Half-executed lease

[anabanana]

What is the name of your state? FL

A property manager high-pressured a woman into signing a lease for a house. The lease listed the woman and her boyfriend as lessees. PM required her to sign the lease and pay the money before showing the property, and handwrote on the lease that the tenant had not seen the property, indicating orally to the woman that if they didn't like the house, he would give their money back.

The boyfriend never signed the lease, and doesn't want the house. The PM now says the woman is liable for the lease and won't return the money. Meanwhile, they have to be out of their current lodgings and cannot rent elsewhere because he has all their money.

Is that lease valid, with only one party of the collective lessee having executed? If a check is made out to X AND Y, both have to sign it. Why would this be different?

tnx

 

[SHORTY LONG]

Was there any mention of a time frame if they chose not to enter into the lease? Do you have a copy of the lease?

 

[BoredAtty]

What is the name of your state? FL

A property manager high-pressured a woman into signing a lease for a house. The lease listed the woman and her boyfriend as lessees. PM required her to sign the lease and pay the money before showing the property, and handwrote on the lease that the tenant had not seen the property, indicating orally to the woman that if they didn't like the house, he would give their money back.

The boyfriend never signed the lease, and doesn't want the house. The PM now says the woman is liable for the lease and won't return the money. Meanwhile, they have to be out of their current lodgings and cannot rent elsewhere because he has all their money.

Is that lease valid, with only one party of the collective lessee having executed? If a check is made out to X AND Y, both have to sign it. Why would this be different?

tnx

Unless the lease indicates that both signatures are required to be effective, then the woman is stuck. Comparing a check to the lease is apples to oranges, as they are governed by two different areas of law.

 

[anabanana]

Yes, I have a copy of the lease. Standard office-supply store issue, I think. But all to the advantage of the LL, of course. There's nothing in there specifying that all parties must sign, but there is a clause that says "TENANT as herein used shall include all persons to whom this property is leased." Since all parties constituting the TENANT did not sign, then isn't it essentially incomplete?

I was afraid that might be kind of apples/oranges as regards comparing it to a check, but then what is the operative principle here? Joint and several liability? Is that the default in Florida?

This poor guy is in a pickle.

 

[SHORTY LONG]

From what you disclosed about what is written in the lease, have you confronted the PM
with it? If so, what was the PM's response?

 

[BoredAtty]

but there is a clause that says "TENANT as herein used shall include all persons to whom this property is leased." Since all parties constituting the TENANT did not sign, then isn't it essentially incomplete?

That clause merely means "when we use the word "tenant" throughout the lease, we are referring to all tenants, whomever they may be." In other words, it's of no help to your argument.

You wrote that "all parties constituting the TENANT did not sign." What in the lease states that "tenant" is comprised of more than one person? What leads you to believe that "tenant" does not refer to whomever signed the document. These are important questions.

Unfortunately, this is impossible to analyze without seeing the lease, but if it's just standard office supply store forms, then she's likely out of luck.

 

[anabanana]

You asked: What in the lease states that "tenant" is comprised of more than one person?

Again, from the lease: "TENANT as herein used shall include all persons to whom this property is leased."

That is straightforward language, and while it is certainly intended to be for the landlord's sole benefit, the words mean what they mean, and they cut both ways. Very simply ... TENANT comprises ALL PERSONS ..., thus, by inversion, without the signature and agreement of ALL persons, there is no TENANT, and no valid lease...

The tenant was clearly intended to be a collective entity, as evidenced by the listing of both names and the language of the lease saying that TENANT comprises ALL PERSONS-- not any or all, but ALL-- and they have only ONE of an intended TWO, they do not have ALL, thus, they do not have the tenant.

Unless it's a snake eating its own tail (this is getting kinda interesting ... hmmmm):

The TENANT is to include ALL PERSONS to whom the property is LEASED;
So now, the question at issue is whether or not the lease was effected, because with no occupancy, and no possession of the premises, and if the lease document was not effected, there simply is nothing to make ANYone a TENANT, period. Well, what if the lease is PARTIALLY PERFECTED? Has she already constituted herself as the TENANT by virtue of her signature, even without the other party? That's the argument.

But consider: suppose the girlfriend had bad credit and erratic rental history, but the LL had agreed to rent to the two of them because the fellow had spotless credit and work history. Then the fellow decides to back out and not move in. Is the landlord still obligated to let her have the place because she already signed and constituted herself as the TENANT? I think not.

The only rational conclusion is that the TENANT is ALL persons they INTENDED as lessees, as evidenced by the inclusion of those names in the typewritten lease document. And since both parties of the intended collective TENANT did not SIGN the lease, and thereby actually constitute the legal entity of the TENANT, the TENANT does not yet exist, hence, and the lease has not been effected.

Man, that's tasty.

Haven't contacted the PM with this little twist. It's a little too cerebral, I think. (And there may actually be a formal logical fallacy in here, but i can't remember the name of it.) And this is all a great little mental exercise, but I'm not sure it's helpful unless the matter is actually taken to trial, in which case, my argument ROCKS, if I say so myself. But it's not going to go to trial. General principles of law are great, but it seems to me that there was some specific rule in Florida about keeping a renter or potential renter's money if no possession had ever been effected. I can't find it, tho, and there don't appear to be any FL attorneys with this experience around. Sigh.