Early Move-out Before 30-day Notice is up

[rgotiong]

What is the name of your state? California

I have a month-to-month rental agreement. I had given my 30-day notice on the 20th of March 2007 and I specifically stated that I will vacate the apartment by the 31st of March 2007. Additionally, I placed an ad on Craigslist to find renters who were willing to move in on the 1st of April and submitted those applications to the property manager. She had approved 1 of them but was not willing to mitigate damages on the apartment. She said that I still need to pay April's rent and that it will be taken out of my security deposit. She also said that she won't allow the new tenant to move-in until she says so.

California law states that a landlord has an affirmative duty to mitigate damages for rent accrued after termination of a tenancy. In other words, a landlord who seeks to recover more than rent accrued and unpaid at the time of termination of the tenancy must make reasonable good faith efforts (e.g. newspaper advertisement, "For Rent" sign, etc.) to re-rent the premises for the balance of the former tenant's unexpired term.

I believe that I have fulfilled all those requirements and need to know if I have any legal basis to go after the landlord for failing to fulfill his obligation. He/she had been hemming and hawing about how long it will take to turn-around the property because they were doing upgrades. As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't be taken on my time but rather their time because if I had not moved out early, they would have done those upgrades on their own time.

 

[moburkes]

No LL is required to re-rent the property before your 30 day's notice is up. Since you are month-to-month, your tenancy ends at the end of that notice.

 

[Hot Topic]

If you leased the apartment, you may have been able to negotiate an early termination of the lease under certain circumstances, one of them being the finding of a suitable tenant to occupy it for the remainder of the lease.

You, however, were a month to month tenant, and different rules apply.

Even if you had been on a lease and the landlord had agreed to let you out it of upon finding another tenant, she would not be obligated to rent to someone you located if they didn't meet her criteria.

You have to pay rent for most of April.

 

[ENASNI]

No LL is required to re-rent the property before your 30 day's notice is up. Since you are month-to-month, your tenancy ends at the end of that notice.

Ya see Dude, The thing is that Moburkes is correctamundo. The 30 days is prep time to see if you left the place in good keep. If they wanted to upgrade before you but couldn't they can now and well, give them time to really prep the new dude or dudette. The 30 day notice is good for the tenant and landlord. Please try to see that maybe your drapes needed to be blinds or the sink needed an upgrade for the landlord to get the next tenant to stay longer.

It is business not against you. I understand if you think you are being cheated, but the landlord too is having to scramble for his/her property. Though it might sound as if the place has a line to get in; they do not know how the market may/ will/ shall change.

It is not personal it is business.. Sorry I have a peep left over from The holiday stuck in my cheeks I couldn't help it.
Dude, if you continue to rent you might see that the 30day notice works FOR you at some point in the future.

Can't we all just get along.

 

[justalayman]

I have a month-to-month rental agreement. I had given my 30-day notice on the 20th of March 2007 and I specifically stated that I will vacate the apartment by the 31st of March 2007.

Did you do poorly in school in math class.

Mar-20 to Apr-1 is like 11 days. You did not give a 30 day notice, you gave an 11 day notice.

Since you gave (supposedly) a 30 day notice and you are a month to month tenant, the notice would be for the April rent period, which means, the apartment is yours until the very last second of the last day of April.

When you actually vacate the premises is actually irrelevent. The apartment was yours until the end of April.

I believe that I have fulfilled all those requirements and need to know if I have any legal basis to go after the landlord for failing to fulfill his obligation.

Well, you are wrong.There was no duty to re-rent the apartment DURING your tenancy. Now if she tried to charge you for May, you come on back and we'll talk. Until then, be nice. The former LL has done nothing wrong.

 

[CA LL]

justalayman..CA is a literal rent day state...meaning the notice is a literal 30 days NOT a rental period end only.

That being said...NO LL should ever be expected to turn over a unit with no down time in between to fix up, update, etc.

Your MTM notice states you must give 30 days notice...you can MOVE when you want but you are obligated to pay the rent until the 30 days is up OR the LL moves in a new tenant, whichever comes first. The 30 days is there in part to ensure the LL doesn't get cut off financially with not much notice AND for them to plan for the vacancy, line up vendors, etc.

And of course they are under NO obligation to select an applicant YOU brought them..they select the best applicant and mutually agree upon a start date which does NOT involve you.

I found it interesting that you said I gave my 30 days notice but then admitted you expected your 11 day notice to be honored. A contract is a contract.

 

[rgotiong]

I understand what you guys are all saying. My argument is that after I submitted those applications and 1 of the applicants was approved to move-in (at an as yet undisclosed date), I would've mitigated the damages that the 30-day notice served. The 30-day notice's purpose is for the LL to find a new tenant and re-rent it. I took that damage out of the LL's hands by bringing in a tenant to take over my place. He didn't have any damages brought about by my leaving.

Let's just say that I finished my 30-day notice and moved out on the 20th of April, the LL would still have to place an ad to re-rent the place. In this case, I did him a favor.

 

[moburkes]

I understand what you guys are all saying. My argument is that after I submitted those applications and 1 of the applicants was approved to move-in (at an as yet undisclosed date), I would've mitigated the damages that the 30-day notice served. The 30-day notice's purpose is for the LL to find a new tenant and re-rent it. I took that damage out of the LL's hands by bringing in a tenant to take over my place. He didn't have any damages brought about by my leaving.

Let's just say that I finished my 30-day notice and moved out on the 20th of April, the LL would still have to place an ad to re-rent the place. In this case, I did him a favor.

You did him a favor thinking that it would lower your rent for the last 30 days, but it didn't. So, you've simply done a good deed.

 

[Chase743]

This is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer, blah blah blah...

You are required to give 30 days of notice, but you are also permitted to live there for the duration of those 30 days. If the landlord is playing hardball, then why don't you just tell him that you aren't going to leave until the 30 days have passed.

If he wants a new tenant in there before then, he might be willing to renegotiate the severance of your lease. If not, then just pay the 30 days.

 

[justalayman]

justalayman..CA is a literal rent day state...meaning the notice is a literal 30 days NOT a rental period end only.

QUOTE]

OK, then the apartment was OP's until the 20th of April. OP still only provided an 11 day notice.

the LL has no duty to mitigate any damages because you are required to pay for the 30 days following your 30 day notice. It is your apartment until that 30 days is up.

Should the LL re-rent the apartment after you move but before the 30 days is up, then you could seek to reclaim only that portion of the rent that the apartment was leased to another tenant but there is no duty for the LL to actually rent it at all, let alone during that 30 day period.

 

[Hot Topic]

Chase, the OP is a month to month tenant. The landlord is not "playing hardball." He doesn't have to move a new tenant in to save the OP rent. The OP is obligated to pay for 30 days.

 

[Chase743]

Hot Topic - I agree. The LL does not have to rent it.

I was just saying that the tenant has the right to occupy it during those 30 days. So, if the LL was planning on using those 30 days for something else (re-renting it, or major repairs), then the tenant could use that as leverage to negotiate an early severance. But, if the LL is willing to wait until after the term of the lease is up, then the tenant simply has to pay the rent and deal with it.

Poor choice of words on my part.