$ owed--moved out 6 mths early; separation

[bap1328]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Mississippi-- My husband and I were on a 1 year lease in an apartment. He decided he didn't want to be with me in January 08. He moved out late January 08 or Feb 08 (with 5-6 months left on the lease). The landlord let him leave, by signing a paper and I had to take over the payments till Jul 08 (when lease was up). Should I sue him for the money owed to me and if so, would I win?

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by bap1328

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Mississippi-- My husband and I were on a 1 year lease in an apartment. He decided he didn't want to be with me in January 08. He moved out late January 08 or Feb 08 (with 5-6 months left on the lease). The landlord let him leave, by signing a paper and I had to take over the payments till Jul 08 (when lease was up). Should I sue him for the money owed to me and if so, would I win?

No and no.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by bap1328

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Mississippi-- My husband and I were on a 1 year lease in an apartment. He decided he didn't want to be with me in January 08. He moved out late January 08 or Feb 08 (with 5-6 months left on the lease). The landlord let him leave, by signing a paper and I had to take over the payments till Jul 08 (when lease was up). Should I sue him for the money owed to me and if so, would I win?

Why would your husband owe you anything. His contract for rent was with the landlord, not with you.

[Zigner]

Hold up folks. This is a contract with THREE parties. ALL of the parties would need to agree to a change in the contract. So, the change to the contract is (likely) not valid.

HOWEVER, the LL can choose who to go after for the money. So, while the process wasn't exactly right, the end result is the same.

OP - you CAN file a lawsuit which will deal with this. That lawsuit is titled "Divorce"

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Hold up folks. This is a contract with THREE parties. ALL of the parties would need to agree to a change in the contract. So, the change to the contract is (likely) not valid.

HOWEVER, the LL can choose who to go after for the money. So, while the process wasn't exactly right, the end result is the same.

OP - you CAN file a lawsuit which will deal with this. That lawsuit is titled "Divorce"

Maybe I didn't read this right. It appears to me that the OP paid the balance of the lease and is now wanting to go after hubby for money that she paid to the LL because hubby moved out and did not contribute to the rent.

If I did read this correctly then how does wife have a cause of action against hubby? She lived there, he didn't. She wants to come after him over a year later?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Wirelessany1

If I did read this correctly then how does wife have a cause of action against hubby? She lived there, he didn't. She wants to come after him over a year later?

Because he was one of three parties on the contract. Said contract cannot be modified without approval of all three. So, this is a marital debt which could be thrown in to the mix during a divorce proceeding.

Like I said. The LL can go after either (or both) of the parties for the rent...that's his right.

ETA: I'm not saying hubby would "necessarily" be responsible for it, but it could definitely be factored in to things during negotiations.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Because he was one of three parties on the contract. Said contract cannot be modified without approval of all three. So, this is a marital debt which could be thrown in to the mix during a divorce proceeding.

Like I said. The LL can go after either (or both) of the parties for the rent...that's his right.

ETA: I'm not saying hubby would "necessarily" be responsible for it, but it could definitely be factored in to things during negotiations.

Gotcha (extra smilies for kicks ~ not really forum said post was too short)

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Because he was one of three parties on the contract. Said contract cannot be modified without approval of all three. So, this is a marital debt which could be thrown in to the mix during a divorce proceeding.

Like I said. The LL can go after either (or both) of the parties for the rent...that's his right.

ETA: I'm not saying hubby would "necessarily" be responsible for it, but it could definitely be factored in to things during negotiations.

This is correct. However, any court that she takes it to is likely to say 'you got possession of the apartment and you paid the rent. Why should the husband have to retroactively pay for your place AND his?'

Even if she drags it into the divorce, it's a debt that has now been retired. The divorce judge is likely to say the same thing.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by mistoffolees

This is correct. However, any court that she takes it to is likely to say 'you got possession of the apartment and you paid the rent. Why should the husband have to retroactively pay for your place AND his?'

Even if she drags it into the divorce, it's a debt that has now been retired. The divorce judge is likely to say the same thing.

This was a marital debt that our OP was forced to incur alone, after separation. As such, it is entirely reasonable to expect the hubby to be responsible for a portion of it.
It can (and should) be taken in to account during any settlement negotiations.