Boston rentals - is this normal terrible or extra terrible?
June 27, 2018 5:12 AM Subscribe
I am looking to sign a new lease in Boston, and got accepted for a place in a great location at a good-for-Boston price. But the lease is giving me pause because it includes some seemingly draconian terms that I've never seen before. I'm tempted to walk if they don't change it, but if this is just part of the Boston rental market (like broker's fees and crazy high rents), I'd like to know. I've never rented in Boston, but I have in other cities and in Cambridge and Somerville.
In particular, the management company has added an addendum that includes, among other things, that if I cause a flood or fire on the property due to negligence, then I agree to "pay for the insurance deductible for the building insurance." Note that it says building, not just the apartment that I'm renting. It doesn't say how high that deductible is, so if something terrible happens, it seems like they could accuse me of being the cause by negligence and seek an amount way higher than my security deposit or anything I could actually pay. (I'm even more skittish about this term because another part of the lease says I'm also on the hook for their legal fees if I initially refuse to pay and they eventually win. I know that's technically legal, but it certainly raises the risk for me.)
Is this common or normal in Boston? I don't want to potentially refuse to sign this lease if I might be stuck with the same or similar terms even if I find another apartment. I'm not asking for legal advice, just whether this is a normal part of the terrible renter's market in Boston. That said, if you have reason to believe it's straight up illegal, please explain, though I understand you are not my lawyer.
In particular, the management company has added an addendum that includes, among other things, that if I cause a flood or fire on the property due to negligence, then I agree to "pay for the insurance deductible for the building insurance." Note that it says building, not just the apartment that I'm renting. It doesn't say how high that deductible is, so if something terrible happens, it seems like they could accuse me of being the cause by negligence and seek an amount way higher than my security deposit or anything I could actually pay. (I'm even more skittish about this term because another part of the lease says I'm also on the hook for their legal fees if I initially refuse to pay and they eventually win. I know that's technically legal, but it certainly raises the risk for me.)
Is this common or normal in Boston? I don't want to potentially refuse to sign this lease if I might be stuck with the same or similar terms even if I find another apartment. I'm not asking for legal advice, just whether this is a normal part of the terrible renter's market in Boston. That said, if you have reason to believe it's straight up illegal, please explain, though I understand you are not my lawyer.
That's absolutely not standard and I would not sign that. It's basically a way to blame a tenant for faulty wiring or bad plumbing that they should have taken care of and didn't.
posted by bile and syntax at 5:36 AM on June 27, 2018
posted by bile and syntax at 5:36 AM on June 27, 2018
The last lease I signed in Boston (which was ten years ago, so maybe take it with a grain of salt) contained a similar clause, and it didn't really bother me. Massachusetts law in general is notoriously friendly to tenants, so it's unlikely that they'd be able to enforce the 'renter pays the legal bills if they contest our flimsy claims in court' clause. In the event of a flood or a fire, the onus would be on the property management company to prove your negligence, which is a pretty high hurdle to clear. That said, the deductible on homeowners policies tends to be quite high, and if you're the sort of person who's been known to leave candles burning overnight, you could end up being on the hook for a five-figure deductible.
posted by Mayor West at 5:52 AM on June 27, 2018
posted by Mayor West at 5:52 AM on June 27, 2018
Best answer: I don’t know about that specific part of the lease, but if it’s a large management company, do your research on them. At least one of the big-time Boston landlords is notoriously, profoundly shady.
posted by Metroid Baby at 6:41 AM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Metroid Baby at 6:41 AM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
I think the first provision is just making explicit the rights they already have. If you damage the building through negligence, they can already sue you for the cost of repairs. The second clause is more concerning, and not something I remember seeing in any lease I've signed. (At the same time, I've never leased from a big company in Boston).
All that said, the Boston rental market is insane enough that I wouldn't turn down a good place at a good price over an issue like this. Just make sure you get renter's insurance that covers this sort of liability, so if something awful does happen, it's your insurer's problem to sort it out.
posted by firechicago at 7:50 AM on June 27, 2018
All that said, the Boston rental market is insane enough that I wouldn't turn down a good place at a good price over an issue like this. Just make sure you get renter's insurance that covers this sort of liability, so if something awful does happen, it's your insurer's problem to sort it out.
posted by firechicago at 7:50 AM on June 27, 2018
It's basically a way to blame a tenant for faulty wiring
No, in that case the landlord would be the cause. This would apply to fires resulting from the tenant's use of candles, cigarettes, the stove...
To my eye those just make explicit various things that could already be done via lawsuit. The legal-fee clause is-- I much prefer mediation clauses or "we don't pay one another's legal fees" clauses, as those create incentives and methods to keep legal costs down.
What does the lease say about late fees? That's something that I've read is difficult to justify in court if the lease doesn't say it, so it's a place to make sure they're not being unreasonable.
posted by slidell at 8:01 AM on June 27, 2018
No, in that case the landlord would be the cause. This would apply to fires resulting from the tenant's use of candles, cigarettes, the stove...
To my eye those just make explicit various things that could already be done via lawsuit. The legal-fee clause is-- I much prefer mediation clauses or "we don't pay one another's legal fees" clauses, as those create incentives and methods to keep legal costs down.
What does the lease say about late fees? That's something that I've read is difficult to justify in court if the lease doesn't say it, so it's a place to make sure they're not being unreasonable.
posted by slidell at 8:01 AM on June 27, 2018
If you cause damage to the building through negligence, you're going to be liable for those losses anyway. I mean, think about it. If you fall asleep in bed with a cigarette and the whole building burns down, do you really think you would be able to restrict your liability to the damage to your own unit? I would request mutuality on the legal-fees clause if it's not already that way (that is, if you win, they pay your fees). Otherwise, this is really just making explicit what would likely be the result in court. Yes, you could end up being liable for more than you could pay. That would be the result in court, too. Get renter's insurance (it's not very expensive and you should have it anyway) and live like a grownup and that risk is relatively minimal.
If those are your only issues, I'd say to take the apartment.
posted by praemunire at 9:27 AM on June 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
If those are your only issues, I'd say to take the apartment.
posted by praemunire at 9:27 AM on June 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
Call Boston's Office of Housing. They can help answer this and if you tell them the name of the landlord they can tell you if they know them to be sketchy or decent or in the middle.
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 10:01 AM on June 27, 2018
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 10:01 AM on June 27, 2018
Response by poster: Just to clarify again: I'm not asking about whether you think this risk is acceptable or avoidable. (I do live like a grownup, thank you.) Just whether you've seen this in leases, particularly in Boston. Thanks to those who have weighed in with their experiences.
posted by alligatorpear at 10:14 AM on June 27, 2018
posted by alligatorpear at 10:14 AM on June 27, 2018
I have seen a negligence clause in a recent lease. that lease also had a million rules including no candles, but i think the negligence clause is not that unusual. insurance would be by the building not by the apartment so that part is definitely not weird. there would not be a seperate deductible for each unit.
our experience with the mega lease mentioned was it was a little more of a pain dealing with moving in and out, but the house was super super nice because of all the details.
posted by domino at 11:19 AM on June 27, 2018
our experience with the mega lease mentioned was it was a little more of a pain dealing with moving in and out, but the house was super super nice because of all the details.
posted by domino at 11:19 AM on June 27, 2018
not in boston though, in a way less expensive rental market so such a detailed lease is super rare.
posted by domino at 11:20 AM on June 27, 2018
posted by domino at 11:20 AM on June 27, 2018
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mermaidcafe at 5:16 AM on June 27, 2018