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

[Mass_Shyster]

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.

Looks like BP's right again.

 

[FarmerJ]

Having had rentals in MN I know the only provable things a LL has when they rent via month to month is that the tenant knew whom to pay the rent to and how much and deposit moneys since those last two are normally items with reciepts , ALL other he said she said stuff if denied by one party the courts most of the time wont place any value in it. a verbal agreement was made to take the apt off the market with rent payment and deposit, Obviously if tenant refuses to move in LL is still owed one month rent and able to keep it. Unless there has been a change to mn statutes since the last time I looked in this state damage deposits are to be used for actual physical damage. Its best that a notice be sent via certified mail NOW telling the LL that occupancy will not happen and that the LL is free to try to get another customer in and this needs to go out today or tomorrow morning so it gets to the LL by monday /tues so the LL has proper notice . If the LL re rents the unit to another party before the end of oct then tenant is due a prorated refund of rent paid. Since the prospective tenant removed what he had stored in the garage and didnt live in the unit there wont be any physical damage tenant would be owed full dep refund. If LL doesnt pick up the certified mail then keep the letter sealed and in original condition to offer to the court should LL claim proper notice not sent out to end the month to month rental.

 

[justalayman]

=Stevef;2653642].

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

two things and the first was already addressed. The statutes of frauds deal with the transfer of title to real estate. As such, this does not fit the bill.

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

even with this, you are wrong. When the tenancy was supposed to begin is irrelevant. The fact is, there was a contract that was in effect. The fact that that contract, that was already in effect, did not allow the tenancy to begin until Oct 1 means nothing.

 

[sprocket454]

Having had rentals in MN I know the only provable things a LL has when they rent via month to month is that the tenant knew whom to pay the rent to and how much and deposit moneys since those last two are normally items with reciepts , ALL other he said she said stuff if denied by one party the courts most of the time wont place any value in it. a verbal agreement was made to take the apt off the market with rent payment and deposit, Obviously if tenant refuses to move in LL is still owed one month rent and able to keep it. Unless there has been a change to mn statutes since the last time I looked in this state damage deposits are to be used for actual physical damage. Its best that a notice be sent via certified mail NOW telling the LL that occupancy will not happen and that the LL is free to try to get another customer in and this needs to go out today or tomorrow morning so it gets to the LL by monday /tues so the LL has proper notice . If the LL re rents the unit to another party before the end of oct then tenant is due a prorated refund of rent paid. Since the prospective tenant removed what he had stored in the garage and didnt live in the unit there wont be any physical damage tenant would be owed full dep refund. If LL doesnt pick up the certified mail then keep the letter sealed and in original condition to offer to the court should LL claim proper notice not sent out to end the month to month rental.

An agreement WAS made to take the house OFF the market and rent to my friend. That agreement WAS NOT honored by the LL. The house is STILL for sale. That is easily provable. The LL did not honor the agreement.

As far as "he said she said": Wouldn't the courts have to make some assumptions? Like, if your going to rent a house it is assumed that the house will be taken OFF the market unless you have a written agreement that states otherwise? Wouldn't a written agreement be needed because the terms related to renting a house that is still for sale would have to be laid out? You can't just say, "well, if there are interested buyers we will just deal with that thing then."

 

[justalayman]

=sprocket454;2654004]An agreement WAS made to take the house OFF the market and rent to my friend. That agreement WAS NOT honored by the LL. The house is STILL for sale. That is easily provable. The LL did not honor the agreement.

but proving that was the terms is difficult. Personally, I would accept the owners claim. It makes no sense to remove a house from the market, especially with a month to month renter. You have no guarantee of income for more than a month at a time.

As far as "he said she said": Wouldn't the courts have to make some assumptions? Like, if your going to rent a house it is assumed that the house will be taken OFF the market unless you have a written agreement that states otherwise?

absolutely not.

Wouldn't a written agreement be needed because the terms related to renting a house that is still for sale would have to be laid out?

as I said last time: no.

You can't just say, "well, if there are interested buyers we will just deal with that thing then."

actually you can. The laws of the state address all that is needed to be addressed and those laws are applicable whether it is a written or oral contract to rent.

 

[Banned_Princess]

An agreement WAS made to take the house OFF the market and rent to my friend. That agreement WAS NOT honored by the LL. The house is STILL for sale. That is easily provable. The LL did not honor the agreement.

I'm sorry but that is not an agreement that needs to be honored. its actually not that big of a deal, and a judge will agree with the ll .

As far as "he said she said": Wouldn't the courts have to make some assumptions? Like, if your going to rent a house it is assumed that the house will be taken OFF the market unless you have a written agreement that states otherwise?

THERE IS NO REASON A HOUSE hAS TO BE TAKEN OFF THE MARkeT BECAUSE IT IS BEING RENTED. This is not a good reason, as a matter of fact i believe it is in fact the WORST excuse I have ever incountered.

Wouldn't a written agreement be needed because the terms related to renting a house that is still for sale would have to be laid out? You can't just say, "well, if there are interested buyers we will just deal with that thing then."

Look. you are not getting it. this "lie" is not sufficent to break a lease (albeit a month to month verbal lease) penalty free. It wasnt even a lie, you stated yourself the listing service said he couldnt remove it for 45 days... so he was mistaken, which caused no harm to the units habitability, which is the only reason to break a lease.


The only way your friend would have gotten out of renting the place after he paid the security and rent AND MOVED THINGS INTO THE PROPERTY, would be if the ll did not have the unit available, and it was available, extra available.


Now stop arguing, your not going to change my mind, go have the friend sue the llthen PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE come back and post the results.

 

[Gail in Georgia]

I'm not sure why the OP believes the house remaining up for sale is an issue with his tenant friend in the first place.

If sold during the period of tenancy (and the friend has a written lease) the lease remains in effect until it would naturally terminate...unless the new owners wish to "buy out" the lease from the tenant (and the tenant agrees to this).

If the OP's friend has a month to month tenancy, such can be quickly terminated with the appropriate notice in writing (typically 30 days) by either party.

The fact that the house may still be for sale plays no role in the rental agreement (unless, of course, the OP's friend would like to consider purchasing it).

Gail

 

[tranquility]

I'm not sure why the OP believes the house remaining up for sale is an issue with his tenant friend in the first place.

Because a tenant generally does not want potential buyers looking at his house. It's a hassle on many levels.

 

[justalayman]

Because a tenant generally does not want potential buyers looking at his house. It's a hassle on many levels.

yes, but unless they are the owners, they have very little say so in this matter. That is the life of a renter.





Hey OP, I know a house your friend can buy. That way, he won't be bothered with prospective buyers roaming through his house. Contact the LL of the house in this thread for more info.

 

[tranquility]

yes, but unless they are the owners, they have very little say so in this matter. That is the life of a renter.

Unless there is a contract to such an effect. (Which I believe is why this thread started.)

 

[sprocket454]

Don't think I'm not listening to you guys; I am.

So basically, if it was a month to month lease it makes no difference whether the house was on the market or not. Either way, my friend's lease can be terminated in basically the same period of time. Besides a house is ALWAYS for sale, right? I mean, if someone wants to offer me $500,000 for my house right now, it's SOLD. So even if the house is theoretically off the market, it doesn't mean that it can't be sold at any time.

Another thing I am gathering here is that it makes no difference whether they have a written agreement that lays out the specifics of dealing with potential buyers because there are statutes that cover that.

So, is there a way my friend and the LL could write up a lease that would keep my friend from having to worry about the sale of the house? If the lease period is for six months or a year does that mean the house can't be sold during that time?

Who knows; maybe they can still work something out...

 

[Banned_Princess]

Don't think I'm not listening to you guys; I am.

So basically, if it was a month to month lease it makes no difference whether the house was on the market or not. Either way, my friend's lease can be terminated in basically the same period of time. Besides a house is ALWAYS for sale, right? I mean, if someone wants to offer me $500,000 for my house right now, it's SOLD. So even if the house is theoretically off the market, it doesn't mean that it can't be sold at any time.

Another thing I am gathering here is that it makes no difference whether they have a written agreement that lays out the specifics of dealing with potential buyers because there are statutes that cover that.

So, is there a way my friend and the LL could write up a lease that would keep my friend from having to worry about the sale of the house? If the lease period is for six months or a year does that mean the house can't be sold during that time?

Who knows; maybe they can still work something out...

Oh, I love it when people get what we are trying to say!! great (hurray!!) lol.


Great questions.

 

[Banned_Princess]

Don't think I'm not listening to you guys; I am.

Thank you.

So basically, if it was a month to month lease it makes no difference whether the house was on the market or not. Either way, my friend's lease can be terminated in basically the same period of time. Besides a house is ALWAYS for sale, right? I mean, if someone wants to offer me $500,000 for my house right now, it's SOLD. So even if the house is theoretically off the market, it doesn't mean that it can't be sold at any time.

Exactly.

Another thing I am gathering here is that it makes no difference whether they have a written agreement that lays out the specifics of dealing with potential buyers because there are statutes that cover that.

Yes, it is covered under the law that includes "notice to enter" - that the LL has to provide - - amount of notice before coming in for a number of reasons.

So, is there a way my friend and the LL could write up a lease that would keep my friend from having to worry about the sale of the house? If the lease period is for six months or a year does that mean the house can't be sold during that time?

Before I enter this, PLEASE tell us what EXACTLY is the problem with the house selling? Do you not want people seeing into the home? is it the change of LL's?

What makes you think the house in this market that has not sold in however many months its been up, - vacant - will suddenly be sold to someone, within 45 days of you/him moving in there. ????/

Who knows; maybe they can still work something out...

I think he should, unless he just has money to be throwing around rent and security, for 2 places you said...

 

[Who's Liable?]

So, is there a way my friend and the LL could write up a lease that would keep my friend from having to worry about the sale of the house?

No, because your friend has no legal say as to when the house can be sold.

If the lease period is for six months or a year does that mean the house can't be sold during that time?

No, It only means your friend has the legal right to reside in said unit located at said address for a set period of time under the lease. It DOES however protect them from being immediately evicted should the house sell as the new owner MUST honor the lease terms.

 

[tranquility]

No, because your friend has no legal say as to when the house can be sold.

Unless, of course, THERE IS A CONTRACT RELATING TO THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY.

But then, that's just a minor, technical, legal matter.