Tenants Giving Notice ...that Lease Will Be Disregarded/Broke?

[tony17112acst]

State of: PA. Sorry for the long post!

I'm a landlord and have two tenants (roommates) that decided they wanted to leave in 60 days and break our 1-year lease (6 months into it).

In PA, judges require landlords to try to find new tenants if tenants vacate. I don't know if that is in writing in the form of a law but it creates some new legal problems with contract law (in my opinion - which I will not go into). Nevertheless, I can see how that it may be reasonable as long as the apartment is empty.

--------------------QUESTION:------------------------
What happens if tenants are still living in the apartment and they've given a WRITTEN notice that they'll be walking out on (breaking) the lease in 60 days? ...do judges require me to try to find new tenants while the current tenants are still residing in the apartment ...for which there is a contract?
-----------------------------------------------------


---------------HERE'S THE PROBLEM:-------------------
If I sign a new lease with a new party (while the current tenants are still in the apartment) I must hope and pray the current tenants move out and do not change their minds again (like they did with the dates on the original lease). The current tenants have already proven to me that they have no problem disregarding signed statements concerning dates on a contract. Do they REALLY mean it this time ...or will they change their minds again? Written dates on a contract are obviously not important to them; that we know.

So, I feel like I can't enter into a contract with a new party until the place is empty/vacant because I have no confidence the current tenants will truly leave. They can promise all they want that they'll leave on a certain date, but how good is their promise if they've just broken their other promise concerning dates? If they do not leave, I will get sued by the new party since that new contract has very specific dates for moving in. That could be disastrous for me especially if a family sells their home a few days before they are to move into the apartment. That's thousands of dollars of hotel bills I'd get sued for.
-----------------------------------------------------


-------------------ARGUMENT #1:----------------------
But they have given you something in writing that they'll leave in 60 days.
COUNTER ARGUMENT #1: But I can't put faith in a new signed statement since it is already proven that they disregard signed contracts with dates. I am forced to wait till the place is indisputably vacant to sign a new lease with a new party.
-----------------------------------------------------

-------------------ARGUMENT #2:----------------------
The latest signed statement is the most trustworthy.
COUNTER ARGUMENT #2: The new signed date is contradictory of the signed contract. Is it more trustworthy because it is the latest? If it is, then you're forced to logically admit that if a NEWER statement is issued - that they wish to stay after all - is even MORE trustworthy. But is it? If someone writes you a signed check and it turns out to be bad, is the 2nd check MORE trustworthy than the 1st? But now there is a track record of issuing bad checks; I don't think it can be. Then, if the 2nd is also a bad check, is the 3rd MORE trustworthy than the 2nd? ...more than the 1st? I argue the 1st was the most trustworthy and trustworthiness lessens by each bad one issued.
-----------------------------------------------------


-------------------SUMMARY:---------------------------
I am OK with entering into a new contract after the apartment is indisputably vacant/empty. However, I cannot enter into a new contract while the current tenants are still residing in the apartment because it has been established that they disregard dates in signed agreements/statements. In the minds of the current tenants, their new signed 60-day notice statement can be as easily disregarded as the original signed statement/lease.
------------------------------------------------------

Thank you. -Tony

P.S. I know A LOT can be said about this topic but I hope to get a specific answer to my specific question in the "QUESTION:" section above ...thanks!

 

[ecmst12]

Start looking for new tenants after they move out. Old tenants owe rent until you find a replacement.

 

[tony17112acst]

Thank you, But my question is: Will a PA judge EXPECT me to look for a new tenant while the current tenants are still residing in the apartment or is it reasonable to wait till it's vacant to start the search. We know judges expect it when it is empty. -Tony

 

[ecmst12]

My understanding is that PA is on the landlord-friendly side. I think as long as you make a significant effort to find a tenant once the place is vacant, you should be ok. However, if the existing tenants find a candidate for you that passes your credit/background checks, you should accept them - don't make it harder for them intentionally.

 

[sandyclaus]

Thank you, But my question is: Will a PA judge EXPECT me to look for a new tenant while the current tenants are still residing in the apartment or is it reasonable to wait till it's vacant to start the search. We know judges expect it when it is empty. -Tony

Of course not. Why would a judge expect you to replace a tenant that is still living in the property? The mitigation law only applies once the tenants have actually BROKEN the lease and vacated. Until they have left, that lease is still intact.

Of course, it also makes good business sense to start searching for that new tenant before the old one vacates - as long as you know for sure they are leaving, and know exactly when it is to happen. Business-wise, the sooner you find the new tenant, the sooner you can rely upon having a rental payment in hand. Once the old tenants leave, you can hold them liable for the rent until a new tenant is found to replace them, but many won't actually PAY until you force their hand, or even sue them to recover the lost rent.

 

[tony17112acst]

Sandy,

Yes, that was another thought I had. How can I mitigate my losses if my losses have not materialized. BUT there IS a signed letter from the tenants that say they're going to create losses on a specific date. That's what makes it a little more head scratching on what a district justice/judge would expect.

-Tony

 

[sandyclaus]

Sandy,

Yes, that was another thought I had. How can I mitigate my losses if my losses have not materialized. BUT there IS a signed letter from the tenants that say they're going to create losses on a specific date. That's what makes it a little more head scratching on what a district justice/judge would expect.

-Tony

You can't act on what MIGHT or COULD happen. You can only act once it happens. Judges usually decide on that basis as well.