Backed out of verbal agreement to rent, but for a very good reason

[sprocket454]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MN

Hello all.

I am asking for advice on behalf of a friend and neighbor.

My friend agreed to rent a house from the owner but only had a verbal agreement to rent. He gave a deposit of one month's rent plus a security deposit that I believe was equal to a month's rent.

The house he agreed to rent was on the market for sale. My friend says he was told by the owner that the house would be taken of the market if he rented it. The owner now denies saying this.

My friend was not to take possession until Oct. 1st, but was allowed to start moving his stuff into the garage about two weeks early. Last Sunday the owner calls complaining that he is mowing the lawn, but my friend should be doing it. That's pretty ridiculous since he hadn't moved in yet. Also in that conversation he stated that the house would still be on the market for another 45 days and that if it sold they would just have to "take it from there".

My friend thought about this and decided he did not want to rent under those circumstances. He has a place to live now, so there is no reason for him to take the chance of being out in the cold should the house sell while he is renting it. He had just spent all day moving stuff over there (prior to the phone call) and turned around and brought it all back.

The next day he called the owner and canceled. The owner says he is keeping one month's rent.

My guess as to what happened is that the owner intended to take it off the market but was told by the real estate company that their contract was for another 45 days and he had to keep it on the market until then.

I say my friend should get all his money back because they had no written contract that explained that the house was to remain for sale and laid out all the details of that situation. Such as how much notice had to be given to vacate should the house sell, and how to deal with showings, etc. Also it was not in writing that one month's rent would be kept should my friend decide not to rent. My friend never took possession and backed out about 10 days before the start of the month. Without a contract, why does the owner get to decide that 10 days is not enough time?

The owner wanted to just play that stuff by ear, but I say that the lack of a written contract proves that the original intent of the owner was to take the house off the market. Otherwise, how can you possibly rent out a house that is still on the market without having all of the terms and conditions of that in writing?

So what do you think? Should my friend get all his money back and if so, how does go about getting it?

Thanks for any help!

 

[Banned_Princess]

They had a contract, a verbal contract which was confirmed with the payment of the rent and security.

Your friend does not deserve his rent money back.

 

[justalayman]

Without a contract, why does the owner get to decide that 10 days is not enough time?

because there is a contract.

The owner wanted to just play that stuff by ear, but I say that the lack of a written contract proves that the original intent of the owner was to take the house off the market.

No. All it means is the LL is not a smart LL.

Otherwise, how can you possibly rent out a house that is still on the market without having all of the terms and conditions of that in writing?

because the state laws address all the concerns.

Should my friend get all his money back

Nope.

 

[atomizer]

The second he moved his stuff in the house, he took possession and was responsible for rent and any other agreed upon stipulations.

 

[Searchertwin]

No, LL can keep the money. Plus, if tenant leaves without cause, LL can hold tenant liable for the rent due from lease term.

 

[Zigner]

No, LL can keep the money. Plus, if tenant leaves without cause, LL can hold tenant liable for the rent due from lease term.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...explain what you mean by this.

 

[sprocket454]

Thanks for the replies!

According to my friend, he was told that the house would be off the market, then later was told that the house would remain on the market. The landlord changed the terms after the verbal agreement was made. He changed the terms, so the original agreement, under which money exchanged hands, should mean nothing.

I would think that a judge in a small claims court would see the truth in that, especially since my friend moved a bunch of his stuff to the GARAGE (not the house), worked most of the day at it, and then after the phone call where the landlord told him the house would remain on the market, turned around and worked late into the night moving everything BACK.

That doesn't sound like someone who simply changed his mind; it sounds like someone who wanted out after the game was changed by the landlord.

My friend says he entered the agreement under false pretenses. The LL, of course, denies this. How does a judge decide who is telling the truth? Why should the judge assume it's the landlord?

 

[Banned_Princess]

Thanks for the replies!

According to my friend, he was told that the house would be off the market, then later was told that the house would remain on the market. The landlord changed the terms after the verbal agreement was made. He changed the terms, so the original agreement, under which money exchanged hands, should mean nothing.

Verbal agreements change all the time, thats why it is important to have a written one. the agreement doesn't mean nothing, it means the friend rented a place for at least one month.

I would think that a judge in a small claims court would see the truth in that, especially since my friend moved a bunch of his stuff to the GARAGE (not the house), worked most of the day at it, and then after the phone call where the landlord told him the house would remain on the market, turned around and worked late into the night moving everything BACK.

No, a judge is going to see that there was an agreement to rent, tenant moved his things in then changed his mind, which he cannot do the way he did, plus the house being on the market isn't even that big of deal, so no it wasn't for a very good reason.

That doesn't sound like someone who simply changed his mind; it sounds like someone who wanted out after the game was changed by the landlord.

Sounds to me like someone who changed his mind.

My friend says he entered the agreement under false pretenses. The LL, of course, denies this. How does a judge decide who is telling the truth? Why should the judge assume it's the landlord?

False pretenses on a verbal month to month contract does not even apply.




Go ahead, sue the LL for the rent and security back, your going to loose them both due to the facet that your friend

1. paid the rent and security and moved his stuff into the house. (the garage counts as the house.)

2. didn't notify the LL In writing his plan to vacate in 30 days (or whatever the amount of days it is in the state you said this happened)

 

[Mass_Shyster]

If this is brought to a court other than small claims (where they often ignore the technicalities of the law in favor of equity), the tenant has a good chance of prevailing.

1) The statute of frauds requires a writing for any contract for land. Since there is no writing, the verbal agreement is unenforceable.

2) Tenant never had possession of the house. He was permitted to store his belongings in the garage BEFORE the tenancy was to start.

 

[Banned_Princess]

If this is brought to a court other than small claims (where they often ignore the technicalities of the law in favor of equity), the tenant has a good chance of prevailing.

1) The statute of frauds requires a writing for any contract for land. Since there is no writing, the verbal agreement is unenforceable.

2) Tenant never had possession of the house. He was permitted to store his belongings in the garage BEFORE the tenancy was to start.

No way. Absolutely not, and you are compleately wrong.





6. THE LEASE

The terms of any rental agreement are stated in the lease. This can be either a signed, written document or an oral agreement. The landlord may ask for the tenant’s full name and date of birth on the lease. (29) If a building contains 12 or more residential units, the owner must use a written lease. (30) An owner who fails to provide a written lease as required is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. (31) If there are fewer than 12 residential units, the owner may use an oral agreement without violating the law.


Periodic Leases
If there is nothing mentioned about the length of the tenancy in the rental agreement, the lease is periodic. This means the rental period runs from one rent payment to the next. (35) For example, if the rent is due once a month on the first of every month, the rental period runs from that day through the day before the next rent payment. In this case, that would be on the last day of each month.

A periodic tenancy is continued until it is ended by either the landlord or the tenant. The person ending the tenancy must give the other party proper notice. The length of notice and the form it must take may be stated in the lease. (36) If the lease does not state a notice requirement, state law requires that written notice be given one full rental period plus one day before the tenancy ends. (37) For example, a tenant with a month-to-month tenancy who wishes to leave at the end of June would have to give written notice no later than May 31. (See page 20 for a more complete explanation of proper notice.)


Sale of the Building
If the landlord sells the house or apartment (as opposed to foreclosure by a bank), the lease transfers to the new owner (buyer). (42)






And just for the sake of arguement, OP when did he pay the rent and security???... to move in on Oct 1.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

There is no lease, because there is no tenancy. The tenancy (and hence the lease) was to begin on 10/1. That hasn't happened.

What you have is a verbal agreement to enter into a month to month lease for real property.

 

[Banned_Princess]

There is no lease, because there is no tenancy. The tenancy (and hence the lease) was to begin on 10/1. That hasn't happened.

What you have is a verbal agreement to enter into a month to month lease for real property.

Whatever. I disagree, but you are free to think whatever you want.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Whatever. I disagree, but you are free to think whatever you want.

Thank you. I'm glad we can agree to disagree.

I would argue my position using Cram v. Thompson 87 Minn. 172, 91 N.W. 483
Minn. 1902

Syllabus by the Court

1. An oral agreement was made for a lease of real property for a year, to take effect in the future. The intended lessee requested certain improvements in the premises, which were assented to by the intended lessor, and money expended thereon by her. At the time when the lease was, under the agreement, to be executed, the intended lessee refused to accept the same or carry out the oral agreement on his part. The owner of the property formally offered to comply with its terms, but, upon the refusal of the other party, then leased a portion thereof to a third party, and brought suit to recover damages for the failure to execute the lease. Hel, that an action would not lie for damages under these facts, upon the ground that the agreement was void under the statute of frauds.

But that does not take into account the fact that belongings were moved into the garage.

If moving those belongings created the tenancy, your view would likely prevail.

 

[sprocket454]

Thanks guys!

I'm not sure about when he put down the deposit but I would guess about three weeks prior to Oct. 1st.

The LL simply told him he could move stuff over to the garage now if he wanted because the house was empty. In no way was he implying that my friend was moving in prior to Oct. 1st, it was simply storage.

LL lied according to my friend. My friend would not have agreed to rent if the house was to remain for sale. Both I and another friend were told by my friend that the LL had taken the house off the market.

I'm sure what happened is that the LL discovered that he still had 45 days left on his contract with the real estate company and was told he had to honor it. So he intended to take the house off the market but could not.

 

[tranquility]

I believe the oral "contract" creates a tenancy at will (month to month) in MN.

I also believe this may not fall under the statute of frauds at all. In the case cited by stevef, I think the lease fell under the statute because it could not have been performed within a year, not because it of and concerns land. The statute in MN seems to deal with conveyance of land not renting of it.