How to handle deposit when you've been told that you have to move but have not been given a date to move?

June 16, 2010 9:58 AM

Does my landlord - who told me I'd have to leave in the next few months - have to send me a letter asking me to vacate my apartment for me to avoid paying a penalty for giving them only 2 weeks notice?

Here's the story: My wife and I have been living in this apartment for a total of over 6 years. We get along well with the owner. We lived here about 5 years, moved to another city, returned to SF, and then moved back in in September 2008. We signed a lease that expired on Aug 30, 2009. For the last nine months, we've been on a month-to-month lease, which I think is only verbal. Around May 10 of this year, the apt. owner told us that she was planning to sell the apartment, and that we'd have to move out in 2 or 3 months-but didn't set a date to vacate. Not wanting to wait until we got a letter telling us to leave, we spent the last month looking for an apartment. We found one, and signed the lease yesterday. The only issue is that the new apt. lease starts on July 1. We are paid at our current apt. through the end of June, but we're concerned that if we give the owner only 2 weeks notice, that she might try to withhold some of our deposit. Though this is unlikely, we'd like to know our rights and obligations in case it does happen. So, to summarize:

We are on a month-to-month verbal lease with the apartment owner.
We did not choose to move, but were told by the apartment's owner a month ago that we'd have to move so that she could sell the place.
However, the owner did not give us a specific date or provide us with a letter saying such.
The owner said this would need to happen sometime in mid-July or August.
After 3 weeks of searching, we found a new place, but due to the highly-competitive SF rental market, we were only able to find a place that would be ready to go in 2 weeks, not a month.
We don't want to be rude to our landlord, but we also don't want her to charge us for not giving her 1 month's notice--because she's the one who told us that we'd have to find a new place.
Any advice greatly appreciated.

posted by pantufla to Work & Money (9 answers total)

Best answer: It looks like you've got a tenancy at sufferance or a "holdover tenancy" where you continue month-to-month after the original lease expires. Absent any agreement to the contrary, such arrangements can be terminated at any time by either party.

But you had a written lease at some point, and a well-written lease will contemplate the possibility of a and may contain provisions which govern the treatment of deposits after that time. So read your lease.

The amount of money we're talking about here is probably pretty small, but if you don't understand what you're reading, a landlord/tenant attorney might not be a bad idea.
posted by valkyryn at 10:07 AM on June 16, 2010

Oh, and California law is crazy, both in general and with regards to landlord/tenant law in particular. If we were talking about more than a couple of hundred bucks I'd say definitely get a lawyer, but at this scale it'd probably cost almost as much as is at stake. If it were me, I'd probably conclude that it's worth the risk.
posted by valkyryn at 10:09 AM on June 16, 2010

Echoing valkyryn, so much of this depends on state law and city ordinances as well as how your written lease was worded. The downside of this situattion could be that if the landlord does have the law and lease on his/her side you could be responsible for the entire rent for July.
posted by Crashback at 10:24 AM on June 16, 2010

Response by poster: Thank you all for your comments. It's funny, I read the last lease a couple of times, and it doesn't say anything about tenants notifying the owner when moving out. 3 pages long. It covers waterbeds, smoke detectors, etc, but not that. I'm sure my other leases have been explicit there. Weird. Does that clear us? I dunno. I think we're in a bit of a twilight zone here, and perhaps the best thing for us to do is be upfront and explain the situation and hope for the best. Hopefully that good relationship will come through. A half or a full month's rent would be quite expensive, but of course probably not enough for decent legal representation or worth the aggravation. I don't have the time or inclination to get a degree in SF rental law. I am looking forward to living somewhere where there isn't such a ridiculous real estate market.
posted by pantufla at 10:35 AM on June 16, 2010

Since you're on good terms with the landlord just call them and explain the situation. If you're on such good terms, and they need you out, it sounds like it'd be fine -- it's not like they're going to be renting the new place anyways.
posted by CharlesV42 at 10:35 AM on June 16, 2010

Have you checked with the San Francisco Tenants' Union? They'll give advice to people who are members, and a membership ($45, $30 for low income) also includes a handbook of SF Tenant law.
posted by needs more cowbell at 10:47 AM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Your lease is still in effect, regardless of your paying month to month. I seem to recall a similar story, and my impression is that you don't have to worry so much about notice if you've been told to move.
posted by rhizome at 11:00 AM on June 16, 2010

I may be cheaper to give written notice, if they claim it's not enough, pro-rate it into the middle of July. You can give notice on any day, not just the 1st (in California).
posted by jeffamaphone at 11:02 AM on June 16, 2010

Response by poster: Good news - We spoke with the owner and she has no problem with our plan. Thanks again for the feedback-I'm going to get a copy of that SFTU handbook. Cheers!
posted by pantufla at 1:23 PM on June 16, 2010