Sublet issues
August 5, 2009 10:08 PM Subscribe
Trying to untangle a mess- breaking a sublet contract which may have been illegal in the first place.
This concerns an apartment in Berkeley, California which was sublet for more than the monthly rent amount (which is the lease ceiling). The individual involved would like to move out at the end of the month and is withholding the last month's rent, which evens out the disparity between the lease ceiling amount and the amount that was illegally charged, but there is a signed contract between tenant and subletter indicating the individual must stay until the end of the year (or give notice). Is the individual bound to stay, or at least give notice, or since the amount charged was illegal is the entire contract illegal and can move out as planned?
Landlord knows tenant was overcharging and wants that to stop, but doesn't really want to get involved.
This concerns an apartment in Berkeley, California which was sublet for more than the monthly rent amount (which is the lease ceiling). The individual involved would like to move out at the end of the month and is withholding the last month's rent, which evens out the disparity between the lease ceiling amount and the amount that was illegally charged, but there is a signed contract between tenant and subletter indicating the individual must stay until the end of the year (or give notice). Is the individual bound to stay, or at least give notice, or since the amount charged was illegal is the entire contract illegal and can move out as planned?
Landlord knows tenant was overcharging and wants that to stop, but doesn't really want to get involved.
Ok is this how it goes?
A rents an apartment for $100 and sublets it to B for $110
After 11 months B wants to move out one month early and decides that, because (110-100)*11 = 100 (more or less), B can break the lease one month early.
If that's right, forget about that bullshit about evening the rent disparity, that makes no sense. It would make more sense to present it as follows:
A rents an apartment and sublets it to B, but violates his original lease in doing so. B violates the terms of his sublease with A. Because the original sublease was illegal, B doesn't have to honor it.
Only a lawyer knows the correct answer but to me it sounds like B is acting in bad faith and trying to get out of a month's rent. Is that about right? I have a hard time imagining a scenario where that flies.
posted by PercussivePaul at 10:50 PM on August 5, 2009
A rents an apartment for $100 and sublets it to B for $110
After 11 months B wants to move out one month early and decides that, because (110-100)*11 = 100 (more or less), B can break the lease one month early.
If that's right, forget about that bullshit about evening the rent disparity, that makes no sense. It would make more sense to present it as follows:
A rents an apartment and sublets it to B, but violates his original lease in doing so. B violates the terms of his sublease with A. Because the original sublease was illegal, B doesn't have to honor it.
Only a lawyer knows the correct answer but to me it sounds like B is acting in bad faith and trying to get out of a month's rent. Is that about right? I have a hard time imagining a scenario where that flies.
posted by PercussivePaul at 10:50 PM on August 5, 2009
Go talk to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board. This might not sound like their thing, but they're very helpful and responsive on all sorts of tenant rights/advice matters. There are two lawyers named Matt there, one of which you'll want to speak to. They're open until 4:30 tomorrow, or you can MefiMail me.
posted by duende at 12:12 AM on August 6, 2009
posted by duende at 12:12 AM on August 6, 2009
to me it sounds like B is acting in bad faith and trying to get out of a month's rent.
@PercussivePaul: I understood the OP the way you did, except that Berkeley also has rent control laws, which the sublease seems to be violating. If so (speaking ethically and not legally), this strikes me as a completely good-faith way to break the sublease.
I don't know what the legal answer is, but some information on the City of Berkeley web site suggests that the sublet is illegal, regardless of the ceiling:
@PercussivePaul: I understood the OP the way you did, except that Berkeley also has rent control laws, which the sublease seems to be violating. If so (speaking ethically and not legally), this strikes me as a completely good-faith way to break the sublease.
I don't know what the legal answer is, but some information on the City of Berkeley web site suggests that the sublet is illegal, regardless of the ceiling:
a master tenant subletting the entire premises may not charge a subtenant more than the rent lawfully due and payable to the landlordposted by sesquipedalian at 1:47 AM on August 6, 2009
oh, mta: Yes, do go to Rent Stabilization Board for the real answer.
posted by sesquipedalian at 1:47 AM on August 6, 2009
posted by sesquipedalian at 1:47 AM on August 6, 2009
It sounds as if the contract was probably illegal and therefore (IANAL) unenforceable, but I'd still agree w/PercussivePaul that this is a very bad-faith sort of idea. The way I understand it, the OP wants to use the possible illegality of a clear agreement as an excuse to...
1) leave well before the sublease agreement had been satisfied and
1b) to do so without giving notice, thereby depriving the primary tenant the opportunity to find a replacement sub-tenant in a timely manner, and also
2) unilaterally adjust the effective rent for the time he's been there, without any sort of mediator.
By my lights, this is not playing nice.
I'm also curious how the security deposit (assuming there was one) plays into this. If the OP put down a deposit on the place, is assuming he won't get it back, and is factoring that into his unilateral rent readjustment, then he's also depriving the primary tenant the ability to easily recoup losses for anything that was damaged. Again, not nice.
posted by jon1270 at 3:05 AM on August 6, 2009
1) leave well before the sublease agreement had been satisfied and
1b) to do so without giving notice, thereby depriving the primary tenant the opportunity to find a replacement sub-tenant in a timely manner, and also
2) unilaterally adjust the effective rent for the time he's been there, without any sort of mediator.
By my lights, this is not playing nice.
I'm also curious how the security deposit (assuming there was one) plays into this. If the OP put down a deposit on the place, is assuming he won't get it back, and is factoring that into his unilateral rent readjustment, then he's also depriving the primary tenant the ability to easily recoup losses for anything that was damaged. Again, not nice.
posted by jon1270 at 3:05 AM on August 6, 2009
« Older Are there any alt comix artists on Twitter? | Authentic Charity for donationing car to breast... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by I_love_the_rain at 10:46 PM on August 5, 2009