Roommates Want Me to Help Pay for Newly Vacated Room, But I Want to Rent It Out

[ReasonableRenter]

I have the master suite in a four-bedroom house in California (total of four roommates). The other three bedrooms share a bathroom. One of the other three roommates moved out (on good terms -- to take a new job elsewhere). The remaining two roommates don't want to get another roommate because they don't like sharing the bathroom. It's fine with me if they're willing to pay for the empty room, but they say the three of us should split the cost of the empty room. I disagree. Why should I pay for their inability to share or reluctance to have a fourth roommate any more? What do you think, and what legal grounds do I have to say that we either rent out the room or that the two of them pay for the empty room?

Further information: I have lived in this house for ten years (my other two roommates have lived there about six and two years each). Over the last ten years, each of the roommates has taken turns being primary lease holder (which means only that he or she is responsible for sending a single rent check to the landlord after collecting rent from each of the roommates, per the landlord's preference). At present I am NOT the primary lease holder, which doesn't help me; if I were, however, I would think it would be unfair to use that as leverage (and would not want to do so) to insist that the vacant room be rented out. The current primary lease holder is not using this as leverage to insist on anything (yet?), but I'm wondering about the legalities involved. I'm reluctant to tell the landlord about the situation as we have an excellent relationship with the landlord and I do not wish to have the landlord think there are any problems. Or should I discuss this with the landlord?

The basic problem is that the two other remaining roommates don't want to have another roommate (despite that being the way it's been at this house for ten years). My feeling is that if they can't get along with someone they share a bathroom with, then they should pay for the vacant room, and should not insist that I split that cost. I am willing to pay extra on utilities if they are split three ways rather than four, but maybe even that is presumptuous of them to impose upon me. I already pay extra for having the master suite. What legal grounds do I have to insist that either they pay for the vacant room or that it be rented out? We all have a very good deal on our rent and no one wants to move out (especially considering Bay Area real estate prices and rental rates!).

Advice is welcome -- thanks.


[This message has been edited by ReasonableRenter (edited July 27, 2000).]

 

[Tracey]

Tell them that you agreed to rent with them on the basis of having 4 people living there. If they decide they only want 3 people living there, that's fine, However, since they are the ones who want to reduce the population, they should be the ones to pay for it. After all, you don't get any benefit from not having a 4th roommate; they do. Simply inform them that you are not paying any more money. They can decide if having 1 less person in the apt is worth the extra expense. If they were suing you for contribution towards the rent on the empty room & I were the judge, I'd tell them they had to pay for the room since they refused to let it be occupied.

This is basically a game of chicken. If you flat-out refuse to pay extra rent, they'll have to cover the shortfall or all of you will be evicted. However, if they refuse to pay for all the room, you'll get evicted along with them. Who's going to blink first?

Is there any way you could let one of them share your bathroom?

------------------
This is not legal advice and you are not my client. Double check everything with your own attorney and your state's laws.