Is the landlord neglecting a duty to mitigate damages?

[alexander468]

You want me to pat you on the head, tell you that you're right and the nasty old landlord is wrong.

I don't recall expressing those wants.

My view was that I caused damage to the landlord, and then my attempts to decrease the damage were thwarted by the landlord. That's why I asked about damage mitigation doctrine.

 

[justalayman]

I always appreciate it when an anonymous magical person online informs me what my real problem is and why I am upset. I think you will believe me when I write that I am upset for multiple reasons and have multiple real problems at this particular moment in my life. I am grateful for your in-depth analysis, but I am here in this forum asking a specific legal question about landlord/tenant issues. If there's a "here's why you're really upset" forum, let me know about it, and maybe I'll join you there so one of us can have a good time.



Thanks for your view on the question I was asking. I appreciate you sneaking it in there somewhere!

Let me put this simply for you;

Your prospective tenant bailed when he realize you are in a position likely to be facing eviction soon. Your prospective tenant apparentely didn’t want to become entangled with your problems. It doesn’t matter that he bacame aware of your dubious actions and intent to not disclose such important issues to them because of the stated actions of your landlord. The prospective tenants decision, at least as you described it, was due to your failures and not what the landlord requested be done. You can attempt to blame the landlord all you wish. It doesn’t change the fact, again, as you described it, it wasn’t the landlord’s actions that are the cause of your problems but your own.

If you want to speak of the landlords requirement to mitigate damages; in this situation there is no obligation for him to mitigate damages. You are a tenant and owe him your contracted rent. Using your silly argument that the landlord has somehow prevented you from paying your rent because he sought specific actions (which aren’t enforceable anyway) to allow your roommate to live with you, makes as much sense as claiming the landlord must reduce your rent to mitigate his damages. The landlord has no obligation to aid you in paying your rent. His obligation is once faced with a situation that is causing him damages, then he must act to attempt to minimize those damages. Since he cannot force you to accept a roommate and he has not experienced any damages and has all rights to expect you pay your contracted rent, he has no obligation to do a damn thing. He doesn’t have to help you find a way to pay your rent, which is what your underlying question appears to be.

Until your lease is considered breached and the landlord seeks to terminate the contract, there are no damages to mitigate. There is simply a contract that is in force that you are expected to comply with. There is the possibility of future damages but until the contract is considered to be breached, it is irrelevent.

 

[alexander468]

Let me put this simply for you;

Thanks for your answer. I never meant to argue that my landlord has prevented me from paying my rent.

I did mean to argue that I attempted to take an action that would permit me to pay my rent, and the landlord's behavior served to halt that process.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for your answer. I never meant to argue that my landlord has prevented me from paying my rent.

I did mean to argue that I attempted to take an action that would permit me to pay my rent, and the landlord's behavior served to halt that process.

Refer back to Stevef's response in post number 8 and his mention of tortious interference. Stevef is a lawyer in Massachusetts.

Seeking out advice at a landlord/tenant clinic could be smart.

 

[adjusterjack]

I did:

MGL 186 Section 15B (4) The lessor shall, within thirty days after the termination of occupancy under a tenancy-at-will or the end of the tenancy as specified in a valid written lease agreement, return to the tenant the security deposit or any balance thereof...

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleI/Chapter186/Section15B

And the OP has already written that:

I believe the landlord is in compliance (interest bearing escrow account, notification of new balance and option to withdraw interest with every new lease, etc.)

 

[justalayman]

Thanks for your answer. I never meant to argue that my landlord has prevented me from paying my rent.

I did mean to argue that I attempted to take an action that would permit me to pay my rent, and the landlord's behavior served to halt that process.

But by your own statement your attempt to improve your situation failed due to The roommate becoming aware of you being late on your rent. If I was the roommate I would be a bit pissed you hid that information. You could have put the roommate in a very compromised situation. Your landlord can issue a pay or quit demand st any moment and unless you pay up, you can be evicted.

If it was only the landlords actions that caused the prospective roommate to leave you might have a valid argument that the landlord frustrated your rights to engage into a contract with a roommate. While the landlords demands resulted in the prospective roommate questioning the situation and resulting in you disclosing your tardiness in paying the rent, in itself the landlord did not chase away the prospective roommate. His actions did not prevent you from engaging a roommate.

Beyond that, as I said, until the lease is considered breached and terminated, there are no damages for the landlord to mitigate. You being late is not considered damages the landlord must attempt to mitigate, at least under the laws in play here.

You had the right to argue your roommate cannot be required to pay rent to your landlord since he would be your tenant and as such, owed you whatever rent he paid. It never got that far because your prospective tenant bailed when he discovered your precarious financial position. Your landlord has no right to alter your contract and unless there is something in that contract that allows him to put himself in place of you as your tenants landlord, he simply cannot do that but again, that is not what appears to be the reason your prospective roommate bailed. It was a coincidental discovery but it doesnt appear to be the reason your prospect changed their mind about living there and that is what is important here.

 

[justalayman]

Refer back to Stevef's response in post number 8 and his mention of tortious interference. Stevef is a lawyer in Massachusetts.

Seeking out advice at a landlord/tenant clinic could be smart.

Shafir v. Steele, 431 Mass. 365, 370 n.10 (2000). "In order to make out a claim for interference with advantageous business relations, the plaintiff must prove that (1) he had a business relationship for economic benefit with a third party, (2) the defendants knew of the relationship, (3) the defendants interfered with the relationship through improper motive or means, and (4) the plaintiff's loss of advantage resulted directly from the defendants' conduct." Kurker v. Hill, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 184, 191 (1998). To make out a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "(1) he had a contract with a third party; (2) the defendant knowingly induced the third party to break that contract; (3) the defendant's interference, in addition to being intentional, was improper in motive or means; and (4) the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant's actions." Draghetti v. Chmielewski, 416 Mass. 808, 816 (1994). "mproper conduct, beyond the interference itself, is 'an element both in the proof of intentional interference with performance of a contract . . . and in the proof of intentional interference with a prospective contractual relationship.' " Hunneman Real Estate Corp. v. Norwood Realty, Inc., 54 Mass. App. Ct. 416, 427 (2002), quoting from United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltman, 406 Mass. 811, 816 (1990).

Op would have to prove landlord engaged in improper means or motive. Motive appears to be proper as it appears to have been an attempt to protect landlords interests with no intent to harm op’s intereste. . While the means may not be enforceable, I wouldn’t consider them to be improper given the situation.

Also re the second citation; there appears to be no intent to frustrate op’s relationship with the prospective tenant. I would see it more as an attempt to actually benefit the op as landlords other options, if rent remains unpaid (which the landlord appears to ensure he receives money’s owed to him) would be to evict op.



While Stevef has greater education than I, I don’t see where tortious interference can be a valid argument.

Of course op is always welcome to engage local counsel

I suggest op might be better of doing what it takes to pay his rent since he could be subject to eviction at any moment. His rent was already late so arguing the landlord caused the situation isn’t a winning argument.

 

[alexander468]

you are having financial difficulties and are actually in jeopardy of being evicted currently

you are in a position likely to be facing eviction soon.

unless you pay up, you can be evicted.

landlords other options, if rent remains unpaid (which the landlord appears to ensure he receives money’s owed to him) would be to evict op.

he could be subject to eviction at any moment.

So what are you really trying to tell me?