Breaking Lease Landlord Increasing Rent

[Calimex]

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

We bought a house and needed to break our 2-year lease 7 months prematurely. We were renting for $1395/month - advertised on Craigslist and found 10 viable renters with good income and rental history.

In our 30 days notice I forwarded the list of renters to the property management company all of which had already viewed the property with move in dates for the first vacant month. All viable renters knew it might be a "sub-lease" for the remainder 7 months per approval of landlord since not possible through our lease contract.

Property management company increased rent to $200 more per month starting from first vacant month - one eager renter who called immediately backed out. All others on the list were never contacted by property management company.

Property management company is still holding us liable for rent until they find a replacement at the higher rent.

Obviously not ethically right but is this legal?

 

[Zigner]

They will need to make a reasonable effort to re-rent the unit.

 

[FarmerJ]

Tell the PM firm in writing sent via certified mail that if they will not accept replacement tenants at the same rates you were paying for the remaining months of your lease then you have no choice but to refuse to pay them any more & make them take you to court where they can tell a judge why they increased the rent and how it resulted in your replacement tenant being unwilling to pay. ( you might not get very far with them on this but if you dont push on this or dont want to it already seems they arent likely to let you pay a lump sum to be released from the lease so no matter what you may not have a happy outcome but again it sure wont hurt to let them know you have no problem letting them look foolish in court by not playing fair ) and no they cant just sit on that unit empty for the next 7 months. Even if they had to find their own tenant there is no logical reason that it would take more than 6 to 8 weeks to actually have a tenant they chose in there.

 

[latigo]

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

We bought a house and needed to break our 2-year lease 7 months prematurely. We were renting for $1395/month - advertised on Craigslist and found 10 viable renters with good income and rental history.

In our 30 days notice I forwarded the list of renters to the property management company all of which had already viewed the property with move in dates for the first vacant month. All viable renters knew it might be a "sub-lease" for the remainder 7 months per approval of landlord since not possible through our lease contract.

Property management company increased rent to $200 more per month starting from first vacant month - one eager renter who called immediately backed out. All others on the list were never contacted by property management company.

Property management company is still holding us liable for rent until they find a replacement at the higher rent.

Obviously not ethically right but is this legal?

The key here, which is not clear, is whether or not you were in possession of the premises at the times of your conversations with the owner's agent.

If you were still in possession of the premises, then any issues regarding the owner's legal obligation to mitigate are entirely moot. The duty would not emerge until you vacated short of term.

If you were out at the time, I think the owner through its property management agent may have waived the right to hold you to full term. If you vacate now, all past conversations with the management would be remote and irrelevant. It would be different if you had a contractual right to sublease and the owner raised the ante, etc., but you don't.

If I haven't made that clear, say so. But the point is that if you were in possession at the time you attempted to find a substitute tenant there would be no legal significance attached to the discussions between you and the management or its refusal to accept a substitute tenant or increasing the rent.

Lastly, there was not legitimate purpose served with for your "30-day notice". You agreed to pay rent for an express period of time and the owner agreed to grant you the use of the property during that period.

If the owner tried to evict you short of the 7 months and you couldn't find other quarters except for an additional $200 a month, you'd be complaining about that not being ethical. You made the bargain so live with it.