• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Sub-leaser backed out at last minute, can I sue for two months rent?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

tony199

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MARYLAND

I live in Maryland and this is regarding an apartment in the South Campus Commons(SCC) at the University of Maryland, College Park. I have been in talks with a potential sub-leaser about subleasing my room in an apartment for the months of June and July until my lease ends on July 31st. The conversations began May 4th through text messages. In our conversations, we agreed that he would sublease my apartment at $640/month out of my original $801/month lease. I would pay for the remainder of the rent. We scheduled a sub-leasing appointment, through the South Campus Commons website, for the date of June 4th at 2pm. He contacted me at 1:08 PM to tell me that he wouldn't be able to make the appointment. I canceled the appointment and waited for him inform me when he would be available for a new appointment. At around 2PM he informed me that his research position was no longer offering payment, so his parents want him to just stay at home in Pennsylvania. I had already moved out of the apartment on May 31st, the inspection of my room was completed, and he was scheduled to move in after our appointment, on June 4th (So he would have only paid a portion of the $640 we agreed upon for the month of June). Now I am stuck with no sub-leaser and we are already into the month of June.

I am already moved into a new house, so this predicament would be causing me to pay two rents simultaneously, which I cannot afford. I have records of our text messages with everything we agreed upon, as well as the fact that we had a scheduled sub-leasing appointment, and I have been in frequent communication with the SCC leasing office. At this point, I don't think there is any chance I can find a new sub-leaser, especially not for the month of June.

I would like to know if the information I have provided seems like it would be enough to take to a small claims court. I would like to know if there is enough information in our correspondence to constitute that we had a legal agreement for the sub-leaser to take over my lease. Since we had to cancel our sub-leasing appointment, I do not have any signed contracts or anything of the sort to bring in as evidence.
 


justalayman

Senior Member
refer to your contract to determine if you are owed anything.





so, did he sign anything? Did he give you any money?



We scheduled a sub-leasing appointment, through the South Campus Commons website, for the date of June 4th at 2pm.
what was supposed to take place at that meeting?
 

tony199

Junior Member
In my post it says that he had not signed any contract yet, and he also has not given me any money.

At the meeting I was going to pay a fee for the lease transfer, he was going to pay a deposit for the lease and an application fee, as well as bring his social security card.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
In my post it says that he had not signed any contract yet, and he also has not given me any money.

At the meeting I was going to pay a fee for the lease transfer, he was going to pay a deposit for the lease and an application fee, as well as bring his social security card.


how do you think you have any right to charge him for two months for an apartment he didn't rent?

the questions were more to enforce the point that he had not signed a contract and not given you any money.
 

tony199

Junior Member
Because we had agreed to this arrangement where he would sublet my apartment from me because he needed a place to live and I needed to get rid of my lease. Backing out of this arrangement the day of the lease signing leaves me with no time to find another suitable leaser. This damages me financially because now I have to pay for two rents simultaneously. Even if I did find someone this minute, (which isn't likely to happen), the subletting process would have to start all over.

I want to know if our correspondence is enough to be a legal agreement that will hold up in court. If someone could explain the laws in that area to me, or point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.
 

Gail in Georgia

Senior Member
"I want to know if our correspondence is enough to be a legal agreement that will hold up in court. If someone could explain the laws in that area to me, or point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. "

Depends on the judge if you attempt to sue him regarding this matter. Right now you have no written contract, no money exchange. Your "evidence" of a contract are simply text messages sent back and forth without even a face to face meeting to conclude this business. Your argument in court would be that these indicate an oral contract. A court may buy your argument or not. Even so, if you win your judgment it will still be up to you to collect these funds. The court will do nothing to help you in terms of collecting.

Welcome to the world of being a landlord.

Gail
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Discussion (written or otherwise) about intent to enter a contract isn't entering a contract unless some other aspect occurs (him paying you rent or a deposit, him actually moving in, etc...).
 

latigo

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MARYLAND

I live in Maryland and this is regarding an apartment in the South Campus Commons(SCC) at the University of Maryland, College Park. I have been in talks with a potential sub-leaser about subleasing my room in an apartment for the months of June and July until my lease ends on July 31st. The conversations began May 4th through text messages. In our conversations, we agreed that he would sublease my apartment at $640/month out of my original $801/month lease. I would pay for the remainder of the rent. We scheduled a sub-leasing appointment, through the South Campus Commons website, for the date of June 4th at 2pm. He contacted me at 1:08 PM to tell me that he wouldn't be able to make the appointment. I canceled the appointment and waited for him inform me when he would be available for a new appointment. At around 2PM he informed me that his research position was no longer offering payment, so his parents want him to just stay at home in Pennsylvania.

I had already moved out of the apartment on May 31st, the inspection of my room was completed, and he was scheduled to move in after our appointment, on June 4th (So he would have only paid a portion of the $640 we agreed upon for the month of June). Now I am stuck with no sub-leaser (sic)and we are already into the month of June.

I am already moved into a new house, so this predicament would be causing me to pay two rents simultaneously, which I cannot afford. I have records of our text messages with everything we agreed upon, as well as the fact that we had a scheduled sub-leasing appointment, and I have been in frequent communication with the SCC leasing office. At this point, I don't think there is any chance I can find a new sub-leaser (sic), especially not for the month of June.

I would like to know if the information I have provided seems like it would be enough to take to a small claims court. I would like to know if there is enough information in our correspondence to constitute that we had a legal agreement for the sub-leaser (sic)to take over my lease. Since we had to cancel our sub-leasing appointment, I do not have any signed contracts or anything of the sort to bring in as evidence.
"Is there enough information in our correspondence to constitute that we had a legal agreement for the sub-leaser (sic) to take over my lease?"

No. Absolutely not. You have no cause of action for breach of contract to sublease your apartment simply because no contract came into being.

First of all you are fully aware that any subleasing of the unit, the effect of which would relieve you of future responsibility for rent, would require the prior approval of the SCC housing authorities. Ergo, the subleasing appointment with SCC!

Secondly, you are also aware that the housing authority would not have permitted your proposed subtenant to occupy the apartment short of there being a writing signed by the subtenant agreeing to assume and dutifully perform each and every term of the primary lease incumbent upon you to be kept and performed. Without which SSC would have no legal claim against a subsequent occupant of the apartment.

In other words, you knew very well that your lease agreement with SCC would not allow you to unilaterally sublease either by verbal or written agreement. Which again was the very purpose of the scheduled sit down.

And since you could not legally sublease the space without SCC's consent, there is no consideration to support any such preliminary talks, verbal agreements, text messaging with your "potential" subtenant.

Furthermore, as mentioned by Flying Ron, it is very clear that it was the mutual understand that these preliminary talks and messages were to be drawn into a written contract to be signed at the time of the "subleasing appointment".

The failure to have these preliminaries defined and included in the proposed written contract renders them void of legal consequence.

It is absurdly irrational for you to believe that he is legally accountable to you for the last two monthly rental payments when he is without a legal right occupy the apartment.

Little common sense was evident in your committing to a second lease rental contract without first absolving your commitments to SCC. What are you studying in college - i.e., besides girls?

Incidentally, for your edification, the English word spelled "L-E-A-S-E-R" has no reference to a lease of property. It is a form of the word "lease" meaning to weave thread in a specialized cross-stitch pattern. One who labors at that is called a "leaser" - sans the prefix "sub".
 

latigo

Senior Member
"I want to know if our correspondence is enough to be a legal agreement that will hold up in court. If someone could explain the laws in that area to me, or point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. "

Depends on the judge if you attempt to sue him regarding this matter. Right now you have no written contract, no money exchange. Your "evidence" of a contract are simply text messages sent back and forth without even a face to face meeting to conclude this business. Your argument in court would be that these indicate an oral contract. A court may buy your argument or not. Even so, if you win your judgment it will still be up to you to collect these funds. The court will do nothing to help you in terms of collecting.

Welcome to the world of being a landlord. (?)

Gail
What?!

Pardon me, but he ain't no landlord! He presently exists in a parallel world and one that he doesn't find very "welcoming"!

And please explain what you mean by your equivocating - "depends on the Judge" - "a court may buy your argument or not."

Under what circumstances a provided by the OP might a court "buy his argument"?

And isn't it rather obvious that he does not have "a written contract right now"! Is there something in the post indicating he might have a written contract at some future time?

But why are you implying that a verbal agreement to sublease real property is not enforceable, when, if it doesn't come within the statute of frauds, it can very well be held legally binding?

Suppose his lease with SCC gave him authority to sublease at will. And suppose that the parties did not intend to subsequently reduce their verbal understandings to writing. What then?
Sublease or no sublease?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Lat -

Your attack on Gail is uncalled for. Her post is correct and states substantially the same thing as yours. The only thing you don't acknowledge (that Gail does) is the often-unpredictable nature of small claims court.
 

latigo

Senior Member
Lat -

Your attack on Gail is uncalled for. Her post is correct and states substantially the same thing as yours. The only thing you don't acknowledge (that Gail does) is the often-unpredictable nature of small claims court.
Attack? I have been both attacked and have attacked in court much less merciful than that!

Anyway my humble apologies, Sir Lancelot.

But if you agree with G that the "often unpredictable nature" of rulings in small claims courts is such a dominant consideration, it seems you wouldn't need a layperson to prompt you to say so. And thus have avoided the waste of time in offering your sound legal advice on contract law.

And perhaps the stock response to every question under the category should be to ignore taking a legal position - right or wrong, won't do you any good - as the feeble minded presiding judge will probably just toss a coin.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Attack? I have been both attacked and have attacked in court much less merciful than that!

Anyway my humble apologies, Sir Lancelot.

But if you agree with G that the "often unpredictable nature" of rulings in small claims courts is such a dominant consideration, it seems you wouldn't need a layperson to prompt you to say so. And thus have avoided the waste of time in offering your sound legal advice on contract law.

And perhaps the stock response to every question under the category should be to ignore taking a legal position - right or wrong, won't do you any good - as the feeble minded presiding judge will probably just toss a coin.
You're rambling :rolleyes:
 

justalayman

Senior Member
And perhaps the stock response to every question under the category should be to ignore taking a legal position - right or wrong, won't do you any good - as the feeble minded presiding judge will probably just toss a coin.
latigo, you know damn well that small claims court can be little more than exactly that. Not all of them are but some of them are. When dealing with untrained parties and attempting to dole out justice, sometimes that coin flip is the result and it offers the most just decision possible. Small claims courts are designed to afford justice to those using that system and due to the, for lack of a better term, lack of rigidity to the rules, guessing a judges decision does become less predictable.
 

tony199

Junior Member
"Is there enough information in our correspondence to constitute that we had a legal agreement for the sub-leaser (sic) to take over my lease?"

No. Absolutely not. You have no cause of action for breach of contract to sublease your apartment simply because no contract came into being.

First of all you are fully aware that any subleasing of the unit, the effect of which would relieve you of future responsibility for rent, would require the prior approval of the SCC housing authorities. Ergo, the subleasing appointment with SCC!

Secondly, you are also aware that the housing authority would not have permitted your proposed subtenant to occupy the apartment short of there being a writing signed by the subtenant agreeing to assume and dutifully perform each and every term of the primary lease incumbent upon you to be kept and performed. Without which SSC would have no legal claim against a subsequent occupant of the apartment.

In other words, you knew very well that your lease agreement with SCC would not allow you to unilaterally sublease either by verbal or written agreement. Which again was the very purpose of the scheduled sit down.

And since you could not legally sublease the space without SCC's consent, there is no consideration to support any such preliminary talks, verbal agreements, text messaging with your "potential" subtenant.

Furthermore, as mentioned by Flying Ron, it is very clear that it was the mutual understand that these preliminary talks and messages were to be drawn into a written contract to be signed at the time of the "subleasing appointment".

The failure to have these preliminaries defined and included in the proposed written contract renders them void of legal consequence.

It is absurdly irrational for you to believe that he is legally accountable to you for the last two monthly rental payments when he is without a legal right occupy the apartment.

Little common sense was evident in your committing to a second lease rental contract without first absolving your commitments to SCC. What are you studying in college - i.e., besides girls?

Incidentally, for your edification, the English word spelled "L-E-A-S-E-R" has no reference to a lease of property. It is a form of the word "lease" meaning to weave thread in a specialized cross-stitch pattern. One who labors at that is called a "leaser" - sans the prefix "sub".
Alright, I think I have a better understanding of my current situation. I have never been in court or studied law before, so I apologize for my ignorance. I don't believe it was absurdly irrational for me ask about any of this, but you're entitled to your opinion. The reason I didn't first absolve my SCC commitments is that I had another living situation arranged before my current one, and the lease for the original arrangement started in August, after my SCC lease ended. Unfortunately, that plan fell through and I was stuck finding a new place to live at the last minute.

Regarding your statement, "any subleasing of the unit, the effect of which would relieve you of future responsibility for rent, would require the prior approval of the SCC housing authorities. Ergo, the subleasing appointment with SCC!", the sub-letter/sub-lessor had already filled out a SCC housing application online, accepted my re-leasing request, and had been approved by the SCC as an acceptable candidate to turn the lease over to. Only contract signings and fee payments would have occurred at the re-leasing appointment, as far as I know. I'm not sure if this makes any significant difference in my argument, based on what you explained to me, so please let me know what you think about this.

I appreciate the help everyone has been providing so far.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Alright, I think I have a better understanding of my current situation. I have never been in court or studied law before, so I apologize for my ignorance. I don't believe it was absurdly irrational for me ask about any of this, but you're entitled to your opinion. The reason I didn't first absolve my SCC commitments is that I had another living situation arranged before my current one, and the lease for the original arrangement started in August, after my SCC lease ended. Unfortunately, that plan fell through and I was stuck finding a new place to live at the last minute.

Regarding your statement, "any subleasing of the unit, the effect of which would relieve you of future responsibility for rent, would require the prior approval of the SCC housing authorities. Ergo, the subleasing appointment with SCC!", the sub-letter/sub-lessor had already filled out a SCC housing application online, accepted my re-leasing request, and had been approved by the SCC as an acceptable candidate to turn the lease over to. Only contract signings and fee payments would have occurred at the re-leasing appointment, as far as I know. I'm not sure if this makes any significant difference in my argument, based on what you explained to me, so please let me know what you think about this.

I appreciate the help everyone has been providing so far.
It appears, based on the facts as you have presented them, that you don't have an enforceable contract.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top