Am I obligated to pay this occupant for "holding" the apartment?

January 26, 2007 8:44 AM

Am I required to pay half a month's rent for a room in 2 bedroom apartment, having had my bags there for 4 days and having never signed a lease?

Sorry in advance for the long explanation.

I was never on a lease. After telling the occupant of the other bedroom that I wanted to move in, I had moved my bags into the apartment and had gone down the street to the office of the realty company that manages the building; they gave me an application to fill out, said they would then check my credit history, etc. I never filled out the application, signed anything, or exchanged money; before I did, I decided not to take the apartment a couple days later. I let the realty company know this as well as the person who had previously moved out of the room.

The other occupant of the apartment later called me and told me that we had a verbal agreement and that I needed to find someone to sublet the place, which didn't make sense to me since I was never on a lease. I called the reatly company and ended up talking to the same woman I spoke to previously. I told her that my bags had been there for four days and that the other occupant told me that I needed to find someone to sublet. She immediately told me that this was incorrect and that I had no obligation to the apartment. I called the occupant back and told him what she had told me.

The next day I recieved an email from him. Saying that he wants $400 (half a month's rent) for the apartment. He claims I was there for a little over a week (not at all true) and that he had been holding the apartment for me for about a week as well (thus, 2 week's rent). My question is this: Am I obligated to pay him for time spent "holding" the room for me? What exactly am I obligated to do? Thinking about it, if he asked me for 4 days worth of rent I'd see that as fair, I guess. But 2 weeks ($400)? Is this right? What should be my course of action? Note: this is in MA if it makes a difference.

posted by Land Stander to law & government (36 comments total)

Did he give you and "or else..." as far as his next course of action?

Have the woman you spoke to at the realty company put what she said in writing -- email her and ask her to reiterate what she told you over the phone.
posted by jerseygirl at 8:52 AM on January 26, 2007

and "or else" = an "or else" or something.
posted by jerseygirl at 8:53 AM on January 26, 2007

You said you wanted to move into the apartment, and then you didn't. He held it for you for a full week; almost two including the time your stuff was in the place. And now you want to leave the guy high and dry to pay the rent all on his own? He assumed you were moving in; that's why he didn't show it to anyone else. I think you should pay him the $400.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:02 AM on January 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

In terms of legal obligation, I think you are responsible for four days rent at most, since that's the time you could be said to be 'occupying' the apartment. I don't think you would normally pay rent if someone was holding an apartment for you.

In terms of a moral obligation, I can see where this guy is coming from. It is a lot of work to find someone to rent a place and he probably turned people away because you told him you were going to take it. By the time he finally gets someone he may well be out half a month's rent and that's your fault. If I were you I would not want to pay either but it would certainly be the nice thing to do (karma can be a bitch).
posted by PercussivePaul at 9:04 AM on January 26, 2007

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like your legal obligation is as you say, nothing.

However, you did essentially block him from renting that room to anyone else.

Flip it around. Think how you might have felt had you wanted to move in, but been slow on your paperwork and he rented the room out from under you to someone with a quicker pen. You would have stopped looking for an apartment because you thought you had one, you were proceeding in good faith, if slowly, and he ganked you. I imagine you'd be pissed and be looking for some redress. It might also put you in a really bad situation, if you were counting on that as a place to live.
posted by OmieWise at 9:07 AM on January 26, 2007

$800/month rent=$25.81/day
You could offer to pay him $103.24 rent ($25.81 x 4 days). Just for fun, you could throw in 4 days worth of utilities you used (I dunno...maybe $20 total?), cut him a check (not cash), send it to him via registered mail, and be done with it. If he won't accept this, tell him to sue you.
posted by nineRED at 9:10 AM on January 26, 2007

Legally, this may be a murky issue. IANAL, and if you want to know what the law actually says, you need to consult an expert in landlord-tenant law in your jurisdiction.

Morally, it's crystal clear. By agreeing to take the apartment, you made a commitment to the other roommate. He acted based on that agreement by reserving the room for you instead of giving it to someone else. By pulling out of the agreement, you have caused him to incur costs (the cost of the rent on the second bedroom, the time and effort costs of restarting his roommate search, etc.) You should compensate him for those costs.

Ideally, you should help him find another roommate to take the room and pay the rent until a suitable replacement has been found. At the very least, you should pay him for the time that the room was being held for you (a week and 4 days, from your description). He shouldn't have to bear the costs of your waffling.
posted by decathecting at 9:11 AM on January 26, 2007

second the moral obligation. I've been screwed too many times by people who said they were going to move in, maybe a piece of furniture or a box, and then left me holding the bag without so much as a phone call.

I am the only person on my lease which is both a burden and a security. Its my responsibility to make sure I don't end up forking over lots of cash for someone else's irresponsibility and/or negligence.

spin the facts however you like, but I think you owe the money.
posted by ndrw at 9:15 AM on January 26, 2007

I don't know if you legally owe anything, but I'd say you were somewhat morally bound to pay for the time you did use the room.

You did "occupy" the room for 4 days on good faith, so at a minimum, you owe 4 days prorated. Given that the person renting the room has to share in the risk of "holding" space without a deposit, I'd say a 50%-50% split of the 7 days the room was held for you is a reasonable offer.

That brings your debt to about $214.28, which is a fair price and a lot less than a hotel would have cost you for the same amount of time.

To preserve my karma, I'd offer the above as compensation. If refused, at least you tried to do the right thing and you can let the court sort it out if necessary.
posted by mwilson at 9:20 AM on January 26, 2007

nineRED's got it. Pay him the prorated daily amount, be nice about it and apologize for the inconvenience, and call it a day.

It is common for there to be a few days between reaching agreement and signing a lease, during which the apartment is being held in good faith. You don't pay rent for these days.

This is why landlords ask for first month's rent (and last month's rent, and a security deposit) when you actually sign the lease. This is why people use leases.

But why didn't the other occupant check up with the realty company to make sure you were really going through with it? Why did you leave your bags in this apartment for four days? Weird.
posted by desuetude at 9:29 AM on January 26, 2007

I also agree with nineRED's solution. Don't apologize or explain anything in the accompanying note- keep it as brief as possible, then don't contact this person or respond to their messages again.
posted by mkultra at 9:31 AM on January 26, 2007

No, you are not required to pay a cent. You don't owe shit.

This is why landlords generally require tenants to sign a lease and pay rent before they move in.
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:37 AM on January 26, 2007

Really? Huh.

Can I be honest?

Yes. You owe him money. You told him you were taking the apartment. He took the room off the market because you said you were moving in. You signing a lease or not is beside the point.

This dude, unless I'm misconstruing what you're saying, is not some monolithic property management company who can easily absorb the hit. He's a guy who will now have to cover all the rent by himself, after he thought he found a new roommate. Where I live, that would be financially painful. Why are you trying to spin this as though that has nothing to do with you?

I understand that you don't want to pay him, but yes, I think you have a moral obligation to do so.

Compensate him for the time he's been unable to rent it out and help him find someone else ASAP.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 9:38 AM on January 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

By the time he finally gets someone he may well be out half a month's rent and that's your fault.

This is the important part. To do anything other than compensate this guy for your reneging on a verbal agreement makes you a huge d-bag.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:41 AM on January 26, 2007

Here is an excerpt from mass.gov "Tenant Rights and Responsibilities"

"A Tenant at Will is one who occupies a rented apartment without a lease, but pays rent periodically (typically monthly). The agreement for the Tenancy at Will may be either written or verbal. Either the landlord or you may terminate this arrangement at any time by giving written notice 30 days or one full rental period in advance, whichever is longer. No reason is required to terminate."

link
posted by Hermes32 at 9:46 AM on January 26, 2007

Frankly, he is probably out a whole month's rent because of your actions and if you start making a legal case out of this he might very well ask for that. You made a promise and he acted in reliance upon your promise. Now he is asking for reasonable compensation for his losses. Wikipedia actually does a creditable job on this subject. If you need to know more you must hire a lawyer in your jurisdiction, but that will cost you more than what he is asking. In any regard you have a moral obligation, you might as well live up to that.
posted by caddis at 9:51 AM on January 26, 2007

You are morally obligate to pay rent for the days your stuff was there.
posted by donajo at 9:54 AM on January 26, 2007

i think you owe him. where i live, you'd owe him for a month's rent.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 10:22 AM on January 26, 2007

In terms of legal obligation, I think you are responsible for four days rent at most,

In terms of legal obligation, you are either responsible for the full notice period in your jurisdiction, which is often 60 days, or nothing, depending on how a court decides the case. Practically speaking, it would be hard for the other person to get that money out of you - file a claim, win the judgment, garnish your wages, or whatever.

Two weeks seems reasonable. You might negotiate further to bring the payment down, but would it really be worth saving that $100? If you try to leave this person with nothing, you run a substantial risk of a lot more hassle, and losing more money too.
posted by Chuckles at 10:53 AM on January 26, 2007

Legally, you are not obligated as you did not sign a lease. The landlord can't go after you.

Morally, you did say you'd live there and then didn't. Your (almost) roommate may have turned down other willing people or stopped his search, which left him footing the entire rent for a two bedroom place and essentially paying twice what he thought he would. How much money you feel that is worth is up to you, but, especially if you know him/will ever see him again/are friends with him, you gotta do something.
posted by CAnneDC at 10:53 AM on January 26, 2007

Agreed re. moral obligation. Perhaps not for two weeks; did the guy holding the lease take a little longer than he might've to figure out you weren't moving in, so to speak? But, you definitely owe him for holding the place.

the other occupant told me that I needed to find someone to sublet

Do that, too. At least -- try.
posted by kmennie at 11:54 AM on January 26, 2007

Legally, you are not obligated as you did not sign a lease.

On what authority do you base this?
posted by caddis at 11:59 AM on January 26, 2007

It's a little scary how many people here think you have no legal obligation due to the lack of a written lease. As Hermes32 pointed out, in MA you can be a verbal tenant at will, this is the de facto arrangement if there is no written agreement, and such tenants have to give at least 30 days' notice. IANAL, but if your ex-apartmentmate decides to take you to small claims court for 34 days' rent, relisting costs, and court fees you will need to prove that you were never a tenant, which is a fight you may or may not win. I don't know the legal requirements for a tenancy, but it's pretty clear that this guy was renting a room for occupancy, not a bag-storage area, so it could be an uphill battle.
posted by backupjesus at 12:02 PM on January 26, 2007

"Legally, you are not obligated as you did not sign a lease."

Where did you learn this? Did you even read this comment? Land Stander has no obligation to the realty company, because he made no commitment to them. The lady he called couldn't care less about this dispute. He did, however, make a commitment to the apartment occupant and then left him hanging for several days as he changed his mind. (OP: What caddis said)

Land Stander: You need to pay the guy (not the realty company, see above). You said you were moving in, you made a commitment. He took the place off the market believing you were a person of your word and thus lost the opportunity to get a roommate for that time. You decided to break your agreement and now you want to avoid the consequences. That sucks. You need to square up with this guy. I think you're getting off easy with the $400 given Hermes information. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on your side of things if this went to small claims court.
posted by jaysus chris at 12:04 PM on January 26, 2007

What if Land Stander had filled out the application and not passed (e.g. for a poor credit report)? Would he still be obligated to pay the potential roommate?
posted by turaho at 12:29 PM on January 26, 2007

jaysus chris: "Where did you learn this? Did you even read this comment?"

I don't know if he did, but I did. It specifies that a tenant-at-will is someone who "pays rent periodically". Land Stander never once paid rent, let alone "periodically."

Since that condition was not met, my personal conclusion (I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc) is that Land Stander is not a tenant-at-will.
posted by CrayDrygu at 1:18 PM on January 26, 2007

I agree that morally at least you owe the guy some money. Because if you weren't going to live there why did you start moving in? And why didn't you go get your stuff the instant you decided not to live there? Leaving your bags there crosses the line beyond just thinking about taking the apartment, the guy had every right to assume you were in the process of actually moving in and to act accordingly (i.e. turning away other potential room mates).
posted by shelleycat at 1:36 PM on January 26, 2007

Agree with those who say that a contract need not be written to be legally binding. He gave up something -- the opportunity to find a different roommate, and you received something -- rights to the apartment, which you used when you put your bags there. $400 is a good deal under the circumstances.
posted by snickerdoodle at 2:30 PM on January 26, 2007

I'm getting a very strong sense of "what's wrong with this picture?" here.

Whenever I've had a room for rent, and someone came by and said they'd take it, I asked them for a deposit. If they stiffed me, I kept the deposit.

Isn't it done that way in the USA at all? Nobody's even mentioned it.

My utterly non-legal opinion is that you don't owe him anything legally, but morally, yeah, a pro rata amount of rent would be nice.

But if he'd asked you for say $200 deposit, then the whole thing would be moot.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:02 PM on January 26, 2007

Turaho raises a good point -- if Land Stander had been turned down due to poor credit or whatever, would he be morally obligated to pay up?

Regarding the assumption of tenanthood, Land Stander, did you have keys to this apartment? (If so, I'm going to swing closer to the "pay up" side -- having keys is an assumption that you're a tenant.)
posted by desuetude at 3:03 PM on January 26, 2007

If Land Stander had been turned down it would be quite a different situation. The tenant shouldn't have accepted him until the property managers agreed. I doubt you could rely on that technicality in court though.. It seems to me, the fact an application was never made shows bad faith - an intention to obscure the point - but bags in the room is pretty decisive.

The question about the key is key, or relevant, at least..
posted by Chuckles at 3:48 PM on January 26, 2007

"I don't know if he did, but I did. It specifies that a tenant-at-will is someone who "pays rent periodically". Land Stander never once paid rent, let alone "periodically." "

That's a separate issue. I was speaking specifically to the apparently clueless suggestion that by not signing a lease you can immunize yourself from being held to your word on a verbal contract. That definition directly refuted the "you didn't sign anything, so forget it" mentality of a lot of the lazy/careless answers here.

As far as whether or not the poster was a "tenant-at-will," we simply don't have enough information. That no payment had yet been made is irrelevant. We need to know what arrangements the poster made with the apartment occupant before he started moving in. As I said above, I wouldn't want to be on the poster's side of this argument.
posted by jaysus chris at 5:33 PM on January 26, 2007

You owe him. Don't be a dirtbag. He took the room off the market for you and stopped looking for a roomate because he thought he had one. You led him to believe that he wouldn't have to find a third job to pay for the whole rent this month, and then you backed out when it was too late for him to do anything. You owe him.
posted by arcticwoman at 7:58 PM on January 26, 2007

Look at it from the other guy's side:
His roommate moved out. That sucks, but, the canonical ancient unwritten roommate rules say the moving-out-roommate has to find a replacement. He did. Cool. Then the new guy flakes. He's now stuck with the whole rent, which he probably didn't plan on. That might put him in a small financial crisis. The old roomate, having done his duty, is gone. Now this guy has to do a roommate search, which is a pain in the butt he hadn't planned on.
If you hadn't passed the credit check or something, that's one thing, but you willfully flaked on the guy. All this legally... stuff is beside the point. You've put this guy in a situation where you screwed him, and legally he can't do anything about it (probably). The Ancient Rules of Roommates require you to pay, though.
Which makes your question: I want to be a douchebag. Can I get away with it? Answer: probably. But people will know.
posted by ctmf at 8:05 PM on January 26, 2007

Excuse me? Just so you know, ctmf, I already wrote an email to him agreeing to cut him a check ASAP. My question is what it is; I've been taking all answers to heart. Thanks for being an asshole about it. Rest assured that I made my decision because of the more even-tempered people in this thread, not the holier-than-thou assholes like you. To everyone else, thanks for the responses.
posted by Land Stander at 9:51 AM on January 27, 2007

Yeah, I apologize for that. Don't know what got into me. I should have realized that you wouldn't be here asking if you were that way.
posted by ctmf at 8:04 PM on January 27, 2007