Breaking lease (ambiguous language in lease)

[mkwestov]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

I am trying to get out of my lease to move into a new apartment. I had assumed, due to the language of my lease agreement that I would be able to do so if I gave 30 days notice.

"2. Term: Term of the lease shall be for a term of 1 year beginning on the 1st day of March, 2008 and ending on Midnight of the 28th day of February, 2009. If Tenant remains in possession of the leased premises with the consent of the Landlord after the lease expiration date stated above, this Lease will renew for a term of 1 year thereafter. Each party shall have the right to terminate the Lease by giving at least one month's prior written notice to the other party."

The landlord is trying to tell me that the 30 days notice only applies to the yearly renewal of the lease. I think the language supports my interpretation. As long as I document my 30 day notice (certified mail, etc.) am I safe if he tries to bring action? If he tries to keep my deposit, would I likely be successful in getting it back thru small claims?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[CA LL]

Your LL is correct...it will automatically renew to full one year term unless either party terminates with 30 days notice PRIOR to that annual renewal. You should have moved out at the end of February giving notice in January sometime. You can be held liable for the full rent of the fixed one year or until it's re-rented whichever comes first.

Sure it could be worded better but any court is going to "see" the intent here and enforce it as such.

 

[Cvillecpm]

Ditto - you need to give notice BEFORE the expiration of your lease in Feb 2010....,

 

[JETX]

The landlord is trying to tell me that the 30 days notice only applies to the yearly renewal of the lease. I think the language supports my interpretation.

Ignore the obviously biased landlord posts. Though what they describe is normally the INTENT of the provision you cite, the landlord (or whoever provided that lease) screwed up by not making it clear that it applied to the END of the lease and not DURING the lease.
Further to support your interpretation is that there is no STATUTORY requirement for either party to 'notice' the other at the end of the lease term as the lease itself already describes the termination date.

As long as I document my 30 day notice (certified mail, etc.) am I safe if he tries to bring action?

Safe?? From what??
If you mean 'safe' from ANY claims by the landlord, no.
If you mean 'safe' if the landlord were to sue you for breach (AFTER you gave a proper written 30 day notice to terminate) and you having a better than even chance at defending against his claim, my OPINION is, yes.

If he tries to keep my deposit, would I likely be successful in getting it back thru small claims?

See above.

 

[JayDag]

Did you sign a new lease with your current LL? If not, even though it says it automatically renews for one year, he has no signature of a new lease agreement. Officially your lease has expired and without a new lease with your signature, I do not think he has a solid case. After a lease expires it should automatically go to a month to month lease, not a one year. Not only that, but Arizona law states a 30 day notice be it for the tenant or LL. State law trumps your LL's law in his so called "kingdom".

 

[mkwestov]

Thanks. I never would have renewed for a second year if I hadn't thought I could get out with the 30 days notice.

I understand people saying that the LL was right in his intent of the language, but the language itself doesn't spell that out clearly, especially since it is the only place in the lease where breaking the lease is mentioned.

 

[mkwestov]

Did you sign a new lease with your current LL? If not, even though it says it automatically renews for one year, he has no signature of a new lease agreement. Officially your lease has expired and without a new lease with your signature, I do not think he has a solid case. After a lease expires it should automatically go to a month to month lease, not a one year. Not only that, but Arizona law states a 30 day notice be it for the tenant or LL. State law trumps your LL's law in his so called "kingdom".

No, I never actually signed a new lease. I assumed that the original was still in effect (per the language of the contract). Is any extended lease invalid, due to there being no signature? Are we "month-to-month" by default?

2. Term: Term of the lease shall be for a term of 1 year beginning on the 1st day of March, 2008 and ending on Midnight of the 28th day of February, 2009. If Tenant remains in possession of the leased premises with the consent of the Landlord after the lease expiration date stated above, this Lease will renew for a term of 1 year thereafter. Each party shall have the right to terminate the Lease by giving at least one month's prior written notice to the other party."

 

[CA LL]

The above about signing is NOT a correct answer. When there is an auto renewal in an original lease, the signature THERE authorizes the auto renewal unless either party terminates at the end of each annual renewal time (with the notice noted there).

Believe whatever you want...but although worded poorly the auto fixed term renewal WOULD likely hold up in court. I've seen it in courtrooms..even here in CA where that renewal has to be a certain font size, etc. to hold up.

 

[Cvillecpm]

Ignore JayDog...you signature on the original lease provides for the auto renewal. You should have gotten clarification when you signed the ORIGINAL lease if you had wanted other option BEFORE signing it.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I agree with JETX - the lease is horribly worded and as a direct result, I think the OP has a good shot at getting out of it. Arizona, like every other state, follows basic contract law - ambiguous contracts are construed against the drafter. Harford v. National Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 81 Ariz. 43, 45, 299 P.2d 635, 637 (S. Ct. 1956) ("It is a fundamental principle of law that a contract will be construed most strongly against the drafter"). Restatement (Second) of Contracts 2d § 206 cmt. a (1981) also says that the rule providing for construction of a contract against the drafter "is often invoked in cases of standardized contracts and in cases where the drafting party has the stronger bargaining position".

So unless the OP wrote his own lease, his interpretation of the vague language should be controlling. Of course, now you have to find a judge who agrees, and not some strangers on the internet

 

[JayDag]

Ignore JayDog...you signature on the original lease provides for the auto renewal. You should have gotten clarification when you signed the ORIGINAL lease if you had wanted other option BEFORE signing it.

You can ignore me if you want, but I had this SAME EXACT situation 5 years ago. I was awarded the win in court because the LL was supposed to offer me a new lease ON PAPER before my old lease expired. I defaulted to a one year lease also, but since he never offered a new one to me, I automatically went to a month to month. 30 days notice and I was out of there.

 

[ecmst12]

There is no black and white answer here until it gets to court and a judge rules. But it doesn't matter what the landlord's INTENTION was. It matters what the contract says. I agree that OP has a good chance of winning in court, but he should also expect to not get his deposit back and have to sue for it, and he should expect a counter suit for the rent.

 

[Who's Liable?]

Unfortunately, depending on where OP lives, the courts are more favorable towards LLs