Tenant out without written notice

[Time2go.2017]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I have given my tenant that has signed a year lease a 3 day notice to pay past due rental payments and failure to pay deposit in full. Tenant has vacated the premises so my question is;
Are they still resposible for the bills for residence that they were resposible for under the lease.

Also, I live 250 miles away and someone in that town just informed me that the tenant is moving and the utility co called and said they took the bills out of their name. It is cold up here and I am afraid that the house will freeze before I get to the home

What about rent until it is re-rented.
Colorado

 

[adjusterjack]

Are they still resposible for the bills for residence that they were resposible for under the lease.

Yes.

What about rent until it is re-rented.

Yes.

It is cold up here and I am afraid that the house will freeze before I get to the home

That could happen. I hope you have insurance that will cover water damage from frozen pipes when they burst.

 

[FarmerJ]

If no one else with a key that is there locally get in and turn the heat back on or totally drain hot water heater and all pipes and toilet tank and bowl for you then if the place is on city water at least you can reduce the odds of damage being worse by calling the city its in and telling them that the tenant you had moved and you cant get up there for a while and you would like them to turn the water off at the meter so if it freezes up before you can get there at least water will not be running and making it worse and will live with the fee to have it turned back on. In the time being since you gave them a notice to pay up or get out then Im inclined to suggest a court wont reward you if you sue for more than what the tenant owed you at the day they moved out. Id suggest you consider hiring a property management company to either totally run it for you or get someone locally who can at least show it for you and yes you should re rent it as quickly as you can.

 

[Stephen1]

I'm a little confused. As I see it the landlord gave the tenant a 3 day notice to quit or pay rent. The tenant took the quit option. That, to me, means the rental agreement ends on the day the tenant left (as the landlord told him to). So, in regard to what the now former tenant owes/is on the hook for, I believe he owes for all rent up until he left and he owes for all utilities that he was supposed to pay for up until he left.

He would not be responsible for rent until it is re-rented because the landlord ended the agreement. He would not be responsible for utilities incurred after he left.

What am I missing here?

 

[LdiJ]

I'm a little confused. As I see it the landlord gave the tenant a 3 day notice to quit or pay rent. The tenant took the quit option. That, to me, means the rental agreement ends on the day the tenant left (as the landlord told him to). So, in regard to what the now former tenant owes/is on the hook for, I believe he owes for all rent up until he left and he owes for all utilities that he was supposed to pay for up until he left.

He would not be responsible for rent until it is re-rented because the landlord ended the agreement. He would not be responsible for utilities incurred after he left.

What am I missing here?

Yeah, I am kind of confused as well. These are all things that the OP should have considered and gotten answered before he did this. However, he also ought to have realized that a tenant who is late on rent, is not going to simply leave the utilities turned on in his name, and keep paying them. It would be totally unrealistic to expect that to happen.

 

[adjusterjack]

He would not be responsible for rent until it is re-rented because the landlord ended the agreement. He would not be responsible for utilities incurred after he left.

That's not correct. In fact, it's just the opposite.

What am I missing here?

That the landlord didn't end the agreement. The tenant breached the contract by failing to pay the rent. The landlord's remedy was not to terminate the tenancy but to offer the tenant the choice that the tenant pay the rent or leave. The tenant chose to leave. The landlord retains a cause of action for the past due rent plus any rent that he loses until he re-rents plus any costs he incurs to re-rent.

The Colorado Supreme Courts explains that in Schneiker v. Gordon, 732 P. 2d 603 - Colo: Supreme Court 1987.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12845908801049048600&q=Schneiker+v.+Gordon,+732+P.2d+603,+611+(Colo.+1987)&hl=en&as_sdt=4,6

That case has been cited numerous times since then with a citation as recent as 2015.

 

[Stephen1]

I'm still not in agreement with Adjusterjack. Let's start with what the court said in a footnote:
" We express no view as to whether our holding today can be applied to leases of all types. On several occasions we have recognized that the parties to a residential lease are not in the same relative position, at least with regard to the equality of bargaining power between them, as are parties to a typical commercial lease."

That says to me that we shouldn't apply this ruling carte blanche to residential agreements.

Then, the cited case, Schneiker v. Gordon, which the court said directed their "attention to the law of landlord and tenant as it relates to abandonment and surrender of a leasehold and the obligation of a lessee for rent following abandonment." I don't see this current post as being "abandonment and surrender". I don't see this as abandonment similar to what occurred in Schneiker v. Gordon as this tenant left the property only after the landlord told him to pay rent or leave. Nothing similar to that occurred in Schneiker v. Gordon. In Schneiker v. Gordon the tenant left of his own accord thereby abandoning his responsibility.

If you believe that the situation in this post would constitute abandonment, then let me point to another item the court said. . . ."if the landlord elected to accept the surrender of the premises upon abandonment by the lessee, the lease was terminated and there was no continuing obligation for rent." I would argue that telling the tenant "quit or pay rent" means that you accept the "quit" and therefore the lease would be terminated and there would be no continuing obligation for rent.

The concept that you can require someone to leave a residence and then continue to require them to pay rent seems ludicrous.