generally speaking, if a landlord drags his feet on a sub-let

[GQgeek]

Can you get out of paying the next month if he costs you your tenant?

I had 3 people lined up that wanted my apartment 2 and a half weeks ago. I started the application with one of them on a Monday. On the friday of the first week I still hadn't heard anything from the landlord and so i called him, but wasn't able to get in touch with him until the monday. At that point he told me he looked at the application for the first time on the friday and noticed that they would need a co-signer because one was self-employed (they have good credit though). So, I had the tenants get a co-signer. Now the tenants fucked-up and only sent a letter (as opposed to an application) from one of the guy's father's saying he would co-sign, but again my landlord didn't call me or the prospective tenants to tell us there was a problem with their application, so it just sat there for another 5 days doing nothing. We both left messages to ask what's up and neither got a call back until today.

I'm fuming right now because i had other people that wanted the appartment should the app be turned-down, but now they've found other places. It may still work-out with these tenanats, but they're are getting antsy as well and i'm getting the feeling that they may decide to go looking for another appartment this weekend because it's taking so long with my landlord and he never calls anyone back.

I know that the law is different everywhere, but if i wasn't successful in renting the place, might I theoretically have grounds to give a big **** you (and not pay next month's rent) to the landlord for dragging his feet and causing me to lose out? The application process, by his own words, is supposed to take 24-48 hours. The only reason it's taking so long is because he's never in the office, never follows-up, and nobody else can apparently do this stuff.

 

[sleekblackroadster]

what does your lease agreement/contract thing say?

 

[DNW]

Originally Posted by sleekblackroadster

what does your lease agreement/contract thing say?
+1. If it says you can't sublet without his permission, you're pretty much screwed. If it says otherwise, i.e. you can, without permission, then you can just do it. In the former case, he can't unreasonably withhold permission--and this depends on the specific jurisdiction. And no. You can't withhold rent, in either case.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

+1. If it says you can't sublet without his permission, you're pretty much screwed. If it says otherwise, i.e. you can, without permission, then you can just do it. In the former case, he can't unreasonably withhold permission--and this depends on the specific jurisdiction.

And no. You can't withhold rent, in either case.

I phrased the title wrong. I'm doing a lease transfer, so I do need to go through him. He's just being a slow ass and taking forever to do things. Anyway, i got word that he FINALLY submitted the app for investigation today and the prospective tenants didn't bail, so hopefully it should all be ok.

 

[grimslade]

Generally speaking, landlords have a duty to mitigate. So you might have a case.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that you're the one who is reneging on your legal obligation here, and perhaps your indignation towards this person for not complying on your terms is a tad unjustified.

You come across as the type of person who believes your priorities should be everybody else's priorities. Your interest to withhold rent payment shows this, along with a lack of knowledge of the law pertaining to this situation.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

Let's not lose sight of the fact that you're the one who is reneging on your legal obligation here, and perhaps your indignation towards this person for not complying on your terms is a tad unjustified.

You come across as the type of person who believes your priorities should be everybody else's priorities. Your interest to withhold rent payment shows this, along with a lack of knowledge of the law pertaining to this situation.

If you're going to talk down to people, at least try to know what the hell you're talking about. Exactly what "knowledge of the law pertaining to this situation" is demonstrated by your post?
Grimslade is right. Generally, if a renter is terminating before the end of the lease, he remains obligated for the balance of the lease but only to the extent the landlord is unable to mitigate his losses through reasonable efforts. Practically speaking, Geek, maybe a diplomatic phone call to the landlord to empshasize your common interest in getting this done would be in order.

 

[freshcutgrass]

If you're going to talk down to people, at least try to know what the hell you're talking about.

First of all, I was not talking down to him...I was simply trying to alleviate his frustration a little by getting him to understand the other person's position in this matter...hence the term "Let's not lose sight".

Secondly, you have failed to substantiate your claim that I do not know what I'm talking about, by proving anything I have said is incorrect. With formal training in the laws pertaining to real estate, and with experience dealing directly with landlord-tenant issues, I may not be the world's greatest expert, but (jurisdictional differences aside) to suggest I know nothing is more demonizing on your part, rather than representing a well thought-out assessment.

What I do know for sure, is that there is always two sides to these things...I'm only suggesting we look at both. You think this is a bad idea?

Grimslade is right. Generally, if a renter is terminating before the end of the lease, he remains obligated for the balance of the lease but only to the extent the landlord is unable to mitigate his losses through reasonable efforts.

I never suggested that was wrong. I just don't see much evidence (what little there is at all in this affair) of unreasonable behavior on the part of the landlord. The landlord seems willing, but it seems the whole priority here is about mitigating the renters losses, rather than the landlord's.

What we have here is an obviously upset and emotional renter who's idea of handling the situation is withholding payment, which is the only clear legal breach presented (anybody would have told him that is a very, very dumb idea) and prospective tenants failing to properly submit a lease application. Unless the landlord has failed to meet any specific legal time-frame deadline, I see no evidence that the landlord is either failing to meet his legal obligations or acting in bad faith.

Practically speaking, Geek, maybe a diplomatic phone call to the landlord to empshasize your common interest in getting this done would be in order.

Obviously...one would imagine this has already taken place. I'm not familiar with either party, and have no idea of the relationship between them. As such, I'm not ready to assume the landlord is the asshole in this scenario...or that anybody is (not even you, despite your unsolicited and misplaced hostility).


Lawyerdad.....in that order I imagine?

 

[grimslade]

My original point is, there is a duty to mitigate in most cases, and if the landlord obstructs the re-leasing of the apartment, he is not only failing to fulfill his duty, but may be forfeiting his right to hold the departing tenant to his lease. This is not legal advice. But there are reasons a landlord might actually deliberately do this. And it might help GQG to know that he does in fact have rights vis-a-vis the landlord's duty to act. So if he does talk to the landlord, he should know what his own position is vis-a-vis the law.

That, and not some "upset and emotional" reaction, was what I took to be GQG point in asking. To the extent he's upset, it's because he's been making efforts to re-rent the place, and meeting with some success, but is confronting an apparently uncooperative landlord.

 

[RedLantern]

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

Let's not lose sight of the fact that you're the one who is reneging on your legal obligation here, and perhaps your indignation towards this person for not complying on your terms is a tad unjustified.

You come across as the type of person who believes your priorities should be everybody else's priorities. Your interest to withhold rent payment shows this, along with a lack of knowledge of the law pertaining to this situation.

You honestly don't think this is a harsh "tone?"

At least Lawyerdad attempted to answer the question rather than just flame the poster.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

You come across as the type of person who believes your priorities should be everybody else's priorities. Your interest to withhold rent payment shows this, along with a lack of knowledge of the law pertaining to this situation.

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

I was simply trying to alleviate his frustration a little

Clearly we should all have understood that to be your intent.
And yes, I started practicing law several years before becoming a parent.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

I never suggested that was wrong. I just don't see much evidence (what little there is at all in this affair) of unreasonable behavior on the part of the landlord. The landlord seems willing, but it seems the whole priority here is about mitigating the renters losses, rather than the landlord's.

What we have here is an obviously upset and emotional renter who's idea of handling the situation is withholding payment, which is the only clear legal breach presented (anybody would have told him that is a very, very dumb idea) and prospective tenants failing to properly submit a lease application. Unless the landlord has failed to meet any specific legal time-frame deadline, I see no evidence that the landlord is either failing to meet his legal obligations or acting in bad faith.

Lawyerdad.....in that order I imagine?

Damn, relax! First off, we finally got everything done, so this whole thing is moot, however, i'd just like to clarify since I'm apparently being made out as the self-centered guy that only sees things from one perspective.

Maybe my original post was a little long. My issue centered around what I deemed an unreasonable response time on applications that I submitted. The landlord had said the process took 24-48 hours. Each time something was submitted, it took a full week to get any response out of him, and he never phoned us. Both I and the prospective tenants had left repeated messages in an attempt to get some info out of the landlord on the status of the application. He just wasn't responsive. Not even a little bit. I had multiple parties interested in the apartment in case the first applicants weren't approved, but it took the landlord an incredibly long time to do anything and I lost them.

As far as I was concerend, I did my part. I paid the lease transfer fee and found the tenants. When the landlord said he needed additional info it was submitted within a couple hours maximum, at which point we waited on him for a week each time. I told other people waiting on the outcome of the first applicants what the landlord told me, that we should know within 24-48 hours. Obviously, when it took over 2 weeks, they went elsewhere (and I had emails from them saying sorry, can't wait any longer). I attempted to communicate my displeasure with the situation with the landlord when he finally answered the phone, and then another week was wasted because he yet again didn't even look at the documents that were submitted until the friday.

It would seem to me that a landlord would be obligated to process these applications in a reasonable time frame, especially if he's charging you $125 for a lease transfer. Theoretically, this process could have dragged on for months at the rate he was going, and for no good reason. I'm not sure what the law is, but that doesn't seem right.

Thankfully, the original applicants did eventually get approved because i wasn't looking forward to going through this again. As for the landlord's side, I don't see it. He had the right to request additional information or a co-signer, but when it was submitted, it shouldn't take him a week to even get around to looking at it. It's not like this is a complex process. He just has to relay the fax to whatever service he's using for credit checks. We did everything he asked same day. He has every right to refuse tenants, but imo that right should be exercised in a timely manner so that I can find other tenants if the first ones don't work-out. It's not like he had a valid reason why it took so long. He just didn't give a **** because hey, either way, someone is going to pay him. It was the total disinterest towards getting this done that made me start thinking that i should just leave and not pay the month of august. I heard it in his voice when I spoke to him and it was infuriating. I know for a fact that he wasn't this slow to act when the apartment was empty and his money was at stake instead of mine. When it was his money, I got the approval within 24 hours.

 

[freshcutgrass]

My original point is, there is a duty to mitigate in most cases, and if the landlord obstructs the re-leasing of the apartment, he is not only failing to fulfill his duty, but may be forfeiting his right to hold the departing tenant to his lease. And it might help GQG to know that he does in fact have rights vis-a-vis the landlord's duty to act. So if he does talk to the landlord, he should know what his own position is vis-a-vis the law.

Yes...perfectly true statement, and something this person should keep in mind. But does it appear to be applicable in this case?

This is not legal advice.

Just to be on the safe side GQGeek, do not divulge your forwarding address, lest you receive a bill from the firm of Grim & Slade. he he

But there are reasons a landlord might actually deliberately do this.

There could be, but what evidence do see of this here? If this were his intent, I think we would probably have seen a more deliberate attempt to do so, as could easily been done. Under normal circumstances (and there could be a lot more to this than we know), it is in the best interest of the landlord to not force the situation into litigation. I see no reason to assume this landlord has any other motive than to continue his cash flow as agreed to in the lease. And I don't accept the time frame given here as clear proof the landlord is being "uncooperative". I've heard one side...it's the other side I'm curious about. And without it, the conversation is... well...just conversation. If this is just a pity party where we stick up for SF members against the anonymous asshole landlord...then fine...count me in....whatever...screw the slumlord!!!

You honestly don't think this is a harsh "tone?"

No, I don''t have any reason to feel harsh towards him. I think I was definitely, and knowingly telling him something he didn't want to hear. But I didn't do it out of ill will.

At least Lawyerdad attempted to answer the question rather than just flame the poster.

He seemed more interested in making it all about me, when it has nothing to do with me.

Damn, relax

Hey...I'm good. Funny, I was worried about you relaxing...

I'm fuming right now

might I theoretically have grounds to give a big **** you (and not pay next month's rent) to the landlord

It's not like he had a valid reason why it took so long.

How do you know? You're upset because things weren't happening on your terms, but who says your terms are all that matter? Just because his priorities are in conflict with yours, does not make him wrong. I'm sorry you had a couple of weeks of frustration, but from what I see, there is no good guy vs bad guy scenario here.

we finally got everything done, so this whole thing is moot

Fantastic...a happy ending. Good luck in your new home (did you buy or are you renting again? ) Now let's mourn the true victims in this...the lawyers who did not get a fee because of failure to litigate.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

How do you know?

I knew because when I spoke to him on the phone, he indicated that he was just looking at it for the first time, a week after the documents were sent in. When the tenant's co-signer messed up, we had it rectified within a couple of hours and he had the full information he needed, but he didn't even look at it for another week. What, he wasn't in the office for two weeks straight? He couldn't check messages that were left by myself and the tenants with his secrectary, on his voicemail, and with the building super? The simple fact was that he just didn't get around to it because it didn't matter to him who paid the rent next month.

Just for the sake of argument, what do you think should have happened had he dragged this process out another month or two, assuming every tenant i passed him had bad credit or something? When the rent is due monthly, is it really acceptable for an application process to take two and a half weeks? Yes, there were some problems with the application, but these were typically rectified within an hour or two at most. There's a risk department where I work. I know how long it takes to evaluate someone. The landlord was the only bottleneck here.

FWIW, I looked up my jurisdiction's laws, and I probably would have had a case had it dragged on any longer. He's supposed to respond and deal with things in a timely manner (15 days).

Oh and btw, I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't have just not paid the rent. I would have brought a formal complaint against him with the rental board and let them make the judgement.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Look...now you're just being stubborn....you just keep repeating the same thing...he should be making you his #1 priority and you just can't imagine why he didn't. Who are you to decide what he has time to do and what he doesn't?? You seem to think that as long as you can respond to a problem with the application within "hours" that his office should too? That's absurd.

Like i said...we've heard your story. Without hearing his, don't expect anyone to make evaluations.

Just for the sake of argument, what do you think should have happened had he dragged this process out another month or two, assuming every tenant i passed him had bad credit or something?

Find more suitable tenants? What's the point of hypothetical situations? I don't get it.

FWIW, I looked up my jurisdiction's laws, and I probably would have had a case had it dragged on any longer. He's supposed to respond and deal with things in a timely manner (15 days).

Except according to you, he never took more than 5 days to respond. And you phone somebody on a Friday, and they don't get back to you by the end of business Friday and you have to deal with it on the Monday...woop-dee-doo? You find this abnormal? He's probably a very busy guy...why should he want to drop everything just to deal with you whenever you want? And of course it has to do with the fact that he's not going to be out any money. That's a major factor in how people prioritize.

Oh and btw, I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't have just not paid the rent. I would have brought a formal complaint against him with the rental board and let them make the judgement.

Right....so why are you asking this question on a message board, where the critical question of the day is.."how should I wear my socks" , instead of talking to the appropriate people if it's so important? ha ha ha

I'm sorry...I'm not taking sides in this, but just listening to you going on about it the way you are certainly doesn't make me inclined to sympathize with you.