terms of who does what and when. You say 'oh i'm a verbal kinda guy'...then why the lease in the first place? You're either a verbal guy, or you're a lease guy...and whatever option you choose shouldn't be some half azzed effort. I mean who puts 'etc' twice, listed as responsibility for maintenance/repairs? Why even bother? A lease is supposed to be a clear and concise agreement that leaves no room for question. Yours does not meet those standards.

Aside from all the holes in your lease, and all the things you didn't mention....I gather your rationale behind this 'non-refundable last month's payment' is that you didn't want to be held holding the bag should your tenant break the lease, and want some of the 'security' back, ontop of breaking the lease. Your lease doesn't even mention what the fee would be should they choose to break the lease. So they can say 'hey we're breaking the lease, use the last payment for this month' and fine...at least you have the last payment. But what if they trash your house? You chose not to list it as a security deposit, which in the instance you recently found yourself in - tenant wanting to leave, but paying the rent until he vacates the property - BUT they also trash the house, or just leave it with repairs being needed - your lease does nothing to protect YOU, and you'd be in worse financial shape than when this last tenant left.

You should have kept it listed as a security deposit....rent is due for the days that they use your property, no matter what. What would have protected you more would have been to list it as a conditional refundable security deposit - because that's financial incentive for them to maintain your property in the condition you leased it to them in. You should have done a walk-through with them and both parties should have listed anything wrong with the house. Worst case - they break the lease, they trash your house. They disappear. But they stay til the end of the month. So they've used up your 'last month's rent' but now you pay for repairs.

You should have listed a fee if they wanted to break the lease. You should have addressed what happens if they pay their rent late. Or maybe you should have asked or first, last, AND security.

Did you know, that in Florida, it is the landlord's DUTY to check and test the smoke alarms every month, unless expressly mentioned otherwise in a lease? Sure, you're not in Florida - but do you know offhand what your responsibilities are as a landlord in your state?

There are so many holes in your lease, it's not even funny. It's not worth the paper it's written on.

All landlords are taking a huge risk when they find a tenant. So you could list all the "can happens" and "could happens" you want. I am fully aware that nothing is mentioned about "what if they break the 1 year lease", "what if they are late", and all the other "what ifs". I purposely kept them out because once it gets to that stage I am already screwed. For example, if rent is due and I don't get paid, and a month goes by and they are not picking up the phone, what can I do? NOTHING but hope they voluntarily move out as quickly as possible. I will not pursue legal actions against them as I know from experience it is a waste of time.

My father owns a building with 5 units that each pay about $3,500 per month. Currently only 2 are occupied. The rent is too damn high and one of the tenants was 6 to 7 months behind. My dad has pursued legal action and had proper documents created by lawyers when they moved in years ago. Do you think my dad is gonna get a DIME from these people? It has been many years and he hasn't received a penny.

So go ahead and worship your "official" documents that cover all bases but in the end it still doesn't matter. When a tenant doesn't pay, they don't pay, and that's that. As the owner of the real estate the best you can hope for is to get the people to vacate the premise. If you think your gonna win in court because of a legal binding contract then think again. Even if you get the settlement the ex-tenants will not have the money to pay.

As far as I am concerned all I want to make clear is that the new tenants will not ask for their $825 back. I know it makes you so angry to be proven wrong but my contract does exactly that. So as far as I am concerned I am very pleased with the new tenants and know that they will never in a million years ask me to pay them $825 (it is the other way around).

[Fandango 1,440]

All landlords are taking a huge risk when they find a tenant. So you could list all the "can happens" and "could happens" you want. I am fully aware that nothing is mentioned about "what if they break the 1 year lease", "what if they are late", and all the other "what ifs". I purposely kept them out because once it gets to that stage I am already screwed. For example, if rent is due and I don't get paid, and a month goes by and they are not picking up the phone, what can I do? NOTHING but hope they voluntarily move out as quickly as possible. I will not pursue legal actions against them as I know from experience it is a waste of time.

My father owns a building with 5 units that each pay about $3,500 per month. Currently only 2 are occupied. The rent is too damn high and one of the tenants was 6 to 7 months behind. My dad has pursued legal action and had proper documents created by lawyers when they moved in years ago. Do you think my dad is gonna get a DIME from these people? It has been many years and he hasn't received a penny.

So go ahead and worship your "official" documents that cover all bases but in the end it still doesn't matter. When a tenant doesn't pay, they don't pay, and that's that. As the owner of the real estate the best you can hope for is to get the people to vacate the premise. If you think your gonna win in court because of a legal binding contract then think again. Even if you get the settlement the ex-tenants will not have the money to pay.

As far as I am concerned all I want to make clear is that the new tenants will not ask for their $825 back. I know it makes you so angry to be proven wrong but my contract does exactly that. So as far as I am concerned I am very pleased with the new tenants and know that they will never in a million years ask me to pay them $825 (it is the other way around).

Angry? I'm not angry. You're the one who was namecalling and visibly angry, not me.

Do what you want, but you're the one who asked for clarification as to why I think your lease is garbage, and I have done so. Wasting a bit of time while my husband is playing Fallout2, lol

[scandal 951]

Good luck to you L.I. In all sincerity - I'm glad you seem to have a good tenant, and an arrangement you are satisfied with.

Can I ask you one question, however? Would you consider responding to this question raised by Lisa?

why the lease in the first place? You're either a verbal guy, or you're a lease guy

She makes a good point. The whole premise of your position is that you feel a lease is unenforceable, and that you would never take your tenant to court. You're prepared to be stiffed by a bad tenant just as your father has been. You're relying on their goodwill. So why bother with ANY written lease at all? Why not just have a handshake, take their check when they move in, and be done with it? What's the point of any lease at all if you have no intention of enforcing it?

PS my condolences of the Lions' loss today. They were winning handily to the Jets, but lost it in OT. Stafford got hurt again

[웃 910]

Good luck to you L.I. In all sincerity - I'm glad you seem to have a good tenant, and an arrangement you are satisfied with.

Can I ask you one question, however? Would you consider responding to this question raised by Lisa?

She makes a good point. The whole premise of your position is that you feel a lease is unenforceable, and that you would never take your tenant to court. You're prepared to be stiffed by a bad tenant just as your father has been.

You're relying on their goodwill. So why bother with ANY written lease at all? Why not just have a handshake, take their check when they move in, and be done with it? What's the point of any lease at all if you have no intention of enforcing it?

PS my condolences of the Lions' loss today. They were winning handily to the Jets, but lost it in OT. Stafford got hurt again

I think it's common sense why I would at least want something in writing (even if it is only a 3 sentence DIY lease agreement). Reason is it adds a little more clarity, it contains signatures showing they understand and willingly signed off on what was written in the contract, and gives me a tiny bit of protection.

Do I think I will be in court sometime in the next year with the new tenants? Absolutely not. Do I think I will have to present my contract to an attorney or judge? No.

Would I want to ever have to deal with a "he said she said" case in court. No. So that is the primary reason for the written agreement.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Your last post before this one cleared up a lot...assigning payment to blame. I think it's reasonable if the tenant breaks, the tenant pays. The way it read, was like the ac goes out, and you're charging 100 bucks to come out.

Actually as the lease contract is written I could charge them for the service call to fix the condenser but that would be wrong to do. I have thought about to place this language in future contracts to state the difference that if through no fault of tenant a problem occurs that they are free of the service charge. In Texas there are assumption rights and so on that are vague but why let the courts and lawyers have an opening. Just do what is right.

[웃 910]

Actually as the lease contract is written I could charge them for the service call to fix the condenser but that would be wrong to do. I have thought about to place this language in future contracts to state the difference that if through no fault of tenant a problem occurs that they are free of the service charge. In Texas there are assumption rights and so on that are vague but why let the courts and lawyers have an opening. Just do what is right.

Do you write your own contracts?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Do you write your own contracts?

No. I use a Realtor and their contracts. I can and do add or even delete some things. The Realtor and the company have their own lawyers and know what the contract can say and do. They also find me tenants and list the property when needed.

[slim 1,530]

Both he and you are wrong in thinking that the burden of using the courts to recover a small award (e.g. $825) is enough to deter a tenant from trying.

Trying doesn't mean winning.

People who are too lazy to follow contracts are often too lazy to follow up on things like filing claims, etc.

[^_^ 5,021]

[tiffmal 6]

If your tenant signed a lease, then he can move out, but needs to continue paying rent until you or he finds a new tenant to take over his lease. He should not get his deposit back until the new tenant has signed a lease at which point you can decide how much the original tenant is owed. I guess it depends on what state you're in though, but it's pretty crazy to break a lease and demand a security deposit back. What are the circumstances that this person is breaking the lease agreement?

You should not give him a penny back until he finds someone to take over his lease. He should be paying you!