What am I on the hook for after breaking my apartment lease in Seattle?
October 16, 2013 11:02 AM Subscribe
I recently moved cross country, and had to break my apartment lease 3 months early in order to do so. I gave my landlords a month and a half notice, and they immediately began showing my place. When the time came for me to turn in my keys, I told them the date of my departure and gave them my forwarding address, and in their reply (via email), they did not indicate that they had not leased my apartment yet (otherwise I would have left an additional check for the month of October). Today I received a bill from them for the remainder of the rent on the lease, plus additional cleaning fees that were not subtracted from my deposit. The bill indicates that my deposit has been forfeited as well. I'm finding the whole thing a bit fishy though, because Craigslist does not indicate that my apartment is for rent (that's how I found the place initially), and they waited to SNAIL MAIL this bill until October 11th, when the rent was due on October 5th (they also have my email and phone number). As it stands, if I am on the hook, I will have to call them regardless, because a mailed check will not make it back to them by "within 7 days of the date of this notice (October 11th)". What can I do to address this situation?
YANML, etc.
Additional information:
1. My lease says nothing about my deposit being "forfeit" if I break the lease. I would assume that if, god forbid, I have to keep paying monthly, that in December, I should get my deposit back since I paid for the entire amount of the lease.
2. I have already looked through the Renter's guide for Seattle, so I understand that I'm at a disadvantage in terms of legal power (I was prepared for the possibility that I would have to continue paying rent, but now I have no way of knowing if they actually leased the place and are still charging me).
3. I cannot sublet. The lease prohibits it.
4. I still have friends in Seattle. I can potentially ask one of them to pick up "my" keys if I'm still "renting".
YANML, etc.
Additional information:
1. My lease says nothing about my deposit being "forfeit" if I break the lease. I would assume that if, god forbid, I have to keep paying monthly, that in December, I should get my deposit back since I paid for the entire amount of the lease.
2. I have already looked through the Renter's guide for Seattle, so I understand that I'm at a disadvantage in terms of legal power (I was prepared for the possibility that I would have to continue paying rent, but now I have no way of knowing if they actually leased the place and are still charging me).
3. I cannot sublet. The lease prohibits it.
4. I still have friends in Seattle. I can potentially ask one of them to pick up "my" keys if I'm still "renting".
1. My lease says nothing about my deposit being "forfeit" if I break the lease. I would assume that if, god forbid, I have to keep paying monthly, that in December, I should get my deposit back since I paid for the entire amount of the lease.
Washington does not allow landlords to forfeit the deposit for abandoning a rental regardless of the lease. However, it's common for landlords to do so anyway, as any practical enforcement of this requires a lawsuit and you are no longer present for that lawsuit.
Washington does allow landlords to charge for rent until the end of your lease. However, the landlord must make a "good faith effort" to rerent the unit. The definition of a "good faith effort" in court would probably mean at least putting the unit on Craigslist, but you have to get to court for that to matter. In other words, again, unless you are suing them, it doesn't matter what the law says.
now I have no way of knowing if they actually leased the place and are still charging me
Consider having one of your friends drive by the place at 8 PM to see if the lights are on.
posted by saeculorum at 11:13 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Washington does not allow landlords to forfeit the deposit for abandoning a rental regardless of the lease. However, it's common for landlords to do so anyway, as any practical enforcement of this requires a lawsuit and you are no longer present for that lawsuit.
Washington does allow landlords to charge for rent until the end of your lease. However, the landlord must make a "good faith effort" to rerent the unit. The definition of a "good faith effort" in court would probably mean at least putting the unit on Craigslist, but you have to get to court for that to matter. In other words, again, unless you are suing them, it doesn't matter what the law says.
now I have no way of knowing if they actually leased the place and are still charging me
Consider having one of your friends drive by the place at 8 PM to see if the lights are on.
posted by saeculorum at 11:13 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
I had to break a lease in WA state last year (though not in Seattle). I recall that the law says that you are indeed responsible for payments for the remainder of your lease, but the landlord has to make a good faith attempt to find a replacement renter before your lease is up. I imagine it may be very hard to prove that the landlord isn't doing that, even if the efforts are minimal.
We ended up advertising for a new renter to take our apartment ourselves on Craigslist (after informing the landlord that we're doing this). We offered a small "signing bonus" and indeed got replacement renters pretty fast. The landlord did keep our security deposit, but we were just happy we weren't stuck with the lease (we had about 8 months left).
More info from the Tenants Union of Washington State.
posted by tecg at 11:19 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
We ended up advertising for a new renter to take our apartment ourselves on Craigslist (after informing the landlord that we're doing this). We offered a small "signing bonus" and indeed got replacement renters pretty fast. The landlord did keep our security deposit, but we were just happy we weren't stuck with the lease (we had about 8 months left).
More info from the Tenants Union of Washington State.
posted by tecg at 11:19 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
It appears in Washington state, statute requires landlords to mitigate the damages in an event of a broken lease. Most leases won't mention it, but it exists.
In Texas, I had to use it to force my landlord to proactively look for a replacement, when my job took me to another state.
IANAL, but you should talk to the Tenants Union.
posted by politikitty at 11:23 AM on October 16, 2013
In Texas, I had to use it to force my landlord to proactively look for a replacement, when my job took me to another state.
IANAL, but you should talk to the Tenants Union.
posted by politikitty at 11:23 AM on October 16, 2013
dorque, while leases may say that, in almost every state, the landlord has the responsibility to mitigate damages - to attempt to re-rent and then release you from further payment.
posted by mercredi at 12:13 PM on October 16, 2013
posted by mercredi at 12:13 PM on October 16, 2013
They generally have to make an effort. If they're billing for three months of rent before those three months have actually passed, they cannot possibly have made the effort for all three months! Blahblahlawyerblah, but this has happened to friends of mine on several occasions (thankfully not me, yet) and it's often been fixable by sending them a link to the relevant statute(s). Essentially, they know that most renters will not know about this, will not ask someone who knows about this, and at least some of them will eventually pay up. It's scummy, but at least they're not your landlords anymore, so I guess there's that.
posted by Sequence at 12:49 PM on October 16, 2013
posted by Sequence at 12:49 PM on October 16, 2013
Woah, a seattle question about this. My parents were landlords for a lot of my childhood, and after that i dealt with more than a couple shady/shitty/criminal landlords with my moms assistance(and also knowing the relevant things to go look up).
Today I received a bill from them for the remainder of the rent on the lease, plus additional cleaning fees that were not subtracted from my deposit. The bill indicates that my deposit has been forfeited as well.
This is laughably illegal, but would you believe the same thing has happened to me twice?(especially the deposit+more money part)
They have to provide an itemized list of what they spent your deposit on if they're keeping it, including receipts(not 100% sure on that part, but i've heard of the judge asking for them. i'll cover that in the next part). The "above and beyond the deposit" part is grey area. It's illegal in some places, but as i remember may actually be legal in seattle. The same things do apply though, if they're going to keep your deposit and ask to fork over money they better have proof that it isn't just punitive catty bullshit. And that proof is legally required.
Unfortunately though, your only real recourse here is to file in small claims court in seattle. The good news is that if you show up and they don't, you win. If you show up and they do, but they don't have proof(and the bar is HIGH) you win. Judges have literally said word for word "If you're here as a landlord trying to illegally keep a deposit, you better get out your checkbook". They are hardasses, and very used to this bullshit and you will get the absolute benefit of the doubt because this shit happens a lot.
There's only two things you can legally do as a landlord here:
1. People can break the lease, but they have to pay a predefined fee. A lot of places work this way, and the fee is usually HIGH. Like two months rent-ish.
2. You can't really "break" the lease, you're still liable for the rest of the rent if you move out. I distinctly remember some kind of no double dipping language here though, as in they can't kick you out charge you the rest of the rent then rent the apartment the next month. This is labyrinthine is all i remember, which is why most landlords seem to do option A. I think what's mentioned above that they're required to try and rent it and can't keep charging you when they do is the gist of it.
What you're experiencing is pretty much slumlord behavior.
Some reading: city laws(is this the renters guide you mentioned?), state laws.
Oh, and if you don't have the time/money/etc to deal with this get a hold of these guys. One of the main reasons they exist is to defend people against this kind of bullshit because somehow seattle is just full of ridiculously asshole landlords.
Oh, and as a closing note after i let this post sit unfinished for 10 minutes or so... i'm questioning the legality of "your deposit is forfeit if you break the lease". That might be kosher, it also might not be. I almost want to shoot my mom a text. If i had time i'd re-read those two law documents because i know there's very specific language on exact how and why the deposit can be used, and when they can actually charge you above and beyond it. I've had a landlord illegally send me to collections over that one.
Because, as i remember, if they want money beyond the deposit they have to sue you in small claims. No one does, but that's how it's supposed to work. Instead they just show up and demand it mafia style.
To directly address your most "ohfuckohfuckohfuck" point though,
As it stands, if I am on the hook, I will have to call them regardless, because a mailed check will not make it back to them by "within 7 days of the date of this notice (October 11th)". What can I do to address this situation?
Put the money in escrow and file against them in small claims. That shows good faith, and that you're not just trying to shirk this but that you think they're legally in the wrong(because, you know, they probably are). Judges eat that shit up. If they keep harassing you or threaten you with collections(or worse, actually start that process) just bring the proof of that along to court.
Filing in small claims doesn't require a lawyer and only costs like $60. Do not assume you're fucked if you don't pay this, that's what they want you to think.
posted by emptythought at 3:09 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
Today I received a bill from them for the remainder of the rent on the lease, plus additional cleaning fees that were not subtracted from my deposit. The bill indicates that my deposit has been forfeited as well.
This is laughably illegal, but would you believe the same thing has happened to me twice?(especially the deposit+more money part)
They have to provide an itemized list of what they spent your deposit on if they're keeping it, including receipts(not 100% sure on that part, but i've heard of the judge asking for them. i'll cover that in the next part). The "above and beyond the deposit" part is grey area. It's illegal in some places, but as i remember may actually be legal in seattle. The same things do apply though, if they're going to keep your deposit and ask to fork over money they better have proof that it isn't just punitive catty bullshit. And that proof is legally required.
Unfortunately though, your only real recourse here is to file in small claims court in seattle. The good news is that if you show up and they don't, you win. If you show up and they do, but they don't have proof(and the bar is HIGH) you win. Judges have literally said word for word "If you're here as a landlord trying to illegally keep a deposit, you better get out your checkbook". They are hardasses, and very used to this bullshit and you will get the absolute benefit of the doubt because this shit happens a lot.
There's only two things you can legally do as a landlord here:
1. People can break the lease, but they have to pay a predefined fee. A lot of places work this way, and the fee is usually HIGH. Like two months rent-ish.
2. You can't really "break" the lease, you're still liable for the rest of the rent if you move out. I distinctly remember some kind of no double dipping language here though, as in they can't kick you out charge you the rest of the rent then rent the apartment the next month. This is labyrinthine is all i remember, which is why most landlords seem to do option A. I think what's mentioned above that they're required to try and rent it and can't keep charging you when they do is the gist of it.
What you're experiencing is pretty much slumlord behavior.
Some reading: city laws(is this the renters guide you mentioned?), state laws.
Oh, and if you don't have the time/money/etc to deal with this get a hold of these guys. One of the main reasons they exist is to defend people against this kind of bullshit because somehow seattle is just full of ridiculously asshole landlords.
Oh, and as a closing note after i let this post sit unfinished for 10 minutes or so... i'm questioning the legality of "your deposit is forfeit if you break the lease". That might be kosher, it also might not be. I almost want to shoot my mom a text. If i had time i'd re-read those two law documents because i know there's very specific language on exact how and why the deposit can be used, and when they can actually charge you above and beyond it. I've had a landlord illegally send me to collections over that one.
Because, as i remember, if they want money beyond the deposit they have to sue you in small claims. No one does, but that's how it's supposed to work. Instead they just show up and demand it mafia style.
To directly address your most "ohfuckohfuckohfuck" point though,
As it stands, if I am on the hook, I will have to call them regardless, because a mailed check will not make it back to them by "within 7 days of the date of this notice (October 11th)". What can I do to address this situation?
Put the money in escrow and file against them in small claims. That shows good faith, and that you're not just trying to shirk this but that you think they're legally in the wrong(because, you know, they probably are). Judges eat that shit up. If they keep harassing you or threaten you with collections(or worse, actually start that process) just bring the proof of that along to court.
Filing in small claims doesn't require a lawyer and only costs like $60. Do not assume you're fucked if you don't pay this, that's what they want you to think.
posted by emptythought at 3:09 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
With most US leases, while the rent is due on the 1st of the month, late fees don't usually kick in until the 10th --- so their sending you that letter on October 11th (the first 'official' late day) was perfectly reasonable. And you signed a legal agreement that you chose to break; unless you are a military family, there is usually NO requirement that your landlord just fall in line with your plans: "oh yes, they wanted to leave early, la-di-da no big deal"...... A landlord CAN agree to let someone out of their lease early, but they are not REQUIRED to do so.
Okay, that said: do any of the emails you traded with the landlord before you left detail a mutual agreement for you to leave the lease early? Not just something YOU wrote, but something THEY wrote. And don't send even more money for the cleaning until and unless you receive an itemized bill. I'd be VERY surprised if simply cleaning the place cost *as much as* your security deposit, assuming of course that that's all the landlord had to do (no holes in the wall to be patched or anything like that).
posted by easily confused at 3:44 PM on October 16, 2013
Okay, that said: do any of the emails you traded with the landlord before you left detail a mutual agreement for you to leave the lease early? Not just something YOU wrote, but something THEY wrote. And don't send even more money for the cleaning until and unless you receive an itemized bill. I'd be VERY surprised if simply cleaning the place cost *as much as* your security deposit, assuming of course that that's all the landlord had to do (no holes in the wall to be patched or anything like that).
posted by easily confused at 3:44 PM on October 16, 2013
Oh, one more thing i forgot to add:
They can't just say repainting cost $800 either, and have a receipt from their brother the painter. The judge will call utter bullshit on that.
They're allowed to charge more the average by a bit, but if they bill $80/hr for themselves scrubbing the floors that won't fly. Any charges that look ridiculous can and will be called in to question, and market rate comparisons proving that they're fair, normal, and not punitive/for the fuck of it will be asked for. Generally they'll probably really get grilled on anything that they did themselves and just put down as "2 hours of XYZ $HUGEAMOUNT". The table is tilted in your favor here, because the burden of proof is entirely on them to prove they aren't full of shit.
That one is another bullshit common seattle landlord scam. And people must just pony up most of the time or they wouldn't do it so much, because damn have i heard of/seen/experienced it a lot.
posted by emptythought at 4:25 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
They can't just say repainting cost $800 either, and have a receipt from their brother the painter. The judge will call utter bullshit on that.
They're allowed to charge more the average by a bit, but if they bill $80/hr for themselves scrubbing the floors that won't fly. Any charges that look ridiculous can and will be called in to question, and market rate comparisons proving that they're fair, normal, and not punitive/for the fuck of it will be asked for. Generally they'll probably really get grilled on anything that they did themselves and just put down as "2 hours of XYZ $HUGEAMOUNT". The table is tilted in your favor here, because the burden of proof is entirely on them to prove they aren't full of shit.
That one is another bullshit common seattle landlord scam. And people must just pony up most of the time or they wouldn't do it so much, because damn have i heard of/seen/experienced it a lot.
posted by emptythought at 4:25 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Do you ever plan to return to Washington state? If not, you may want to consider simply not responding.
You moved cross-country. For the landlord, it's difficult, time-consuming and expensive to file and serve a small-claims court proceeding against you. Even if he does file a claim against you, you may not fall under the court's jurisdiction since you are now living in another state. Lastly, even if your ex-landlord does file in court (unlikely), and wins a claim against you (also unlikely as he'll need solid proof of the validity of charges), the landlord then has to pay a lawyer or a judgment recovery service to actually enforce the judgment (that is, get you to pay). And, should all this unlikeliness come to pass, then if the judgment shows up on your credit report - and different states have different laws and procedures that transcribe judgments to credit reports, it may not- it will show up as one small black mark. Failure to pay on other installment loans (cards, car loans, mortgages, etc) with regular reporting to credit agencies will cause a much bigger hit to your credit than a one-time judgment.
The letter your ex-landlord sent is probably just a "hail-mary" tactic to try to squeeze a little more money out of you, especially if the unit hasn't re-rented yet. If you're okay with losing your deposit, you could just ignore this letter and see what, if anything, happens next.
posted by Ardea alba at 12:24 PM on October 18, 2013
You moved cross-country. For the landlord, it's difficult, time-consuming and expensive to file and serve a small-claims court proceeding against you. Even if he does file a claim against you, you may not fall under the court's jurisdiction since you are now living in another state. Lastly, even if your ex-landlord does file in court (unlikely), and wins a claim against you (also unlikely as he'll need solid proof of the validity of charges), the landlord then has to pay a lawyer or a judgment recovery service to actually enforce the judgment (that is, get you to pay). And, should all this unlikeliness come to pass, then if the judgment shows up on your credit report - and different states have different laws and procedures that transcribe judgments to credit reports, it may not- it will show up as one small black mark. Failure to pay on other installment loans (cards, car loans, mortgages, etc) with regular reporting to credit agencies will cause a much bigger hit to your credit than a one-time judgment.
The letter your ex-landlord sent is probably just a "hail-mary" tactic to try to squeeze a little more money out of you, especially if the unit hasn't re-rented yet. If you're okay with losing your deposit, you could just ignore this letter and see what, if anything, happens next.
posted by Ardea alba at 12:24 PM on October 18, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dorque at 11:12 AM on October 16, 2013