HOLDOVER BY LESSEE in PA -- month-to-month tenancy w/ 60 days notice?

[rock1]

My lease expired a few months ago and I am now on a month-to-month tenancy. Rent is paid on first of every month and checks are cashed. No communication from landlord asking about renewal. Also, they do have a security deposit equal to one month's rent.

There is a provision in my lease that reads as follows:

"Holdover by Lessee. Should Lessee remain in possession of the demised premises with the consent of Lessor after the natural expiration of this lease, a new month-to-month tenancy shall be created between Lessor and Lessee which shall be subject to all the terms and conditions hereof but shall be terminated on 60 days' written notice served by either Lessor or Lessee on the other party."

The 60 days was left blank in the original document and filled in by hand. The problem is that I am looking to leave a lot sooner than 60 days. I have read that state statute in Pennsylvania requires only 15 days notice on a month-to-month tenancy for either tenant or landlord.

Also, the phrase "Should Lessee remain in possession of the demised premises..." makes this clause seem conditional to my living here; that is to say if I move out, I no longer have possession of the premises, and therefore the 60 day notice is irrelevant.

Can my landlord require me to give 2-months notice on a MONTH to MONTH tenancy, or does the statute override whatever verbiage is in the lease? Will this clause hold up in PA court if I defend against a potential lawsuit?

Please advise -- thanks!

 

[Gail in Georgia]

A states Landlord Tenant Statutes takes precedent over what a lease might state.

Gail

 

[Andy0192]

A states Landlord Tenant Statutes takes precedent over what a lease might state.

Gail

Except that in Pennsylvania, a Tenant may specifically waive certain provisions, if they agree to them in writing.

Without seeing the entire lease, it would seem to me that you have a month-to-month lease, that is being governed by the written lease document you originally signed.

http://www.parealtor.org/content/upload/AssetMgmt/Legal Services/Laws & Regulations/Landlord-Tenant Act.pdf

 

[rock1]

Hi guys, thanks for both of your reply.

Really, I just need to know if my argument would hold in Court if I did not have counsel. I pay my rent on time every month and my reason for leaving is due to excessive chainsmoking and noise from my downstairs neighbor. I have stuck around past the one year expiration because it seems as if we had an understanding, but this now clearly not the case and it is back in full swing.

I can tell you that this is one of those "EZ LEGAL FORMS" type leases. It does not explicitly waive any rights in regards to my notice to quit, but it does say:

"Holdover by Lessee. Should Lessee remain in possession of the demised premises with the consent of Lessor after the natural expiration of this lease, a new month-to-month tenancy shall be created between Lessor and Lessee which shall be subject to all the terms and conditions hereof but shall be terminated on 60 days' written notice served by either Lessor or Lessee on the other party."

--

The question again is whether or not this is binding. The very nature of a month-to-month tenancy would suggest that I ought to be required to give 30 days notice MAX; otherwise the lease should read "bi-monthly-to-bi-monthly tenancy"

Secondly, the whole clause is written in a way that it is conditional to be remaining in possession of the property. If I were to leave and notify the landlord via certified letter, clearly I am no longer retaining possession and the whole point is moot.

Thirdly, and most significantly, if I have not explicitly waived my rights regarding 15 day notice to quit, is requiring 60 days notice unconscionable?

Please advise.

 

[Andy0192]

By signing an agreement which specifically states that you have to give 60 days notice if you holdover past your initial term, then yeah, I say you agreed to what you signed.

I always say, look at the situation from the other side. If you wanted to stay, and the Landlord was trying to get rid of you, would you be telling the Landlord that they were required to give you 60 Day's notice ?

You agreed to give 60 days notice, and the Landlord agreed to give you 60 days notice.

Note: I'm not an attorney. I'm a landlord in PA.

 

[rock1]

I am just concerned that if I try to give 60 days notice, they will turn around and say I need to be out in 15 if the clause is no good.

For instance, if I was going to be evicted, does this mean I get 60 days rather than 15? Surely the LL would try to get around this. Feels like a bit of a double standard.

Generally concerned with legality over morality.

Let me know... Worse case scenario I will try to work out a compromise!

 

[Andy0192]

Likely, your written lease document has a separate clause detailing what would happen in the event of a default due to non-payment.

If you wish to leave, why not just contact the Landlord and see what they will agree to? They might tell you they already agreed you would give 60 Day's notice.... or they might not.

I really don't understand your "fear" that they'll kick you out in 15 days, when earlier you state that you want to leave ASAP. Make up your mind.